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.

[Student]

There is a great deal of learned conjecture regarding the references to Jesus in the works of Josephus, with the spectrum of opinion varying from “they are entirely genuine� to “they are entirely spurious�. The ‘consensus’ view apparently swings one way and then another, and sometimes somewhere in between.

It is important to recognise that while the conjecture might be learned it is still only speculation – there can be no definitive answer. What value we should place upon an arbitrary 'consensus' is also debatable. So, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

The word ‘christ’ only appears twice in all the extant writings of Josephus; both occurrences are in Antiquities of the Jews [AJ]; the Testimonium Flavianum 18.3.3,[ � χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν] and 20.9.1. in a reference to the death of James[ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ].

Throughout the Tenach the word ‘christ’ is applied to various kings and high priests. However, despite mentioning many high priests [included several called Jesus], Josephus never [otherwise] uses the term ‘christ’ in relation to any of them. Nor do any of the failed messianic claimants, of which Josephus mentions several, earn the title. Even the Emperor Vespasian, whom Josephus does consider to have fulfilled the messianic oracles, is termed ‘christ’.

So, Josephus [apparently] only uses the term ‘christ’ in reference to Jesus of Nazareth. However, Josephus fails to explain the special meaning or the significance of the word ‘christ’, which otherwise might have been lost on a none Jewish/Christian Greek speaking audience. To his intended audience ‘christ’ would have appeared simply as an unusual name i.e. Mr Anointed.

According to Origen, the earliest comprehensive witness to Josephus, Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ".
If this was the case we must draw one of three possible conclusions regarding AJ 18.3.3:
1. Josephus did not write “� χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν� [“He was the Christ�]
2. The sentence was missing from the only copy of Antiquities in Origen’s possession.
3. Origen overlooked the citation.

However Origen does make several references to Josephus’ record of the death of James, as the brother of “Jesus, the one called Christ� [Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ]* which is the form of words found in the extant copies of 20.9.1.

As the expression “the one called christ� is not entirely inconsistent with the view that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, I consider it reasonable to accept that the first reference to Christ [18.3.3] was absent from Origen’s copy of AJ, whilst the second reference, at 20.9.1, was included.

However, if the first reference to Christ [19.3.3] is absent, then to whom does the second and now only instance of the word ‘christ’, refer? It is no longer immediately apparent, to an audience ignorant of Christian tradition/the letters of Paul, that this Jesus, the brother of James, might be the same Jesus as that found at 18.3.3, as opposed to anyone of the many other people called Jesus in AJ.

Furthermore, if we cannot identify the specific Jesus why would Josephus mention him (Jesus) at all, given that it does not help with the better identification of James, especially since Josephus does not explain what he means by the word ‘christ’. In effect, a single reference to a ‘christ’ as in “Jesus, the one called Christ� is pointless.

Therefore, on the balance of probability, if the words “� χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν� [“He was the Christ�] in 18.3.3 are adjudged to be spurious, then it is likely that the reference to a ‘Jesus, the one called christ’ at 20.9.1 must also be viewed as such. Given that Origen’s copy of AJ appears to have included the ‘christ’ phrase in 20.9.1 but omitted it from 18.3.3 in, I think it is likely that its inclusion at 20.9.1 represents an earlier interpolation.

*[On a purely grammatical note, in the Greek text of 20.9.1, the word ‘christ’ cannot refer to James. In the phrase Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ all the words, including Jesus, are in the genitive case. This agreement in case requires the term “the one called christ� to be applied to the genitive Ἰησοῦ.]

[Nickman]

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?

I don't think you did clearly enough or we wouldn't be having debate on it. If that is your position then ill agree with you. I don't follow Well's claims. I look at all the evidence. I don't play favorites.

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?

Atheism says nothing in regards to Jesus' existence. When the opposition claims him to be a god, then atheism rejects that claim, because we don't believe in deities until proven otherwise. Now, concerning his historicity, I personally can make cases on both sides of the argument for a man named Jesus around the beginning of the first century. From extra-biblical texts, I can only honestly state that the Jesus spoken about does not match the Gospel Jesus. I have shown my reasons why in my last post. Now this does not go to say that the man in the gospels named Jesus was not historical. It only states that he is not found in contemporary extra-biblical literature. Everytime I have been presented with another claim fro extra-biblical works for Jesus, it always disagrees with the gospels on a monumental level, as to be someone completely different. As a skeptic, an inquirer, and a person who, I think, thinks logically and fairly, I would be the first one to admit that an extra-biblical work actually gives efficacy to the Gospels. It is all about the evidence. If it is not there,
I don't try to twist it to be there. So far I have never been presented with a true extra-biblical work that describes the Jesus of the gospels.

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 ...

And your debating with someone who is not a conspirator in Well's camp. I have not quoted from him once. I have used the claims given by the opposition, i.e. Josephus Flavius' works, and find them to be wanting. I also find Well's works to be wanting as well. The bottom line is that we don't have all the facts.

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

I don't even know what to say to those who think we have never set foot on the moon. To me it is ludicrous to think otherwise.

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

I have challenged your thesis in these posts and have raised the claim that the extra-biblical works provided, do not speak of the Jesus in the gospels. For arguments sake, if they were speaking of the same Jesus, then Christianity needs to rethink the actual events of his life, because the stories don't match. I have shown why in my last post.

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?

Obviously, there was something that started the stories which led to our gospels, but what that origin is we cannot say with honesty. I don't think the arguments are weak. If weak is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion then we are all weak in that sense. When any person, atheist or christian, looks at the evidence with a presupposition they are already displaying weakness. We must look at all of the evidence and let it tell us what it says and what it does not say. If we are trying to find a specific idea from them that we hold as bias, then we will never find what the text actually says.

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

I don't understand what a moon landing conspiracy has to do with the argument. The crux of the argument is whether or not the extra-biblical texts give any creedence to the gospels and the rest of the NT.

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 deny the claims made by the bible and any other work if those claims are supernatural. The reason is because they cannot be demonstrated as true and they are far fetched from our reality. If the text says, Jesus ate a sandwich, then I have no problem believing that, but when he turned 5 loaves into enough for thousands, then a little red flag goes up. This is across the board for me. If a man tells me that he was abducted by aliens, I dismiss this as being false until this person can show me it to be true. With the gospels, we are so far removed from the time in which these events supposedly happened that we cannot verify any of them. All we have are copies of copies and we don't even know who wrote the originals. I therefore cannot honestly say that the claims are true because I cannot independently verify them.

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?

I don't think we should appeal to authority here.

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.

And that is Wells, not me. I claim that the text found in Antiquities by Josephus is actually calling James a Christ or more properly, one anointed, which is congruent with the high priest position. I have shown why in my last post using simple subject/predicate rules.

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

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

This is a baseless assertion. Even though I don't adhere to everything Wells claims, it would be dishonest to claim no one outside of atheism takes him 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.

