Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

I have.

Tell me, what scholars support your contention?

I propose that what scholars support one's contention has little bearing on the reliability of that contention.

Roll your eyes 'til the sockets get wallered out and they fall out and go rolling down the road.


The fact remains that Goat laid out his position and the only attempt at a rebuttal you can present is to ask what scholars agree with him.

Let me ask you this...

If every scholar on the planet thought the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

All I see that you've done is argue against him by asking who agrees, instead of showing why anyone who agrees with him'd be in error.

That is either a stupid distortion or simply stupid. See post 68.

[JoeyKnothead]

Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

I have.

Tell me, what scholars support your contention?

I propose that what scholars support one's contention has little bearing on the reliability of that contention.

Roll your eyes 'til the sockets get wallered out and they fall out and go rolling down the road.


The fact remains that Goat laid out his position and the only attempt at a rebuttal you can present is to ask what scholars agree with him.

Let me ask you this...

If every scholar on the planet thought the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

All I see that you've done is argue against him by asking who agrees, instead of showing why anyone who agrees with him'd be in error.

That is either a stupid distortion or simply stupid. See post 68.

I propose ya did both, but I don't hate ya for it.

I stand by my assertions.

[Mithrae]

I propose that what scholars support one's contention has little bearing on the reliability of that contention.

Roll your eyes 'til the sockets get wallered out and they fall out and go rolling down the road.

The fact remains that Goat laid out his position and the only attempt at a rebuttal you can present is to ask what scholars agree with him.

Unconstructive one-liners from all and sundry aside, back in post 68 Jay had already quoted the full Josephus passage and mentioned a major reason why Goat's suggestion is implausible: Jesus ben Damneus was not a 'christ' when "James the brother of Jesus who is called 'christ'" was killed.

It is evident that Goat has not been reading Jay's posts, since he went on to write:
"Why don't we do something that you fail to do. Let's look at the original passage. . . .
Here is actual passage.. you know.. so we can see what is written BY Josephus."

It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn't read one's posts

I also mentioned three more important reasons why Goat's view is little more than conspiracy theory or wishful thinking:

> This being the only occasion Josephus uses the term 'christ,' it's unlikely to be in reference to a virtual nobody who served only a year as high priest
> Many of Josephus' readers may have known of the sect of Christians, but Josephus offers no explanation that he means merely an anointed priest
> Since there is not a single jot of evidence suggesting it, it's quite unlikely that there were two noteworthy Jameses with brothers called Jesus known as Christ, who were both killed in Jerusalem by the religious authorities shortly before the revolt

These also have been mentioned numerous times in past discussions, but naturally we can't expect our friend to bother reading every post answering his claims, can we? Just those to which he thinks a snide "you know what X is, don't you?" is a sufficient response.

[stubbornone]

I propose that what scholars support one's contention has little bearing on the reliability of that contention.

Roll your eyes 'til the sockets get wallered out and they fall out and go rolling down the road.

The fact remains that Goat laid out his position and the only attempt at a rebuttal you can present is to ask what scholars agree with him.

Unconstructive one-liners from all and sundry aside, back in post 68 Jay had already quoted the full Josephus passage and mentioned a major reason why Goat's suggestion is implausible: Jesus ben Damneus was not a 'christ' when "James the brother of Jesus who is called 'christ'" was killed.

It is evident that Goat has not been reading Jay's posts, since he went on to write:
"Why don't we do something that you fail to do. Let's look at the original passage. . . .
Here is actual passage.. you know.. so we can see what is written BY Josephus."

It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn't read one's posts

I also mentioned three more important reasons why Goat's view is little more than conspiracy theory or wishful thinking:

> This being the only occasion Josephus uses the term 'christ,' it's unlikely to be in reference to a virtual nobody who served only a year as high priest
> Many of Josephus' readers may have known of the sect of Christians, but Josephus offers no explanation that he means merely an anointed priest
> Since there is not a single jot of evidence suggesting it, it's quite unlikely that there were two noteworthy Jameses with brothers called Jesus known as Christ, who were both killed in Jerusalem by the religious authorities shortly before the revolt

These also have been mentioned numerous times in past discussions, but naturally we can't expect our friend to bother reading every post answering his claims, can we? Just those to which he thinks a snide "you know what X is, don't you?" is a sufficient response.

