Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Josh Murray on September 21, 2010 at 1:04am

Guess now is not the time to point out that Buddha was also a myth, eh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rationalrevolution on September 12, 2010 at 12:55pm

Funny, I'd say the same thing to you. You are the one who should be doing some research, other than reading apologetics. The vast majority of work on the Gospels is baseless crap first of all.

I do agree with this though:
"The discussion on this topic really goes no where until people read up on the methodology Jesus Historians use and the findings of its application.
to repeat endlessly that the gospels can't be used as evidence (and, indeed, to say this with capitalization and an exclamation point) is just wrong-headed."



Yes this is exactly right, by researching the methodologies used you can see that the methodologies used by mainstream scholars is total crap. And yes its also true that the Gospels can be used as a form of evidence, as a strong form of evidence AGAINST the historical existence of Jesus.

I've done years of my own research on the Gospels and hundreds of other early Christian writings, and I can tell you that its objectively provable that there is no historical core of anything in the Gospels.

Until you can address the types of arguments forward here, then it is a waste of time to just keep bringing up irrelevant facts and baseless statements made by other people.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on September 12, 2010 at 1:23pm

"Yes this is exactly right, by researching the methodologies used you can see that the methodologies used by mainstream scholars is total crap."

"I've done years of my own research on the Gospels and hundreds of other early Christian writings, and I can tell you that its objectively provable that there is no historical core of anything in the Gospels."

Alrighty then. You've stated this "I've done my own research." over and over again. You admittedly disagree with the way that the scholars have come together as a community and developed methods for establishing accuracy. Peer reviewed methods. But do you submit to peer reviewed journals? Do you ask the community to consider your thoughts or do you simply pat yourself on the back and avoid the criticism?

I can only infer who you are from your site. I am assuming that you have a science background. How would you feel if a Biblical Scholar came out and said "RationalRevolutions" methods in biology are total crap. He doesn't know what he's doing. Do you see how silly that sounds?

You can have your opinion but calling scholars "crap" and saying "I've done my research", as if you are a Ph d in Theology isn't honest or fair. Thousands of years have been spent getting the theological community to where it is. For you to insinuate that you understand each nuance of the communities reasoning is arrogant. You aren't a Biblical Scholar and neither is Dougherty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rationalrevolution on September 12, 2010 at 2:26pm

"You can have your opinion but calling scholars "crap" and saying "I've done my research", as if you are a Ph d in Theology isn't honest or fair."

Yes, it is, when it is provable to be a fact.

First of all, this isn't an issue of theology, so a theology degree is useless, despite what the apologists try to claim. Secondly almost no-one gets a theology degree unless they are themselves Christians. Even most non-Christians who have theology degrees were Christians when they began their theology studies.

But this isn't an issue of theology, its an issue of history, and thus the most relevant degree would be a history degree of some sort. For example Richard Carrier now has his PhD in ancient studies or something like that, and he is a leading researcher in the field who doubts the historical existence of Jesus and calls into question the methods of the theology mainstream.

But lets get to the methodologies.

One of the main "methodologies" used by mainstream scholars on this subject is to use the number of times that an account appears in the literature as a basis for judging the likelihood that it really happened.

So, for example, you will see scholars say things like "The piercing of the side of Jesus during his crucifixion is in doubt, because it is only attested to by John, but the mocking of Jesus is seen as historically true because it is attested to in all four canonical Gospels, plus in other non-canonical sources."

That is an absolutely standard line to reasoning in mainstream scholarship.

But, its also completely baseless and misleading, because the fact that something is attested to in multiple sources is meaningless if all of those sources are just copied from one another.

Its like saying "I think that Luke Skywalker was real because his life is attested to in the movie Star Wars, and in the Family Guy version of Star Wars, and in Space Balls (but clearly from a slightly different source you see), and in multiple books. And no only that, but we know that his aunt and uncle were really killed because this event happens in each of the versions and is attested to by all of them", etc.

That is what mainstream scholarship is, period.

Mainstream scholarship has so many holes in it that its laughable, and yet the thing is that 99% of the people don't actually look into it enough to understand this.

Don't pay attention to who said what about what, simply look at the facts yourself.

Don't take my word for it, read the articles I've presented, examine the details, and compare those details and arguments to those put forward who others. See for yourself.

The reality is that many of the starting assumptions of mainstream scholars are simply flat wrong, and are actually quite easily provably wrong. I'm not just saying that, I've put together over 500 pages of evidence to back it up. Judge for yourself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on September 12, 2010 at 3:00pm

This really isn't much of an answer to any of the questions I posed. Read my site. Read my books. You aren't a scholar on either subject, at least not that you've asserted. I'll be happy to read Carrier's book when it comes out. I've seen plenty of his vids and find him very entertaining, and a scholar.

The mythical acts of Jesus aren't relevant to his potentially having lived. Historians can't address mythology. There simply aren't the tools present to address it. So if you are using the piercing of Jesus' side as a reason for saying that the person didn't live, you've already diverged from historical methods. The piercing is poetic for the time as it's one of the greatest pains we could imagine, and he's doing it for "us".

The criterion of dissimilarity is what has spoken to me for the potential of Jesus having lived. If I wanted to write a story about how great my dog is, I wouldn't tell you the story of how he chewed the fender of my motorcycle when he was a pup. Or make up a story about him pooping in my shoe (didn't happen). There are many stories about Jesus that don't fit the expectation.

If you want to take on the mockery claims and call all the methods crap, I'm suggesting that you should submit to the appropriate publications for consideration. Don't convince me how great you are, convince historians or theologians and I'll accept the credibility. Until then, I have to assume that you don't know some of what they know and are not practicing to their required standards. If it's so provable, there are plenty of publications available and the writings are done already.