You respond by providing evidence that the claim is false and shutting the mouths of those in error.

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.

Again this is a baseless claim.

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?

I would say that you do the exact same from the otherside of the issue. One honest question I would like you to answer. Can Jesus be a myth? Is that a possibility?

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.

I would ask you for any extra-biblical evidence for Jesus. If all you have are the writings in the NT then I would say you have a very shakey foundation for acceptance of the claims made within.

[stubbornone]

I don't think you did clearly enough or we wouldn't be having debate on it. If that is your position then ill agree with you. I don't follow Well's claims. I look at all the evidence. I don't play favorites.

Well, there is where we have a massive disagreement. Wells, and a precious few other 'scholars', are the only ones who claim the Jesus Myth. Period Scholars from all faiths have repeatedly rubbished the work of Wells (who is the only one of the scholars to even be given the pretext of respectability) and generally ignore them.

So when you say that you follow evidence or don't play favorites ... the evidence clearly speaks otherwise. As it always does with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone who has actually read Wells would quickly see that his book is a literal cacophony of double standards, innuendo, maligning intent, and simple misdirection. No historian who reads it walks away from that work without feeling professionally slimed. It is an affront not to just to religion, but to academics.

It is the basis of the modern Jesus Conspiracy, and I for one think that the prevalence of the Jesus Myth in atheist circles is a direct and clarion rebuttal to atheist claims that it is logical rather than emotional.

Atheism says nothing in regards to Jesus' existence.

Atheists are the ONLY ones who ascribe to the Jesus Conspiracy - and do so by quoting a maligned academic.

When the opposition claims him to be a god, then atheism rejects that claim, because we don't believe in deities until proven otherwise. Now, concerning his historicity, I personally can make cases on both sides of the argument for a man named Jesus around the beginning of the first century. From extra-biblical texts, I can only honestly state that the Jesus spoken about does not match the Gospel Jesus. I have shown my reasons why in my last post. Now this does not go to say that the man in the gospels named Jesus was not historical. It only states that he is not found in contemporary extra-biblical literature. Everytime I have been presented with another claim fro extra-biblical works for Jesus, it always disagrees with the gospels on a monumental level, as to be someone completely different. As a skeptic, an inquirer, and a person who, I think, thinks logically and fairly, I would be the first one to admit that an extra-biblical work actually gives efficacy to the Gospels. It is all about the evidence. If it is not there,
I don't try to twist it to be there. So far I have never been presented with a true extra-biblical work that describes the Jesus of the gospels.

And this is an example of the sophistry. The gospels ARE historical documents, they are first person accounts of Jesus and his works.

In fact, each of the Synoptic gospels is written for a different audience, as we would expect from different Apostles giving messages of the same Jesus to different groups that they are preaching too.

And then again, the extra Biblical sources would not, and indeed do not, comment on the religious nature of Jesus, save that they acknowledge he is there and having a profound effect in ... in what is still a distant and little concerned area of the Roman Empire. That Jesus is mentioned at all is, logically, a testament to veracity of Jesus.

Yet the fact remains that ONLY atheists look at a wide record of evidence and then make the fantastical claim that Jesus was myth.

And when we examine the record, as you do, we wind up clearly supporting the historicity of Jesus. So why quote Wells and claim you are following evidence? A skeptic questions both sides, and when one finds themselves quoting a rubbished source to maintain skepticism ... that is not longer skepticism is it?

And your debating with someone who is not a conspirator in Well's camp. I have not quoted from him once. I have used the claims given by the opposition, i.e. Josephus Flavius' works, and find them to be wanting. I also find Well's works to be wanting as well. The bottom line is that we don't have all the facts.

Josephus is hardly the sole source of Jesus is he? And yes, when you claim that Jospehus is calling James 'the Christ' rather than Jesus - you are quoting Wells.

Josephus is not in isolation, and his works AND THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHING EVIDENCE are what are applied to Josephus's works in COMPARISON to all the others. Once again, an extra-Biblical source mentions Jesus, also called Christ, and the direct translation was provided you with a source for verification.

Yet now you claim you were quoting Josephus rather than Wells maligning statements about him? That simply does not add up.

I don't even know what to say to those who think we have never set foot on the moon. To me it is ludicrous to think otherwise.

As ludicrous to me as the Jesus Conspiracy.

I have challenged your thesis in these posts and have raised the claim that the extra-biblical works provided, do not speak of the Jesus in the gospels. For arguments sake, if they were speaking of the same Jesus, then Christianity needs to rethink the actual events of his life, because the stories don't match. I have shown why in my last post.

So, you will only believe when Roman Chroniclers move away from running the empire and instead follow around Jesus before he is well known and pass along his ministering information?

In short, you have simply created a standard of evidence that can never be met - and that is not 'following the evidence' is part of a pattern of continually raising the bar so as never to be convinced. You may as well say, "I will never believe in Jesus unless a contemporary Chinese guy who emigrated to Levant, and happened to follow around and record Jesus and his works!"

History is about knowing where to find evidence. We look to Roman sources to confirm that Jesus was there, his interactions with the Roman body politic, but to think that those who are committed to running the Empire, of a different religion, would pay more than passing interest in the message of Jesus would silly.

There are however those who WOULD be interested in the message of Christ, and indeed we find an abundant amount of information on that message, as we do contemporary Jewish accounts that attempt to disparage it.

It may not answer the question of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, but it paints a fascinating and very well documented account of a historical Jesus.

That atheists deny it? That they claim they are following evidence? Such claims given the evidence, simply do not hold water.

Seeing the trend of Jesus Conspiracy growing in atheism, I for one recommend that we stop even giving the pretense of respectability to the position. All we are doing is allowing our kids to be miseducated with falsehood so they can go out and offend people. What s to gain by that?

Obviously, there was something that started the stories which led to our gospels, but what that origin is we cannot say with honesty.

Agh yeah, we can. And Scholars do.

I don't think the arguments are weak. If weak is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion then we are all weak in that sense. When any person, atheist or christian, looks at the evidence with a presupposition they are already displaying weakness. We must look at all of the evidence and let it tell us what it says and what it does not say. If we are trying to find a specific idea from them that we hold as bias, then we will never find what the text actually says.

This is sophistry and claiming that your conclusions are based on evidence without actually examining the evidence.

No offense brother, but this statement is in the same vein, "You see I do not believe in gravity because I examine the evidence and am not convinced, in a sense, all argument for and against gravity, given the dearth if available evidence, are weak - but I am merely following the evidence."

Again, history is all about debate. So when the near unanimous opinion of period scholars rejects a rebuttal to the point where they barely even address it anymore ... well, academically, that is the same as denying gravity.

I don't understand what a moon landing conspiracy has to do with the argument. The crux of the argument is whether or not the extra-biblical texts give any creedence to the gospels and the rest of the NT.

Because they are both conspiracy theories with same kind of 'logical' support.

I deny the claims made by the bible and any other work if those claims are supernatural.