Interesting, and false. The fact that Wells wrote something about what Josephus says does not make it accurate. Indeed, Wells contention is backed by ... nothing but his contention. Its nearly universally rejected by period scholars and is part of a broad pattern of distortion and dissembling from Wells that have no other basis than denying Christ at any and all costs.

Indeed, we CAN check the source:

"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The reference clearly indicates that Christ refers to Jesus, not to James. And only the silliest of deniers would attempt to comport that into meaning that James, referenced almost no where else, and in the records that are otherwise accurate from everything else, which is particular odd as the rest of the mention of Jesus in in exacting agreement with gospels.

In short, its a game called atheist baseball, wherein atheists look for any excuse to reject to the point of demonstrateable silliness.

It is also why modern scholars treat the Jesus Myth as a conspiracy theory.

" Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Now that we have examined one of the silly claims made in support of the Jesus Conspiracy (might as well call it what it is, right?), we see that the professional opinion of the position is quite correct.

Yet the atheists who advocate this conspiracy theory with the most gusto, who tell us that it is truth they seek, seem not to address these intellectual shortcomings of the position - and instead react with anger?

Its such anger yet another sign of a conspiracy theory?

I mean, once again, we Christian are supposed to put up with the irrational twisting of easily verified facts that attack the very basis of our faith and our apparent lucidity as human beings ... but when we DO defend our positions, that somehow justifies the anger of atheists such as Goat?

Perhaps now you understand why most period scholars simply avoid the Jesus conspiracy, its conspiratorial adherents do not appear much interested in anything beyond smearing Christ and those who follow him. Why waste your breath with evidence and facts, when atheist baseball is all that you will get in response?

The evidential record is very clear and convincing. Its there for anyone and everyone to see. Its been convincing enough that billions have found it worthy for millenia, and modern scholarship CONTINUES to uphold its veracity.

Ergo, when I see atheists claiming they are against ignorance, and yet are clearly Jesus Mythers, then I see ... logical issues that clearly point to a position that is emotional rather than logical.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 93:

Unconstructive one-liners from all and sundry aside, back in post 68 Jay had already quoted the full Josephus passage and mentioned a major reason why Goat's suggestion is implausible

If you'll notice, I was not speaking in reference to any post but the post to which I was referring, of which, no mention of why there may be error was offered, but a simple question of what scholar agreed with Goat.

But since you find it important enough to concern me, I'll ask you...


If all the scholars on the planet thought the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

[Nickman]

Interesting, and false. The fact that Wells wrote something about what Josephus says does not make it accurate. Indeed, Wells contention is backed by ... nothing but his contention. Its nearly universally rejected by period scholars and is part of a broad pattern of distortion and dissembling from Wells that have no other basis than denying Christ at any and all costs.

Indeed, we CAN check the source:

"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The reference clearly indicates that Christ refers to Jesus, not to James. And only the silliest of deniers would attempt to comport that into meaning that James, referenced almost no where else, and in the records that are otherwise accurate from everything else, which is particular odd as the rest of the mention of Jesus in in exacting agreement with gospels.

If we are to accept your premise you must explain this below;

The problem is that the text never mentions one thing that is consistent with any gospel record other than Jesus and James being brothers. When was Jesus called and made high priest by one called Damneus?

Now, the Jesus in the text is not called Christ, James is, as has already been stated. Here is the text;

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,

The subject is not Jesus. This is simple subject/predicate agreement that we all learned in elementary school. The subject is the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ (or anointed) and whose name is James. Jesus is not the subject that has adjectives attributed to him. "Brother of Jesus" is the subject. You cannot divorce the words "brother of" and "Jesus" from each other. If you do you are not following subject/predicate agreement. The brother of Jesus is called christ whose name is James. This is simple Elementary English.

In short, its a game called atheist baseball, wherein atheists look for any excuse to reject to the point of demonstrateable silliness.

No, it is called simple English.

It is also why modern scholars treat the Jesus Myth as a conspiracy theory.

You should change this statement to some scholars. When you state modern scholars, it makes the reader assume you mean all, which is not true.

" Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

The part you leave out is that not all NT scholars view these arguments as weak. The fact that there is a divide is not due to amateurs it is due to Scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Wells, Carrier, and the like and Grant seems to get very upset about it. He also makes my point, that the so called extra-biblical accounts are in complete disagreement with the biblical ones.

Mark Grant- Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms....