As for the belief leading to theology degrees, the theologians whom are not religious openly state that seminary is a tough time. They are honest and the blind belief fades for many. But what do you think would get an 18 year old to decide to dedicate their lives to religion? Ir religiosity?

I like hearing what you have to say, the position of authority over scholars just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe I have to live with it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on September 12, 2010 at 3:04pm

i'm also very interested to read Carrier's book because i know it may utterly change my mind on the topic, being a critique of the methodology itself. should be fascinating.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on September 22, 2010 at 12:45pm

I find it laughable that you hold up Carrier as a scholar but not Doherty. Doherty was writing on this topic before Carrier was even in school. And as much as I admire some of the things Carrier has written, I am very reluctant to use him as a reference for anything, since I have first-hand experience with how much he can BS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on September 12, 2010 at 3:02pm

you must be aware that multiple attestation is about independent attestation. there's no question that some aspects of the narrative are copied from a previous source and surely that precludes that source being considered under the rubric of multiple attestation when it comes to that specific point of the narrative but just as surely there are aspects of the narrative that do survive multiple independent attestation.
besides, as you are surely also aware, it's a cumulative case and so simply because something doesn't pass multiple attestation doesn't mean it automatically didn't happen. if it can pass other tests it may still be judged reliable. obviously that something fails multiple attestation is cause for skepticism but that skepticism may be overcome upon further consideration.
moreover, you pointed to two very specific points of the narrative, Jesus having had his side pierced and his having been mocked at the crucifixion, but the question is whether or not a man named Jesus existed to have been crucified at all and not, necessarily, whether or not his side was pierced or that he was mocked at the crucifixion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on September 12, 2010 at 1:24pm

calling the findings of historical Jesus scholars apologetics is a common tactic on the part of mythicists but never do they explain how it is a successful apologetic strategy to argue that Jesus did exist when the findings of historical Jesus scholars expose a Jesus that is starkly different from the Christ of the Christian faith and, as such, stand as a major obstacle to faith. to say nothing of scholars like Bart Ehrman who have no reason to apologize for the faith insofar as he is an agnostic!

i already allowed that the methodology can be criticized but that's not what's being said here. what's being said is that gospels can provide us with no evidence whatsoever of Jesus' existence as a historical person, not that the methodology that is applied to the gospels as evidence can't make reliable conclusions because the methodology is flawed. but i also pointed out that even if the methodology can be shown convincingly to be flawed that only demands agnosticism on the question of the historicity of Jesus; we would have to wait until a new methodology is applied before evaluating its conclusions. "Jesus didn't exist" just does not follow from "this methodology is flawed."

anyway, i'm referencing professional scholars and you're pointing to your website. now, before you try to say that i'm making an argument from authority, i'm not. i'm simply pointing out that we are certainly justified in taking seriously the opinions of scholars over someone who has a website. do you have some qualifications as a historian or, even, as a biblical scholar such that we should value your opinion the same way we might a historian or a biblical scholar? or does the value we should place on your opinion arise simply from the fact that you've read a lot over a long period of time? and again, i'm not saying that because you have no training or qualifications in these areas that therefore necessarily your opinions are wrong. i'm just saying that from the outset we must be skeptical of the non-expert's opinions when those opinions run absolutely opposite to those of experts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on September 13, 2010 at 7:36am

Experts don't agree. What does that tell you? Nothing can change the fact that nobody knows whether or not Jesus really existed. Any opinion on the matter, expert or not, is exactly that: an opinion.

To me, the conspicuous lack of evidence is suspicious. After all, Roman records of the same period documented other Christ-like "heretics" who were sentenced to death. Why no record of Jesus?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on September 13, 2010 at 1:08pm

c'mon Exile... point to something that every single expert agrees on! experts are never unanimous. but what they sometimes are, as they are in this case, is nearly unanimous.
and surely you're not saying that the opinion of a qualified trained expert is of the same value as someone who says, basically, i've read a lot over a long period of time and i wrote some things on my website. realize the implication of that belief: we would have no reason to value any conclusion over any other because it's all just someone's opinion. in that case no one could argue to any conclusion, they'd only present their opinion on a matter and no one could effectively critique that opinion because their critique is merely their opinion as well. we might as well pack up and cease to discuss anything.

you keep repeating this notion of a conspicuous lack of evidence but it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that scholars have found that there exists evidence within the gospels themselves. either critique the evidence or critique the methodology that produces the evidence but please leave off repeating this notion of their being no evidence as if it's self evidently true.

go ahead and name the heretics that were sentenced to death at the time and let's examine them. i can almost guarantee that they lived closer to the intellectual centers of the empire such that they would have been far more likely to have come across the radar of writers of the time or they actually produced a revolt of some kind that required putting down, or both. this is as opposed to just walking around proclaiming the coming kingdom of god in the backwater of the empire far removed from any intellectual centers. again, an argument from silence only works if we can expect to hear from sources.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on September 21, 2010 at 2:09am

Hey Nelson,

You keep saying that the methodology of historians reveals a "historical core" of documentation of what Jesus is "likely to have done and said".

Since this discussion began, I 've changed my mind and now think that it is more likely than not that Jesus actually existed as a physical person. However, methodology is not evidence. It speaks only to how one searches . . . NOT what one finds.

And so far, nobody has found anything tangible. It's possible that Jesus is 100% myth but it seems more likely he was an actual person. Whether or not he did ANYTHING mentioned in the bible is up for debate.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page