Then you deny based on nothing. You can neither confirm or deny them. You are however, calling a group of men who wrote them down liars with no evidence whatsoever. Indeed, what can be verified by these men HAS been, and still you call them liars?

I realize your position is not intended to be quite so harsh, but that is the reality of it. Either the Synoptic gospels are lies or they are not. It cannot be both.

The reason is because they cannot be demonstrated as true and they are far fetched from our reality.

Miracles are routinely documented in our day in age. In the age of google, finding the evidence for them is not hard.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

http://www.holyfire.org/eng/

So, is it evidence you are following - or your preconceptions you are sating?

If the text says, Jesus ate a sandwich, then I have no problem believing that, but when he turned 5 loaves into enough for thousands, then a little red flag goes up.

And yet you will deny it without evidence? To doubt is one thing, to deny another.

This is across the board for me. If a man tells me that he was abducted by aliens, I dismiss this as being false until this person can show me it to be true.

You mean like writing it down? Documenting witnesses who saw the abduction? Finding physical evidence to corroborate the story? (I.e. archaeology)?

And at what point would the evidence for such an event become convincing for you? Thomas provides just such a lesson in skepticism does he not?

With the gospels, we are so far removed from the time in which these events supposedly happened that we cannot verify any of them.

So we should call them all liars and ignore all the corroborating evidence. When we can verify men are telling the truth about things we CAN verify, we should they are lying in each and every case when state something we cannot verify?

By such antics, we can deny anything.

All we have are copies of copies and we don't even know who wrote the originals.

That is not honest. There are some we cannot verify, and there are others we can. And we are supposed to trust that you are following evidence are we?

I therefore cannot honestly say that the claims are true because I cannot independently verify them.

See Thomas.

I don't think we should appeal to authority here.

That is why some people have Ph.D's and others do not. Expertise is authority, and when the nearly united authority on the subject agree, that is apowerful statement.

Indeed, atheists are the first to quote any 'expert' that even comes close to Jesus Myth, and yet readily reject the mass body of expertise?

Its is exactly what Wells does, does he not?

And that is Wells, not me. I claim that the text found in Antiquities by Josephus is actually calling James a Christ or more properly, one anointed, which is congruent with the high priest position. I have shown why in my last post using simple subject/predicate rules

.

I quoted the relevant sentence for you. The one who originally took it out of context and attempted to say it was James who was referred to as the Christ was ... Wells.

Wells claims routinely show up in Jesus Conspiracy claims (whether knowingly or not). But you will forgive me for thinking you were not just sitting around reading the original works of early Roman Historians and stumbled across the works.

Such a supposition is, IMHO, silly. All of us begin our historical examination by reading secondary academic sources to familiarize ourselves with the history. And the simple fact of the matter is that almost all the works denying Jesus have the basis in Wells work.

A little bit of sleuthing makes that quite apparent, quite quickly.

This is a baseless assertion. Even though I don't adhere to everything Wells claims, it would be dishonest to claim no one outside of atheism takes him seriously.

No, it isn't. There is NO ONE outside of atheism that adheres to the Jesus Myth. Even inside atheism, there are those who actually seek the truth and are then left in shock as their coreligionists turn on them.

You respond by providing evidence that the claim is false and shutting the mouths of those in error.

Except conspiracy theorists are not interested in evidence are they? Instead they make up ever higher standards of evidence by which they can continue to deny into eternity. It doesn't matter that these same standards eliminate almost ALL historical figures ...

Indeed, denial can be as much an argument from absurdity and rabid conformity. I for one think the Jesus Conspiracy is a prime example of a negative argument from absurdity.

Nothing you tell them or show them will convince them. The near unanimous opinion of period scholars from ALL religious back ground makes no dent in their belief. The complete annihilation of those who support the conspiracy matters not ... they are, just following the evidence.

At some point, you simply have to acknowledge that conspiracy theorists are well beyond the bounds of logic.

Again this is a baseless claim.

No, it is not. The Jesus Myth has been repeatedly rubbished. The evidence for that has been provided many times, yet still you deny ... even as you claim you are 'just following the evidence'.

Please, take the time to actually read this.

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

The claim is not baseless, its proven.

I would say that you do the exact same from the otherside of the issue. One honest question I would like you to answer. Can Jesus be a myth? Is that a possibility?

The problem is that the evidence supports the historical Jesus. Yet you apply the criticism of your position blindly to the other? Without evidence?

You do realize that in attempting to over turn millennia of history, you have to make a very strong case - and the only thing you have presented in evidence is a claim that has already been refuted - and can be attributed to the Professor of German who has been rejected.

In short, your case is severely lacking.

I would ask you for any extra-biblical evidence for Jesus. If all you have are the writings in the NT then I would say you have a very shakey foundation for acceptance of the claims made within.

At this point, I would ask you to use google.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

There is also a wonderful book called "Jesus Outside the New Testament" by James Van Voorst.

You however, just following the evidence, sitting around the old fire place reading ancient first person accounts of Jesus could not find any of these, eh?

Now, do you understand why people view the 'skepticism' of Christ as simple dishonesty?

[Mithrae]

However Origen does make several references to Josephus’ record of the death of James, as the brother of “Jesus, the one called Christ� [Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ]* which is the form of words found in the extant copies of 20.9.1.

As the expression “the one called christ� is not entirely inconsistent with the view that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, I consider it reasonable to accept that the first reference to Christ [18.3.3] was absent from Origen’s copy of AJ, whilst the second reference, at 20.9.1, was included.

However, if the first reference to Christ [19.3.3] is absent, then to whom does the second and now only instance of the word ‘christ’, refer? It is no longer immediately apparent, to an audience ignorant of Christian tradition/the letters of Paul, that this Jesus, the brother of James, might be the same Jesus as that found at 18.3.3, as opposed to anyone of the many other people called Jesus in AJ.

Furthermore, if we cannot identify the specific Jesus why would Josephus mention him (Jesus) at all, given that it does not help with the better identification of James, especially since Josephus does not explain what he means by the word ‘christ’. In effect, a single reference to a ‘christ’ as in “Jesus, the one called Christ� is pointless.

Therefore, on the balance of probability, if the words “� χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν� [“He was the Christ�] in 18.3.3 are adjudged to be spurious, then it is likely that the reference to a ‘Jesus, the one called christ’ at 20.9.1 must also be viewed as such. Given that Origen’s copy of AJ appears to have included the ‘christ’ phrase in 20.9.1 but omitted it from 18.3.3 in, I think it is likely that its inclusion at 20.9.1 represents an earlier interpolation.

An intelligent, well-informed post But there's a few problems with that view to my mind.

Firstly, it depends on the presumption that Josephus wouldn't have expected his readers to know of the Christian sect. Granted it was still quite insignificant by the end of the first century, but it had spread to many (most?) cities in the empire and incurred the state's disfavour at least once under Nero, perhaps lending it some notoriety. If Josephus figured that many of his readers might have heard of them, identifying this Jesus as the one called Christ would be a very simple and neutral way to identify James.