Now that we have examined one of the silly claims made in support of the Jesus Conspiracy (might as well call it what it is, right?), we see that the professional opinion of the position is quite correct.

I see no true argument for Josephus that is evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. Heres a little to chew on. If the text in book 20 chapter 9, 1 were sufficient, then why did Eusubius have to forge the text in Book 18? The reason is because simple subject and predicate destroys chapter 9 and it is not sufficient for Jesus' historicity.

Yet the atheists who advocate this conspiracy theory with the most gusto, who tell us that it is truth they seek, seem not to address these intellectual shortcomings of the position - and instead react with anger?

You keep claiming conspiracy but it is not so, it is evidence or the lack there of.

The evidential record is very clear and convincing. Its there for anyone and everyone to see. Its been convincing enough that billions have found it worthy for millenia, and modern scholarship CONTINUES to uphold its veracity.

Yes it is very clear and the simple subject and predicate agreement we all learned in kindergarten has shown that Jesus is not called the Christ. James is. I would like to see where you get "billions" from?

Ergo, when I see atheists claiming they are against ignorance, and yet are clearly Jesus Mythers, then I see ... logical issues that clearly point to a position that is emotional rather than logical.

it is far from emotional, it is evidential. We follow the evidence.

[Mithrae]

Hi Mithrae,
You wrote:

29:30 - Carrier suggests that Mark invented an eclipse from whole cloth, which as far as I can tell is deception by omission at best: Carrier knows (it's mentioned in one of his infidels.org articles) that there was in fact a midday eclipse in the middle east during the rule of Pontius Pilate (29 CE to be precise, in August if memory serves).

There was no midday eclipse in 29CE and certainly not one in August.

There were 3 solar eclipses in 29CE and they were in January, June and November.

Some apologetics sites have claimed the one that happened in November is the one you perhaps are referring to, however it peaked at 9.24am and ended over an hour before midday.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE0001-0100.html

Howdy Catalyst, I forgot to comment on this last night. Thanks for looking that up and correcting me - I did indeed mean the one in November. It was a total eclipse which passed over Thrace, Bythinia, Syria and eastern Arabia - visible from Jerusalem only as a partial eclipse. It would have passed over Syria at about ten minutes to 9 in the morning, Universal Time (map) which in local time that would have been about 11 o'clock (12 with daylight savings ). It's particularly interesting that despite getting the date wrong the pagan writer Phlegon, and probably Thallus also, both mention an earthquake in connection with this eclipse (quoted by Eusebius):
"Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea.""
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... allus.html

In the video I initially linked Carrier argues his case that Jesus could have been invented by suggesting for comparison that surely someone would have mentioned the great darkness at Jesus' death:
"Mark even invented a three hour eclipse of the sun in which the sun went out and darkened the world for three hours. Certainly there would have been people around who'd say 'You know, I was there and I don't remember the sun going out for three hours, I'm sure I'd remember that.' And yet no-one gainsayed this, although we have tons of records of people who would have mentioned this by the way if it did happen."

I think it's fair to point out that neglecting to mention a couple of non-Christian sources who he knows did in fact mention a midday eclipse in that time and region suggests that Carrier really isn't interested in sharing knowledge with the audience, merely with getting a chuckle out of the implied grand deception by Mark.

-----------

Unconstructive one-liners from all and sundry aside, back in post 68 Jay had already quoted the full Josephus passage and mentioned a major reason why Goat's suggestion is implausible

If you'll notice, I was not speaking in reference to any post but the post to which I was referring, of which, no mention of why there may be error was offered, but a simple question of what scholar agreed with Goat.

Goat: Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??
Jayhawker Soule: I have.

To me, that looks like Jay was mentioning reasons previously given to doubt that Jesus son of Damneus was the one called 'christ.' Perhaps you're suggesting that he should have posted it all again simply because Goat chose to ignore it?

But since you find it important enough to concern me, I'll ask you...

If all the scholars on the planet thought the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

No, it would cease to exist, and in fact never have been there at all: Falling would require that it be there in the first place.

Facetiousness aside, scholars' opinions don't make fact, but they are usually a good approximation of the best of our knowledge. If there were compelling reasons to believe something, we needn't expect all (or even most) scholars to agree on it, but we would certainly expect it to be supported by more than a tiny fringe element selling popular books. Mainstream scholarship of Christian origins is hardly a clique of rabid fundies; the authorship of everything save some Pauline epistles is widely disputed, Paul himself is often portrayed more in opposition to Jesus' views and followers than in general agreement, and Jesus is imagined as anything from a cynic sage to a militant zealot.

