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.

[East of Eden]

He may have been a credible historian but all he had were Christian sources.

And you know that how?

What other sources can you show to exist outside of Christianity?

That is an irrelevant question, and you and I don't know where Tacitus got his information. If Rome's greatest historian isn't good enough for you, this discussion is a waste of time.

We don't discard the sources, we show that they are not reliable representations of an extra-biblical source due to their bias of source material.

What false bias, or is that just your unsupported speculation?

I was a Christian for 25 years. I never saw one miracle despite my devotion and zeal. I discredit the gospel sources because they are not eyewitness accounts, they are contradictory, and they date to the second century. They are copies of copies and I have no way to confirm any of what is written is actually true. Neither do you.

I disagree with you on your list, but will note many intelligent people have come to faith because of the evidence for the Gospels.

[Nickman]

No, you have not.

Once again, having rebutted your position you are essentially asking that we respect your uneducated speculation about Jesus because ... you are too lazy to respond?

Really?

By all means, please point to your analysis of what the evidence for Jesus that is on the record actually means then, if not that Jesus existed? Particularly in light of your recent RE-ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, that you don't even know that there is both extra-Biblical (indeed archaeological), and extra-Christian sources that plainly mention Jesus?

Why treat your speculation as anything other than a random wild guess to support your own biases? That is what it is isn't it?

What you are asking me to do is is to repeat all I have already been debating with others such as, Mithrae, Historia, Eden and others. Im not gonna do that just because you cannot go to my previous posts and read my reply that already answers your questions.

When did I REACKNOWLEDGE what you claim? Please provide evidence for this claim.

[Nickman]

He may have been a credible historian but all he had were Christian sources.

And you know that how?

What other sources can you show to exist outside of Christianity?

That is an irrelevant question, and you and I don't know where Tacitus got his information. If Rome's greatest historian isn't good enough for you, this discussion is a waste of time.

So you seem to think that I cannot question Tacitus' sources since we find no other extra-biblical source from which he could draw from?

What false bias, or is that just your unsupported speculation?

If the sources that these post 1st century writers used were strictly Christian then there is bias. Not bias of the author, bias of the source documents.

I disagree with you on your list, but will note many intelligent people have come to faith because of the evidence for the Gospels.

What evidence of the gospels do you speak of?

[stubbornone]

No, you have not.

Once again, having rebutted your position you are essentially asking that we respect your uneducated speculation about Jesus because ... you are too lazy to respond?

Really?

By all means, please point to your analysis of what the evidence for Jesus that is on the record actually means then, if not that Jesus existed? Particularly in light of your recent RE-ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, that you don't even know that there is both extra-Biblical (indeed archaeological), and extra-Christian sources that plainly mention Jesus?

Why treat your speculation as anything other than a random wild guess to support your own biases? That is what it is isn't it?

What you are asking me to do is is to repeat all I have already been debating with others such as, Mithrae, Historia, Eden and others. Im not gonna do that just because you cannot go to my previous posts and read my reply that already answers your questions.

When did I REACKNOWLEDGE what you claim? Please provide evidence for this claim.

One can only conclude from this post that the argument is grotesquely dishonest. Post #287 REPROVIDES exactly what Nickman, and apparent master of all things relating to Christian evidence in unaware of. Its been provided before, and equally ignored.

When a poster is too lazy to click on links providing exactly what he is asking for, one can only conclude that such extreme laziness is a sign of the intent to avoid an actual search for the truth. A clarion, "Believing in my speculation rather than ... er, actual evidence. Harrah the Jesus Myth!"

Again, he claims that his opinion is based on scholarship and evidence, but he provides none and pointedly ignores evidence when provided.

If any greater evidence were needed to prove that the Jesus Myth was little more than a bigoted conspiracy theory, Nickman's latest bland denial provides ample fodder for that case.

Again, lets open the floor to anyone as Nickman will not only not answer the questions posed to him, but is actively claiming that questions asked were answered somewhere, where, like the scholars he is referencing, we can only guess at.

Why should we treat such an opinion as if its the result of study rather than ignorance and bigoted bias?

[stubbornone]

He may have been a credible historian but all he had were Christian sources.

And you know that how?

What other sources can you show to exist outside of Christianity?

That is an irrelevant question, and you and I don't know where Tacitus got his information. If Rome's greatest historian isn't good enough for you, this discussion is a waste of time.

We don't discard the sources, we show that they are not reliable representations of an extra-biblical source due to their bias of source material.

What false bias, or is that just your unsupported speculation?

I was a Christian for 25 years. I never saw one miracle despite my devotion and zeal. I discredit the gospel sources because they are not eyewitness accounts, they are contradictory, and they date to the second century. They are copies of copies and I have no way to confirm any of what is written is actually true. Neither do you.

I disagree with you on your list, but will note many intelligent people have come to faith because of the evidence for the Gospels.

East, he's been shown this several times, and still he persists on making factually inaccurate statements:

Date Rage:
30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

And yet, even though most of the gospels are CLEARLY first century, he makes the bald faced claim that they are all second century or later.

Not only is his 'evidence' nothing more than plagurized Wells, a fully discredited source, but his statement are provably factually wrong.

Indeed, why treat Jesus Mythers and their denial as anything other than meandering denial at any cost?

Indeed, here is what scholars have to say:

"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."

"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."

"Given the broad consensus against the Jesus Myth, it has been left to a few non-professional commentators, such as Earl Doherty and GA Wells to question Jesus' existence. Despite their vigorous efforts, they have failed, and continue to fail, to even give their position respectability in the broader academic community."