Secondly, it may be that an original version of the passage from book 18 did mention the 'tribe of Christians' named after Jesus or something to that effect. I wouldn't use it as any kind of evidence regarding Jesus, since we can't even be sure that there was an original version, but by the same token unless we can show that there wasn't - or that it didn't mention 'christ' or 'christians' - we can't argue very convincingly that the reference in book 20 comes inexplicably out of the blue.

Thirdly, there's the question of what sense the passage would make without that identification of Jesus as the one called Christ. The killing of "the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others" is even more uninformative. If an hypothetical original had named this Jesus as the son of Damneus, it makes corruption into the present form exceedingly unlikely except by deliberate fraud. And yet if it were deliberate Christian fraud, we wouldn't expect this bland, neutral comment on "the one called Christ" - anyone that keen to blatantly corrupt Josephus would surely have been more outspokenly Christian, as in the case of the 'Testimonium Flavianum.'

Finally there's the fact that such an alteration is witnessed in no manuscripts or quotations; unlike the TF, there's simply no evidence for any changes made to this passage. Since there were fewer Christians, and hence fewer Christian scribes around in the 2nd century than in the late 3rd or early 4th, it's correspondingly less likely that they would be copying a non-Christian work and have the opportunity to change it in the first place. You've mentioned the important point which Goat somehow overlooked, that suggesting inauthenticity requires an additional, earlier alteration to the text entirely unrelated to the TF: But it seems to me that there would have been less opportunity for this to occur and much less of a reason to insert such a bland phrase.

Without any evidence suggesting that actually happened, nor (so far as I've seen) any plausible alternative reading of the passage which wouldn't make the change even more improbable, it seems to be a case of comparing a neutral reference with early attestation of an event also known from Hegesippus... against essentially unfounded speculation. Which view is more plausible?

[Goat]

I don't think you did clearly enough or we wouldn't be having debate on it. If that is your position then ill agree with you. I don't follow Well's claims. I look at all the evidence. I don't play favorites.

Well, there is where we have a massive disagreement. Wells, and a precious few other 'scholars', are the only ones who claim the Jesus Myth. Period Scholars from all faiths have repeatedly rubbished the work of Wells (who is the only one of the scholars to even be given the pretext of respectability) and generally ignore them.

So when you say that you follow evidence or don't play favorites ... the evidence clearly speaks otherwise. As it always does with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone who has actually read Wells would quickly see that his book is a literal cacophony of double standards, innuendo, maligning intent, and simple misdirection. No historian who reads it walks away from that work without feeling professionally slimed. It is an affront not to just to religion, but to academics.

It is the basis of the modern Jesus Conspiracy, and I for one think that the prevalence of the Jesus Myth in atheist circles is a direct and clarion rebuttal to atheist claims that it is logical rather than emotional.

Atheism says nothing in regards to Jesus' existence.

Atheists are the ONLY ones who ascribe to the Jesus Conspiracy - and do so by quoting a maligned academic.

When the opposition claims him to be a god, then atheism rejects that claim, because we don't believe in deities until proven otherwise. Now, concerning his historicity, I personally can make cases on both sides of the argument for a man named Jesus around the beginning of the first century. From extra-biblical texts, I can only honestly state that the Jesus spoken about does not match the Gospel Jesus. I have shown my reasons why in my last post. Now this does not go to say that the man in the gospels named Jesus was not historical. It only states that he is not found in contemporary extra-biblical literature. Everytime I have been presented with another claim fro extra-biblical works for Jesus, it always disagrees with the gospels on a monumental level, as to be someone completely different. As a skeptic, an inquirer, and a person who, I think, thinks logically and fairly, I would be the first one to admit that an extra-biblical work actually gives efficacy to the Gospels. It is all about the evidence. If it is not there,
I don't try to twist it to be there. So far I have never been presented with a true extra-biblical work that describes the Jesus of the gospels.

And this is an example of the sophistry. The gospels ARE historical documents, they are first person accounts of Jesus and his works.

In fact, each of the Synoptic gospels is written for a different audience, as we would expect from different Apostles giving messages of the same Jesus to different groups that they are preaching too.

And then again, the extra Biblical sources would not, and indeed do not, comment on the religious nature of Jesus, save that they acknowledge he is there and having a profound effect in ... in what is still a distant and little concerned area of the Roman Empire. That Jesus is mentioned at all is, logically, a testament to veracity of Jesus.

Yet the fact remains that ONLY atheists look at a wide record of evidence and then make the fantastical claim that Jesus was myth.

And when we examine the record, as you do, we wind up clearly supporting the historicity of Jesus. So why quote Wells and claim you are following evidence? A skeptic questions both sides, and when one finds themselves quoting a rubbished source to maintain skepticism ... that is not longer skepticism is it?

And your debating with someone who is not a conspirator in Well's camp. I have not quoted from him once. I have used the claims given by the opposition, i.e. Josephus Flavius' works, and find them to be wanting. I also find Well's works to be wanting as well. The bottom line is that we don't have all the facts.

Josephus is hardly the sole source of Jesus is he? And yes, when you claim that Jospehus is calling James 'the Christ' rather than Jesus - you are quoting Wells.

Josephus is not in isolation, and his works AND THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHING EVIDENCE are what are applied to Josephus's works in COMPARISON to all the others. Once again, an extra-Biblical source mentions Jesus, also called Christ, and the direct translation was provided you with a source for verification.

Yet now you claim you were quoting Josephus rather than Wells maligning statements about him? That simply does not add up.

I don't even know what to say to those who think we have never set foot on the moon. To me it is ludicrous to think otherwise.

As ludicrous to me as the Jesus Conspiracy.

I have challenged your thesis in these posts and have raised the claim that the extra-biblical works provided, do not speak of the Jesus in the gospels. For arguments sake, if they were speaking of the same Jesus, then Christianity needs to rethink the actual events of his life, because the stories don't match. I have shown why in my last post.

So, you will only believe when Roman Chroniclers move away from running the empire and instead follow around Jesus before he is well known and pass along his ministering information?

In short, you have simply created a standard of evidence that can never be met - and that is not 'following the evidence' is part of a pattern of continually raising the bar so as never to be convinced. You may as well say, "I will never believe in Jesus unless a contemporary Chinese guy who emigrated to Levant, and happened to follow around and record Jesus and his works!"

History is about knowing where to find evidence. We look to Roman sources to confirm that Jesus was there, his interactions with the Roman body politic, but to think that those who are committed to running the Empire, of a different religion, would pay more than passing interest in the message of Jesus would silly.

There are however those who WOULD be interested in the message of Christ, and indeed we find an abundant amount of information on that message, as we do contemporary Jewish accounts that attempt to disparage it.

It may not answer the question of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, but it paints a fascinating and very well documented account of a historical Jesus.