So if there is a near-universal agreement that this passage from Josephus is authentic and most probably refers to the biblical Jesus and James, we should expect more than the 'possiblies' and loose innuendo which make up the bulk of the doubters' rhetoric. We should expect some evidence for an alternative view - none of which I have ever seen - or at the very least some kind of substantive reasoning rather than just "a high priest was anointed, so obviously Josephus meant a high priest."

Again I point out the irony that Goat began this discussion of how we should understand Josephus by posting his truly laughable misunderstanding of Paul! This did little to inspire confidence that he'd picked up on the best views, against the bulk of fellahs who actually know what they're talking about, and his failure to even read Jay's posts further suggests that his views are devoid of real content.

[stubbornone]

Interesting, and false. The fact that Wells wrote something about what Josephus says does not make it accurate. Indeed, Wells contention is backed by ... nothing but his contention. Its nearly universally rejected by period scholars and is part of a broad pattern of distortion and dissembling from Wells that have no other basis than denying Christ at any and all costs.

Indeed, we CAN check the source:

"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The reference clearly indicates that Christ refers to Jesus, not to James. And only the silliest of deniers would attempt to comport that into meaning that James, referenced almost no where else, and in the records that are otherwise accurate from everything else, which is particular odd as the rest of the mention of Jesus in in exacting agreement with gospels.

If we are to accept your premise you must explain this below;

The problem is that the text never mentions one thing that is consistent with any gospel record other than Jesus and James being brothers. When was Jesus called and made high priest by one called Damneus?

Now, the Jesus in the text is not called Christ, James is, as has already been stated. Here is the text;

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,

The subject is not Jesus. This is simple subject/predicate agreement that we all learned in elementary school. The subject is the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ (or anointed) and whose name is James. Jesus is not the subject that has adjectives attributed to him. "Brother of Jesus" is the subject. You cannot divorce the words "brother of" and "Jesus" from each other. If you do you are not following subject/predicate agreement. The brother of Jesus is called christ whose name is James. This is simple Elementary English.

In short, its a game called atheist baseball, wherein atheists look for any excuse to reject to the point of demonstrateable silliness.

No, it is called simple English.

It is also why modern scholars treat the Jesus Myth as a conspiracy theory.

You should change this statement to some scholars. When you state modern scholars, it makes the reader assume you mean all, which is not true.

" Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

The part you leave out is that not all NT scholars view these arguments as weak. The fact that there is a divide is not due to amateurs it is due to Scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Wells, Carrier, and the like and Grant seems to get very upset about it. He also makes my point, that the so called extra-biblical accounts are in complete disagreement with the biblical ones.

Mark Grant- Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms....

Now that we have examined one of the silly claims made in support of the Jesus Conspiracy (might as well call it what it is, right?), we see that the professional opinion of the position is quite correct.

I see no true argument for Josephus that is evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. Heres a little to chew on. If the text in book 20 chapter 9, 1 were sufficient, then why did Eusubius have to forge the text in Book 18? The reason is because simple subject and predicate destroys chapter 9 and it is not sufficient for Jesus' historicity.

Yet the atheists who advocate this conspiracy theory with the most gusto, who tell us that it is truth they seek, seem not to address these intellectual shortcomings of the position - and instead react with anger?

You keep claiming conspiracy but it is not so, it is evidence or the lack there of.

The evidential record is very clear and convincing. Its there for anyone and everyone to see. Its been convincing enough that billions have found it worthy for millenia, and modern scholarship CONTINUES to uphold its veracity.

Yes it is very clear and the simple subject and predicate agreement we all learned in kindergarten has shown that Jesus is not called the Christ. James is. I would like to see where you get "billions" from?

Ergo, when I see atheists claiming they are against ignorance, and yet are clearly Jesus Mythers, then I see ... logical issues that clearly point to a position that is emotional rather than logical.

it is far from emotional, it is evidential. We follow the evidence.

I believe I already did, did I not? Have I not listed the criticism of Wells work several times already in this thread? Have I not made references to several published, peer reviewed scholars, including Michael Durant, an atheist, who flatly rejects Wells's claims? Did I not provide a loose characterization of of the works, including the single sentence that Wells's, work hangs upon, clearly ripped out of context and deliberately twisted, and then contrasted it with the rest of Josephus's work, it clearly stands starkly out of whack with everything else he writes ... which just happens to perfectly support the gospel?