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

I think Nicjman is providing a wonderful demonstration on the accuracy of the NT Scholars assessment of the Jesus Myth.

What do you think?

[EduChris]

...I think Nicjman is providing a wonderful demonstration on the accuracy of the NT Scholars assessment of the Jesus Myth.

What do you think?

Proponents of the "Jesus Myth" theory demonstrate that people will generally believe whatever they want to believe. Scholarship and reason and logic and evidence all play second fiddle to human emotional needs and preferences. We are not as logical and rational as we imagine ourselves to be.

[otseng]

#1 - you can use google, and that question has already been answered and sources have been provided for you. You are clearly choosing to ignore them.

#2 - you have to deal with the evidence that is there, not ask for additional sources. Your problem set is not absurdity and continuing to raise standards to the point that antiquity can never reach it. It is examining what is there:

And, to above.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliM ... r&dq=jesus outside the new testament&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CwXeUMjVJ6SQiAK0q4CQCw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

Moderator Comment

I've said this before, but telling someone to go google the answer themselves is not an appropriate response. Pointing to a specific book for them to read is better, but still not sufficient. Think of it as writing a paper to support your thesis. The paper would have to contain specific points to back up your thesis. The paper should not simply say, "here's a list of google search results and here's a whole book on the topic."

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.

[stubbornone]

#1 - you can use google, and that question has already been answered and sources have been provided for you. You are clearly choosing to ignore them.

#2 - you have to deal with the evidence that is there, not ask for additional sources. Your problem set is not absurdity and continuing to raise standards to the point that antiquity can never reach it. It is examining what is there:

#1- The evidence provided to me has been addressed and continues to be addressed with people that actually know debate etiquette, Mithrae, Historia, Student, Eden.

#2- I am examining what is there and what is being debated currently. You just seem to want to jump in and derail what is already being addressed with blanket statements.

#1 - you keep claiming something without supporting it, even as you run to the moderators and claim that entire books, along with the results of a google search that lists literally thousands of sources (many of them previously provided) are not good enough.

Enough with the double standard. You make the claim, you back it up.

#2 - That your arguments have weaknesses does not mean pointing them out is an attempt to derail a thread. Its an attempt by you to dodge the questions. Please stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks that speak to state of mind.

The intent is civility.

The question you keep avoiding is why your position, loaded with factual errors (whose mention is clearly meant to derail rather than simple accuracy), is why ANYONE should treat as honest analysis rather than a biased interpretation from atheist?

Be sure to support rather than just claim you have supported something, because the only link I see anywhere in your posts is a reference to rationalwiki, a WELL KNOWN ATHEIST FORUM, that only points more strongly to use of highly biased material.

Feel free to address.

[Nickman]

One can only conclude from this post that the argument is grotesquely dishonest. Post #287 REPROVIDES exactly what Nickman, and apparent master of all things relating to Christian evidence in unaware of. Its been provided before, and equally ignored.

Post 287 is you posting a link to a book and saying read this and educate yourself, which is outside of the rules and etiquette of the forum. That is improper debate. You must provide an argument then source it with quotes to the part you are citing. Giving me a book that you like means nothing. Please read the rules and print them out. Then place them on your computer desk and read them before each post. This will help you educate yourself on proper debate.

When a poster is too lazy to click on links providing exactly what he is asking for, one can only conclude that such extreme laziness is a sign of the intent to avoid an actual search for the truth. A clarion, "Believing in my speculation rather than ... er, actual evidence. Harrah the Jesus Myth!"

Again, your not posting within regs. It is laziness to just post a book and say "here read it". You bring nothing to the debate and are out of regs.

Again, he claims that his opinion is based on scholarship and evidence, but he provides none and pointedly ignores evidence when provided.

Blanket statement
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

If any greater evidence were needed to prove that the Jesus Myth was little more than a bigoted conspiracy theory, Nickman's latest bland denial provides ample fodder for that case.

Blanket statement

Again, lets open the floor to anyone as Nickman will not only not answer the questions posed to him, but is actively claiming that questions asked were answered somewhere, where, like the scholars he is referencing, we can only guess at.

Why should we treat such an opinion as if its the result of study rather than ignorance and bigoted bias?

As stated before, you are asking me questions I have been engaged in for days now. If you want to know the answers read my posts. I have answered every question on your list in posts to Mithrae, Historia and Eden. Im not gonna repeat myself just because you want to jump in mid conversation and disregard what has already been debated.

[stubbornone]

...I think Nicjman is providing a wonderful demonstration on the accuracy of the NT Scholars assessment of the Jesus Myth.

What do you think?

Proponents of the "Jesus Myth" theory demonstrate that people will generally believe whatever they want to believe. Scholarship and reason and logic and evidence all play second fiddle to human emotional needs and preferences. We are not as logical and rational as we imagine ourselves to be.

I agree, but not all atheists believe the Jesus Myth:

"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

So the question is less about the faults of atheism, then it is about why people are so quick to believe something that even their best educated coreligionists seem keen to deny?

The Second portion however deals with the reality of the Jesus Myth. Even Nickman's own sources, like rationalwiki, point toward the inclusion of something basely false and spread among atheists - where in that community alone it garners traction.

So when the best educated atheists think its a shame, how then did the Jesus Myth get into and onto so many clearing houses of 'atheist intellectualism'?

At what point do we simply dismiss it? Acknowledge that it is tomfoolery?