That atheists deny it? That they claim they are following evidence? Such claims given the evidence, simply do not hold water.

Seeing the trend of Jesus Conspiracy growing in atheism, I for one recommend that we stop even giving the pretense of respectability to the position. All we are doing is allowing our kids to be miseducated with falsehood so they can go out and offend people. What s to gain by that?

Obviously, there was something that started the stories which led to our gospels, but what that origin is we cannot say with honesty.

Agh yeah, we can. And Scholars do.

I don't think the arguments are weak. If weak is looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion then we are all weak in that sense. When any person, atheist or christian, looks at the evidence with a presupposition they are already displaying weakness. We must look at all of the evidence and let it tell us what it says and what it does not say. If we are trying to find a specific idea from them that we hold as bias, then we will never find what the text actually says.

This is sophistry and claiming that your conclusions are based on evidence without actually examining the evidence.

No offense brother, but this statement is in the same vein, "You see I do not believe in gravity because I examine the evidence and am not convinced, in a sense, all argument for and against gravity, given the dearth if available evidence, are weak - but I am merely following the evidence."

Again, history is all about debate. So when the near unanimous opinion of period scholars rejects a rebuttal to the point where they barely even address it anymore ... well, academically, that is the same as denying gravity.

I don't understand what a moon landing conspiracy has to do with the argument. The crux of the argument is whether or not the extra-biblical texts give any creedence to the gospels and the rest of the NT.

Because they are both conspiracy theories with same kind of 'logical' support.

I deny the claims made by the bible and any other work if those claims are supernatural.

Then you deny based on nothing. You can neither confirm or deny them. You are however, calling a group of men who wrote them down liars with no evidence whatsoever. Indeed, what can be verified by these men HAS been, and still you call them liars?

I realize your position is not intended to be quite so harsh, but that is the reality of it. Either the Synoptic gospels are lies or they are not. It cannot be both.

The reason is because they cannot be demonstrated as true and they are far fetched from our reality.

Miracles are routinely documented in our day in age. In the age of google, finding the evidence for them is not hard.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

http://www.holyfire.org/eng/

So, is it evidence you are following - or your preconceptions you are sating?

If the text says, Jesus ate a sandwich, then I have no problem believing that, but when he turned 5 loaves into enough for thousands, then a little red flag goes up.

And yet you will deny it without evidence? To doubt is one thing, to deny another.

This is across the board for me. If a man tells me that he was abducted by aliens, I dismiss this as being false until this person can show me it to be true.

You mean like writing it down? Documenting witnesses who saw the abduction? Finding physical evidence to corroborate the story? (I.e. archaeology)?

And at what point would the evidence for such an event become convincing for you? Thomas provides just such a lesson in skepticism does he not?

With the gospels, we are so far removed from the time in which these events supposedly happened that we cannot verify any of them.

So we should call them all liars and ignore all the corroborating evidence. When we can verify men are telling the truth about things we CAN verify, we should they are lying in each and every case when state something we cannot verify?

By such antics, we can deny anything.

All we have are copies of copies and we don't even know who wrote the originals.

That is not honest. There are some we cannot verify, and there are others we can. And we are supposed to trust that you are following evidence are we?

I therefore cannot honestly say that the claims are true because I cannot independently verify them.

See Thomas.

I don't think we should appeal to authority here.

That is why some people have Ph.D's and others do not. Expertise is authority, and when the nearly united authority on the subject agree, that is apowerful statement.

And, sometimes, they are TH'ds and are influenced by their religious beliefs. How about LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE. Making lists of the evidence without examining them in context doesn't do anything.

Indeed, atheists are the first to quote any 'expert' that even comes close to Jesus Myth, and yet readily reject the mass body of expertise?

Its is exactly what Wells does, does he not?

And that is Wells, not me. I claim that the text found in Antiquities by Josephus is actually calling James a Christ or more properly, one anointed, which is congruent with the high priest position. I have shown why in my last post using simple subject/predicate rules

.

Then, let's look at THE EVIDENCE.. not point to a theologically inclined web site that makes a list. (hint: Just because someone calls themselves rational, doesn't mean they are)

I quoted the relevant sentence for you. The one who originally took it out of context and attempted to say it was James who was referred to as the Christ was ... Wells.

Wells claims routinely show up in Jesus Conspiracy claims (whether knowingly or not). But you will forgive me for thinking you were not just sitting around reading the original works of early Roman Historians and stumbled across the works.

Such a supposition is, IMHO, silly. All of us begin our historical examination by reading secondary academic sources to familiarize ourselves with the history. And the simple fact of the matter is that almost all the works denying Jesus have the basis in Wells work.

Funny thuing though.. the person that is this PhD in acn



A little bit of sleuthing makes that quite apparent, quite quickly.

This is a baseless assertion. Even though I don't adhere to everything Wells claims, it would be dishonest to claim no one outside of atheism takes him seriously.

No, it isn't. There is NO ONE outside of atheism that adheres to the Jesus Myth. Even inside atheism, there are those who actually seek the truth and are then left in shock as their coreligionists turn on them.

You respond by providing evidence that the claim is false and shutting the mouths of those in error.

Except conspiracy theorists are not interested in evidence are they? Instead they make up ever higher standards of evidence by which they can continue to deny into eternity. It doesn't matter that these same standards eliminate almost ALL historical figures ...

Indeed, denial can be as much an argument from absurdity and rabid conformity. I for one think the Jesus Conspiracy is a prime example of a negative argument from absurdity.

Nothing you tell them or show them will convince them. The near unanimous opinion of period scholars from ALL religious back ground makes no dent in their belief. The complete annihilation of those who support the conspiracy matters not ... they are, just following the evidence.

At some point, you simply have to acknowledge that conspiracy theorists are well beyond the bounds of logic.

Again this is a baseless claim.

No, it is not. The Jesus Myth has been repeatedly rubbished. The evidence for that has been provided many times, yet still you deny ... even as you claim you are 'just following the evidence'.

Please, take the time to actually read this.

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

The claim is not baseless, its proven.
[/quote]

"Proven" is such a strong word. So you have a theologist who makes that claim. . and someone who is highly religious. Whoopie. Let's look at the evidence, and see if his claims have anything in basis.

I would say that you do the exact same from the otherside of the issue. One honest question I would like you to answer. Can Jesus be a myth? Is that a possibility?

The problem is that the evidence supports the historical Jesus. Yet you apply the criticism of your position blindly to the other? Without evidence?

The evidence for a 'historical Jesus' is weak at best, and has been corrupted by modification by Christians in many cases. When there is modification of the evidence , it weakens that value of that evidence.

You do realize that in attempting to over turn millennia of history, you have to make a very strong case - and the only thing you have presented in evidence is a claim that has already been refuted - and can be attributed to the Professor of German who has been rejected.

It's more than just Wells.. and you know what.. if there are 2000 years of people believing something that it is not true, the length of time does not make it any truer.