But, let me get this straight, atheists are, by in large, convinced that Jesus is myth by their incredible study of ancient figures, for which they are blindly following Wells mind you, and with this incredible knowledge of antiquity ... we get a rehash of Wells, but we cannot address any of the opinion arrayed against Wells and the Jesus Conspiracy?

I am glad that we cut and paste from Wells, but the simple reality is exactly like I claim ... the evidence is out there. Again, I have read (mostly anyway), Wells's work. I just happen to be a historian as well, and I can say that I find myself, based on the available evidence, based on the sheer sophistry and often outrageous leaps in logic and honesty made by Wells, that the Jesus COnspiracy is just that ...

A claim that is in the same league as the fake moon landing.

Again, I challenge any atheist, so masterful in the art of denying for denials sake, to follow the logical conclusion of their thesis.

If you are right, and Jesus is a Myth, then where did Jesus come from? Why are the rebuttals of his existence so weak and, outside of 'logical' atheist circles (and then even within atheism the position is often rejected), is the idea thoroughly rubbished and rejected?

Why does it cost more to fake a moon landing? And why don't you think it would cost more to fake Jesus?

Again, disbelieving that Jesus is the Son of God is one thing, many contemporary Jews rejected the idea as well. But turning history in its head just so you can deny what is?

Pure silliness.

I for one say we should reverse this. As the paradigm of Jesus's existence is widely accepted by period experts regardless of their beliefs, and they generally treat Jesus Mythers like loons in intellectual terms, pray tell, why should anyone treat the position with respect?

Because we cut and pasted something from Wells, and are pretending that we have a mastery of gospel and period history? Clearly, there is a debate about James in the church, has been for millennia, but only Wells would be asinine enough to claim that it was actually James who was Christ even as he is attempting to deny Christ.

There is a logic error there that is rather hard to get around.

And it why no one outside of atheism takes Wells seriously.

As for the OP, how do we respond? We respond as we have for centuries, but pointing out the logical errors, the puffed up sense of false expertise leading to factual errors, remind our fellow Christians that these kinds of silly attacks are predicted from those who scorn the message of Jesus, and we move on.

Wells gets professional castigation and alienation inside his profession for abandoning its standards, and those who follow his lead get to wear tin foil hats.

Not sure how that is a threat to legitimate faith in Jesus?

I do like the last line up there, because clearly its not evidence you follow ... its sophistry. Wells and his work have been repeatedly annihilated, and never once do atheists quote any of the documents that have successful ripped his works apart.

In short, the only evidence you seek is that which confirms your own preconceptions, which is EXACTLY the criticism leveled against Wells. Isn't it?

But if you say that you are ACTUALLY following evidence, then surely you must be ... don;t let the fact that your evidence is a nearly universally maligned author impact that statements veracity in the slightest.

No offense, but intellectually, is a bit like quoting Nazis as an accurate representation of Jews. You will forgive those of us ACTUALLY familiar with the historical record for not being fooled by the sophistric silliness of Wells and the emotional claim that those is disagreement are following evidence rather than excluding it.

[otseng]

Moderator Comment

Please avoid one-liners.

That is either a stupid distortion or simply stupid. See post 68.

Second sentence is acceptable. The first is not.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 97:

...
Goat: Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??
Jayhawker Soule: I have.

To me, that looks like Jay was mentioning reasons previously given to doubt that Jesus son of Damneus was the one called 'christ.'

Maybe ours is just a matter of perspective. I fully accept that such an offering came before, but still contend that a brief synopsis, or just a reference to such would have been better than merely stating "I have".

Perhaps you're suggesting that he should have posted it all again simply because Goat chose to ignore it?

How could Goat ignore Goat's own post, which was the topic of the post that brought about the problematic statement?

Goat presented his data, only to be met with a request for what scholar agrees with him, as opposed to any refutation of his Post 85.

Again, I accept we just may be seeing this from differing perspectives.

...
Mainstream scholarship of Christian origins is hardly a clique of rabid fundies
...

Meh. It's all Greek to me


I do 'preciate your input, and I 'pologize if I gave the impression that Jayhawker Soule had never responded, I just thought it odd he'd respond to the entirety of Goat's post in the manner he did.