[quote\
In short, your case is severely lacking.
[/quote]

Funny.. and here you are talkign about Well, yet, the op mentioned Dr Richard Carrier.. Gosh.. I wonder all about that.

I would ask you for any extra-biblical evidence for Jesus. If all you have are the writings in the NT then I would say you have a very shakey foundation for acceptance of the claims made within.

At this point, I would ask you to use google.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

Really?? You want to bring up those all hacks, without actually examining the evidence?? This are what are know as 'PRATTS', or 'Points address a thousand Times. I would be MORE than happy to go to a head to head debate on those 'evidences', and show they are far far weaker than you are claiming.


Want to examine each and every one of those 'pieces of evidence' in depth, and see how well they hold up to scrutiny? Of course, showing each and every one of those pieces of evidence are weak or wishful thinking won't prove Jesus didn't exist,.. but it would show that those pieces of evidence are insufficient to show he did.

There is also a wonderful book called "Jesus Outside the New Testament" by James Van Voorst.
[/qu
\
You however, just following the evidence, sitting around the old fire place reading ancient first person accounts of Jesus could not find any of these, eh?

Now, do you understand why people view the 'skepticism' of Christ as simple dishonesty?

Well, for the reason that skeptics claim the evidence FOR the historical Jesus is dishonest.. It appears to me at least that there is a great deal of assumption on the part of 'believers'.. and distortion of the evidence. There is also the false claim that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses.. even though many of the biblican scholars that are Christians will agree they are not.

[Nickman]

Well, there is where we have a massive disagreement. Wells, and a precious few other 'scholars', are the only ones who claim the Jesus Myth. Period Scholars from all faiths have repeatedly rubbished the work of Wells (who is the only one of the scholars to even be given the pretext of respectability) and generally ignore them.

This may be true, but as I stated I am not a proponent of his works. I look at my works and those that have merit.

So when you say that you follow evidence or don't play favorites ... the evidence clearly speaks otherwise. As it always does with conspiracy theorists.

I don't understand why you're claiming conspiracy when I have stated that I have no ties to Well's works and I am not a proponent for them. To me it is moot. I look at all the evidence presented. Please explain to me what evidence you speak of and what "otherwise means"?

Anyone who has actually read Wells would quickly see that his book is a literal cacophony of double standards, innuendo, maligning intent, and simple misdirection.

Obviously not anyone, or there wouldn't be proponents in Well's camp.

No historian who reads it walks away from that work without feeling professionally slimed. It is an affront not to just to religion, but to academics.

I think you posted this just to poison the well.

It is the basis of the modern Jesus Conspiracy, and I for one think that the prevalence of the Jesus Myth in atheist circles is a direct and clarion rebuttal to atheist claims that it is logical rather than emotional.

I am an atheist and the existence has nothing to do with atheism. There are some who feel that there is no evidence to believe Jesus even existed, while there are some who think the evidence speak otherwise. The prevalent thought among atheists, honestly, would be that whether or not he did exist he was not divine. That would entail a supernatural connotation and atheists do not accept the supernatural until proven otherwise.

Atheists are the ONLY ones who ascribe to the Jesus Conspiracy - and do so by quoting a maligned academic.

Until you can show that there is not one other person outside of atheism that believes Jesus was a myth, your assertion is taken as assumption. There are agnostics who believe he was a myth, buddhists, and followers of other religions who don't care one bit about Jesus. This is the same way a Christian looks at all other religions and their divine characters as being myths. So you might be guilty of the same when it comes to other religions.

And this is an example of the sophistry. The gospels ARE historical documents, they are first person accounts of Jesus and his works.

No they are not first person accounts. First person accounts include the words, "I" , "me" and "we". The gospels are third person accounts and scholars agree. The rules of first and third person also agree that these documents are in fact third person.

First person
Narration from the perspective of "I" or "We." Narrators may be involved with the action or may simply observe it;...

Third person
narrator is removed from the story (he, she, they, him, her...).

Your claim that they are first person is completely false. I suggest you read more about the rules of literature before claiming such.

The gospels are third person omniscient which is what we see in most fiction literature. This means the person sees all but is not actually there. This is evident in the narrative of Gethsemane, when Jesus goes off by himself in solitude yet the writer knows what he says. This is also evident in the temptation when Jesus went into solitude and was tempted by satan. If these were first person Jesus would never be alone. Your premise is false.

In fact, each of the Synoptic gospels is written for a different audience, as we would expect from different Apostles giving messages of the same Jesus to different groups that they are preaching too.

Please elaborate on this.

And then again, the extra Biblical sources would not, and indeed do not, comment on the religious nature of Jesus, save that they acknowledge he is there and having a profound effect in ... in what is still a distant and little concerned area of the Roman Empire. That Jesus is mentioned at all is, logically, a testament to veracity of Jesus.

No it is not. Just because there is a mention of a person does not give merit to their existence. If this is the case, then Sam Wise and Frodo are real people, not just actors.

Yet the fact remains that ONLY atheists look at a wide record of evidence and then make the fantastical claim that Jesus was myth.

This is false and I have already shown why.

And when we examine the record, as you do, we wind up clearly supporting the historicity of Jesus. So why quote Wells and claim you are following evidence? A skeptic questions both sides, and when one finds themselves quoting a rubbished source to maintain skepticism ... that is not longer skepticism is it?

Do you read posts? I have never once quoted Wells, and have been pretty adamant to the fact that I am not sided with his views.

Josephus is hardly the sole source of Jesus is he? And yes, when you claim that Jospehus is calling James 'the Christ' rather than Jesus - you are quoting Wells.

No I am not quoting Wells, I am quoting myself. If my views align on certain subjects with WLC, am I quoting him too? No. The evidence is there and I state my view on that evidence. I have not seen a good argument that refutes the grammatical construction of that text to mean that Jesus is being called Christ in the same terms as is used in the NT. Josephus calls many people christ, but you don't seem to want to look at that. Also the construction of subject/predicate agreement point to James as being called Christ. In this sense he is being called anointed which is congruent with the office of high priest. I have already gone over this once.

Josephus is not in isolation, and his works AND THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHING EVIDENCE are what are applied to Josephus's works in COMPARISON to all the others. Once again, an extra-Biblical source mentions Jesus, also called Christ, and the direct translation was provided you with a source for verification.

And I gave my opposing view to that "verification".

Yet now you claim you were quoting Josephus rather than Wells maligning statements about him? That simply does not add up.

I did quote Josephus in an earlier post and gave the reasons why I don't buy the "Jesus being called christ" argument. All you have to do is read the post.

So, you will only believe when Roman Chroniclers move away from running the empire and instead follow around Jesus before he is well known and pass along his ministering information?

I will believe when there is evidence to believe, so far I only have the gospels which I hold to be highly errant and unreliable.

In short, you have simply created a standard of evidence that can never be met - and that is not 'following the evidence' is part of a pattern of continually raising the bar so as never to be convinced. You may as well say, "I will never believe in Jesus unless a contemporary Chinese guy who emigrated to Levant, and happened to follow around and record Jesus and his works!"

You seem to be placing me in Well's camp, when I am not. I don't know if Jesus actually existed as a man because the evidence is inconclusive. I assert that he was not a god or divine.

History is about knowing where to find evidence. We look to Roman sources to confirm that Jesus was there, his interactions with the Roman body politic, but to think that those who are committed to running the Empire, of a different religion, would pay more than passing interest in the message of Jesus would silly.

The problem is that there are no contemperary accounts of the Jesus in the gospels. We have many accounts of other things but none that speak of a Jesus that can be reconciled to the gospel accounts. I stated before, if we were to take these accounts of other Jesus' as the one found in the gospels, we would have to rewrite the whole story. They don't jive.

There are however those who WOULD be interested in the message of Christ, and indeed we find an abundant amount of information on that message, as we do contemporary Jewish accounts that attempt to disparage it.

It may not answer the question of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, but it paints a fascinating and very well documented account of a historical Jesus.

No it does not. It tells us that Jesus was a popular name, but doesn't reconcile the gospel to anything extra-biblical.

That atheists deny it? That they claim they are following evidence? Such claims given the evidence, simply do not hold water.

Seeing the trend of Jesus Conspiracy growing in atheism, I for one recommend that we stop even giving the pretense of respectability to the position. All we are doing is allowing our kids to be miseducated with falsehood so they can go out and offend people. What s to gain by that?

As I stated before it is not atheists only.

Agh yeah, we can. And Scholars do.

Only by taking the gospels at face value. Since they are internally inconsistent and externally inconsitent, there is no reason to assume them as reliable. Add to this the fact that we have no originals, you are basing the reliability of the gospels on faith.

This is sophistry and claiming that your conclusions are based on evidence without actually examining the evidence.

No offense brother, but this statement is in the same vein, "You see I do not believe in gravity because I examine the evidence and am not convinced, in a sense, all argument for and against gravity, given the dearth if available evidence, are weak - but I am merely following the evidence."

Evidence can only point in one direction, that is the direction I go. I have examined the evidence and posted that evidence, and then gave my thoughts on that evidence. You just don't like my conclusions.

Because they are both conspiracy theories with same kind of 'logical' support.

That is a false dichotomy. The two are not comparable.

Then you deny based on nothing. You can neither confirm or deny them. You are however, calling a group of men who wrote them down liars with no evidence whatsoever. Indeed, what can be verified by these men HAS been, and still you call them liars?

Nothing has been verified. I can dismiss their claqims because we don't even know who wrote them. It would be false for you to claim the authors reliable, when you don't know who they are. Your basing it on faith and nothing more. The gosepls are not verified, and far from it. The claims made by the anonymous authors I reject because I cannot demonstrate what they claim to be true. Niether can you. So your position is faith based which is unreliable.

realize your position is not intended to be quite so harsh, but that is the reality of it. Either the Synoptic gospels are lies or they are not. It cannot be both.

And until proven that they are true, they remain in the neutral. By default there is no reason to take them as fact. the authors made claims which have not been verified so there is no reason to believe them on faith.

Miracles are routinely documented in our day in age. In the age of google, finding the evidence for them is not hard.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

http://www.holyfire.org/eng/

I fail to see how these claims have made it to peer-review and been confirmed beyond any doubt that the occurences could not have happened naturlly. It also doesn't take into effect all those that didn't get healed.

So, is it evidence you are following - or your preconceptions you are sating?

Evidence, which is still on my side. If there was any real evidence for miracles then the research would be sent for publishing and peer-review, yet no one does because the results are inconspicuous and there are too many variables that are not considered.

And yet you will deny it without evidence? To doubt is one thing, to deny another.

The evidence is reality. If a person told you that they were abducted by aliens, would you believe them?

You mean like writing it down? Documenting witnesses who saw the abduction? Finding physical evidence to corroborate the story? (I.e. archaeology)?

Thats a start, which we don't have for the claims in the NT.

And at what point would the evidence for such an event become convincing for you? Thomas provides just such a lesson in skepticism does he not?

I don't know Thomas, and the thrird person writer didn't seem to know him personally either. I cannot speak for a character in a story that exists only on paper. I cannot verify that the story is true, so I dont take it as iron clad as you seem to do.

So we should call them all liars and ignore all the corroborating evidence. When we can verify men are telling the truth about things we CAN verify, we should they are lying in each and every case when state something we cannot verify?

By such antics, we can deny anything.

What evidence Stubborneone? How can you verify and what have you verified?

That is not honest. There are some we cannot verify, and there are others we can. And we are supposed to trust that you are following evidence are we?

It is honest. What originals do we have? What can we verify as accurate without originals? The originals would tell us that the copies are either inaccurate or accurate and that is all they would tell us.

See Thomas.

Thomas means nothing to me. He claims nothing on his own in the gospels.

That is why some people have Ph.D's and others do not. Expertise is authority, and when the nearly united authority on the subject agree, that is apowerful statement.

Indeed, atheists are the first to quote any 'expert' that even comes close to Jesus Myth, and yet readily reject the mass body of expertise?

Its is exactly what Wells does, does he not?

Everyone quotes their favorite expert, but that does not make thenquote true. That is appeal to authority.

I quoted the relevant sentence for you. The one who originally took it out of context and attempted to say it was James who was referred to as the Christ was ... Wells.

I just happen to agree with Wells on this subject, yet I am not a proponent of his.

Wells claims routinely show up in Jesus Conspiracy claims (whether knowingly or not). But you will forgive me for thinking you were not just sitting around reading the original works of early Roman Historians and stumbled across the works.

Such a supposition is, IMHO, silly. All of us begin our historical examination by reading secondary academic sources to familiarize ourselves with the history. And the simple fact of the matter is that almost all the works denying Jesus have the basis in Wells work.

A little bit of sleuthing makes that quite apparent, quite quickly.

It is one thing to accept historical claims that are not extraordinary and it is another to accept ones that looks like all other myths.

No, it isn't. There is NO ONE outside of atheism that adheres to the Jesus Myth. Even inside atheism, there are those who actually seek the truth and are then left in shock as their coreligionists turn on them.

Ok, if you say so.

Except conspiracy theorists are not interested in evidence are they? Instead they make up ever higher standards of evidence by which they can continue to deny into eternity. It doesn't matter that these same standards eliminate almost ALL historical figures ...

Indeed, denial can be as much an argument from absurdity and rabid conformity. I for one think the Jesus Conspiracy is a prime example of a negative argument from absurdity.

Why are you still talking about conspiracy theorists? I cannot find a reason why this conversation is still being routed that way by you? I am not a conspiracy theorist and it is annoying having to answer questions in your posts that mean nothing to me.

No, it is not. The Jesus Myth has been repeatedly rubbished. The evidence for that has been provided many times, yet still you deny ... even as you claim you are 'just following the evidence'.

Please, take the time to actually read this.

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

I did previously and I gave my thoughts on it. Since I am not a Jesus-Myther it really has no relevance to me.

The claim is not baseless, its proven.

you have not showed me or anyone how it is refuted. Therefore, it is a baseless claim. The subject is still in the air.

The problem is that the evidence supports the historical Jesus. Yet you apply the criticism of your position blindly to the other? Without evidence?

again, what evidence? Please provide the evidence so we can analyze it.

You do realize that in attempting to over turn millennia of history, you have to make a very strong case - and the only thing you have presented in evidence is a claim that has already been refuted - and can be attributed to the Professor of German who has been rejected.

What claim have I presented that is refuted?

At this point, I would ask you to use google.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

There is also a wonderful book called "Jesus Outside the New Testament" by James Van Voorst.

You however, just following the evidence, sitting around the old fire place reading ancient first person accounts of Jesus could not find any of these, eh?

Now, do you understand why people view the 'skepticism' of Christ as simple dishonesty?

You view it as dishonest. I have not seen evidence to confirm that Jesus was existent, yet I don't claim he didn't. I have told you before that the evidence is inconclusive based on several facts. The evidence provided for Jesus outside the NT is lacking and I have shown that the two Jesus' are not one in the same. In order to make them the same, the NT or the extra-biblical text has to be manipulated. What your left with is the NT writings of which we have no originals, and you cannot honestly say that they represent anything of truth. You cannot honestly say that they are exact copies of the originals, and you have no idea who wrote them. Assumption is used, even by scholars, as to the authorship of these writings. It is faith that is needed to accept the NT as true and reliable.

[stubbornone]

And, sometimes, they are TH'ds and are influenced by their religious beliefs. How about LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE. Making lists of the evidence without examining them in context doesn't do anything.

This is a prime example of why I do not think Jesus Mythers are anything other than illogical denier.

Lets lay out the evidence once again shall we:

"Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea in Caesar and Christ (the third volume of his Story of Civilisation), the

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man."

"Even the famously liberal Professor Bultmann, who argued against the historicity of much of the gospels, questions the reasonableness of Jesus Mythers themselves in Jesus and the Word.

Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community."

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. 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.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

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

However, an atheist with a Ph.D in German would clearly have no bias issues?

In short, its not about evidence for Jesus Mythers, it is about finding one excuse after another to ignore the evidential record.

Ph.D's are biased, even when they come from all over the thought spectrum and are united in the opinion of the historicity of Jesus, though obviously not on his status as the son of God.

Wells, who is not even a period expert, is the sole scholar to actively deny Jesus, with Carrier being left merely to cast aspiration on SOME of the historical record for Jesus - oh yes, he is also a well known atheist who actively created the secular web which is filled with anti-Christian literature and rants.

Of course, the one throwing out the bias issue pays no attention to the obvious bias of those who deny Jesus, and the near universal rejection of their efforts.

So, once again, I ask the question: why should we the Jesus Myth with anything other than disdain?

[Nickman]

I would like to state this. For me it boils not only down to the reliability of the the scriptures but also the efficacy. I am in the camp of I don't know if Jesus existed or not. The evidence to me is inconclusive. Keep that in mind as I state my reasons for disbelief.

If an all-powerful, all-knowing god had a message that was so important, I think it would be more efficient. Here's my hypothetical example. I am gonna use the gospel message as my template.

If I were a god who wanted to convey a message, I would want that message to be 100% undeniable that it is true. To do this, I would make the actual events surrounding it verifiable. In my gospel message there would be no denying that my son Jesus was real and actually lived. This part of the story would be independently verifiable and demonstrable. I would make sure that it was "the message" that could either be denied or accepted. There would be no way to deny the actual events. It would be left to the individual to accept the message of salvation or decide to live how they want. All rules would still apply pertaining to what would happen at the judgement in this scenario. This is the most fair and reasonable way that I can conceive.

Since the events are unverifiable, the message is not taken with much efficacy and reliability. I could only expect something better from a deity who is supposed to be supreme and magnificent. Now if we replace those terms supreme and magnificent with unreliable and inefficient, I'll believe in that god all day, because thats what I observe from said deity.

[stubbornone]

Then, let's look at THE EVIDENCE.. not point to a theologically inclined web site that makes a list. (hint: Just because someone calls themselves rational, doesn't mean they are)

Well, there you have it ... that is why Jesus is a myth.

And of course, we see one side repeatedly pointing out evidence, providing scholarly reviews from all sides of theological issues, pointing out sources and arguments that clearly discredit Wells and those who follow them and provide links and evidence, indeed published peer reviewed books that are ALL ABOUT THE EVIDENCE ATHEIST CLAIM THEY ARE FOLLOWING, and we have the above statement ... as if its an intellectual, evidence based, appraisal.

I see a lot of evidence of atheists going out of their way to avoid evidence, questioning everyone else's sanity, and doing nothing but making vacuous, empty claims.

And people wonder why its so many other faith groups have trouble dealing with atheists? One certainly has to wonder why, when we see the great lengths and intellectual heights of ignoring Ph.D bestowed by hallowed universities, and arguement who pass peer review of similar level experts ... well, just because you call yourself a rationalist, or tell everyone you are following the evidence ... certainly doesn't mean you are.

Please goat, apply your standard to your position. For I see you presenting not a single shred of evidence, nor are you addressing any of the salient points that anyone has raised about the culpability, indeed the very believeability, of the Jesus Conspiracy.

[stubbornone]

I would like to state this. For me it boils not only down to the reliability of the the scriptures but also the efficacy. I am in the camp of I don't know if Jesus existed or not. The evidence to me is inconclusive. Keep that in mind as I state my reasons for disbelief.

If an all-powerful, all-knowing god had a message that was so important, I think it would be more efficient. Here's my hypothetical example. I am gonna use the gospel message as my template.

#1 - Your first line up there establishes no line at which you would believe - which is exactly the point I am making. Second, it makes no case in support of your conclusion, merely stating that you, hardly an expert, disagree with ... er, all the experts, because you are not convinced.

Again, and very clearly, intellectually, how is that any different than saying, "Well, I don't think gravity is real. You see the evidence for it is just not convincing enough, and even though several experts have found clear evidence of it, even though it defines the very universe and how it functions, I am not convinced, for I will continue to believe that some other explanation for us sticking to the surface is a more likely conclusion than gravity ..."

Its the same thing is it not? Notice how I don't actually address the evidence of gravity in that statement? And indeed, I can find the Wells of gravity denial.

http://todayswhisper.com/denying-gravity

Photographic evidence no less! Therefore the denial of gravity is ... rational?

#2 - God does give an instrument of evidence, its called the Holy Spirit - that is its function. So, God did exactly what you asked, knowing full well that people would ask exactly what you asked. Go figure.