Why are all the scholars changing their mind on

[alwayson]

A lot of mainstream scholars are changing their minds on the existence of Jesus.



Arthur Droge, professor of early Christianity at UCSD, Kurt Noll, associate professor of religion at Brandon University, and Thomas Thompson, renowned professor of theology, emeritus, at the University of Copenhagen believe that you cannot say whether Jesus existed or not.

Thomas Brodie, director emeritus of the Dominican Biblical Centre at the University of Limerick, Ireland, and Robert Price, who has two Ph.D.s from Drew University, in theology and New Testament studies, and Richard Carrier, Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, are certain Jesus never existed.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1 by alwayson]

"scholar"?

What a joke that word has become.

[help3434]

Considering that none of us here are experts, I should think that the scholarly consensus on this, or any, topic should be of great value. I would not merely dismiss the overwhelming consensus of biologists regarding Evolution, for example, as mere 'double fallacy'. At the same time, we have to recognize that consulting experts in a field of study cannot, in and of itself, decide a matter. In any debate, we must always examine the evidence.

Sure, but the level of evidence for a process that has been occuring around the world for millions of years, and the level of evidence for the existence of one man who was not a secular ruler who lived thousands of years ago is not the same to say the least.

[help3434]

And yet when called to present this alleged direct evidence, christians are woefully inadequate to the task.

You should never mistake people who ignore you as "inadequate to the task". You're prejudging people who are truly ignoring you.

I've never been inadequate to the task. Since the four gospels detail Jesus' life and ministry, we have evidence of his existence. If you don't consider the Bible to be evidence, you may have a problem with bias. Anti-Bible prejudice is not a sound point of view. You carry a burden of proof to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the Bible. Until you show something reasonable, we have to accept the evidence of the gospels as-is since it has a 2000-year pedigree of acceptance as actual history.

(You may also want to revisit how you define "direct evidence". That would include eye-witness accounts, which is what the gospels are. "Indirect evidence" would be that of non-eye-witnesses who had TEMPORAL RELEVANCE, and most historians who wrote of Jesus did have it in the form of access to primary sources. Non-temporal indirect sources, referring to Bible Scholars in the 21st century, are not legitimate sources because they are neither eye-witnesses, nor do they have access to them. From this point of view, the gospels are the only legitimate direct evidence, and there is no DIRECT evidence in existence that contradicts them.)

The Gospels are eye witness accounts? Are you sure? Every part of all four gospels? Were Matthew and Luke eye witnesses to the birth of Jesus? Was Luke an eyewitness to Zechariah naming John the Baptist? Was Matthew an eye witness to Jesus praying in the Garden of Eden with Peter and the sons of Zebedee away from the other disciples?

[Leucius Charinus]

Please provide evidence that modern historical Jesus research is (a) an industry,

The collective of tenured theologians may be considered to be an industry who's mission statement is to promulgate "Church Dogma" - and who may be dismissed from the industry (See the OP) if they oppose "Church Dogma". The industry may be sub-classified as a "Belief Industry" which has for centuries, preyed upon the young and the uneducated.

I asked for evidence that modern historical Jesus research is an 'industry'. You've provided no evidence.

Instead, what you've given me is more unfounded assertions.

It is not an unfounded assertion that the education system is regarded and classified as a Tertiary Sector of modern industry "involved in the provision of services - including teachers, managers and other service providers." Industry is the production of a good or service within an economy within Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sectors.

Please provide evidence that all scholars of the historical Jesus are 'theologians.'

Theologians (graduates from theology colleges and institutions) represent the largest subset of the "Jesus Industry". Historically, "Eduard Meyer was, at least in Germany, the first non-theologian to write a scholarly history of the origins of Christianity, and this happened only in 1921."

Please provide evidence that they have a 'mission statement'.

My response examines the history of the rise of modern scholarship. One cannot wave away the history of the "mission of the church", and I should not need to outline the depravity of this mission in its historical perspective.

Please provide evidence that they promote 'Church Dogma.'

What would any of them do without the Bible or without the 4th century "Church History" of Eusebius?

And please provide evidence that these historians, whose scholarly output is largely confined to peer-reviewed journals and academic books, 'prey upon the young and the uneducated.'

No matter how squeaky-clean a picture one paints of modern scholarship, one must not make the mistake of leaving unexamined the history of that scholarship. If you read what I wrote, you will see that the claim I made was that the Biblical scholarship of the 16th-18th century, bolstered by "Blasphemy Laws" 'preyed upon the young and the uneducated.'

Before that epoch the "Church Industry" conducted its own inquisitions, its own executions and its own genocides in the name of its DOGMA.

... and (b) it's goal is to maintain the status quo.

It's previous goal (for the centuries which followed the Church Inquisitions) was to impose the status quo by means of "Blasphemy Laws". Those who made any statement against the status quo of "Church Dogma" were targeted by the national and state laws (much like the Islamic blasphemy laws of today). As such - in the past - its goals were not just to maintain its own status quo, but to insinuate the Religious Dogma into national and state legal systems.

Since the relaxation of these Blasphemy Laws in recent centuries, the Jesus industry has sought to maintain the status quo by such actions as ex-communicating its flock should they NOT kow-tow to the "Church Dogma". (See the OP).

Again, no evidence, just more unfounded assertions.

Again, the claim is that we are dealing with a "Church Organisation slash Industry" (tertiary sector and education of children and adults) which was CORRUPT in the worst possible ways. This is not an unfounded assertion, but rather the historical truth of the Church in centuries past.

Please provide evidence that modern scholarship on the historical Jesus was previously aimed at enforcing 'blasphemy laws', that it's goal was to 'insinuate the Religious Dogma into national and state legal systems',

Again, that the Church Organisation historically supported and clarified 'blasphemy laws', that it's goal was to 'insinuate the Religious Dogma into national and state legal systems', cannot be denied.

The only question is whether modern scholarship is COMPLETELY aware of the heritage of the Church Industry that it seems to embrace with open arms.

The dogma of the Church Industry has not changed substantially in these centuries and although a number of new generations of "modern scholarship" have taken up the discussion and the commentary upon commentary upon commentary of theological arguments - such as the existence (or non-existence) of Jesus - the DOGMA remains the same DOGMA.

.... and that these scholars have the power to 'ex-communicate' those who disagree with them.

Thomas Brodie was ex-communicated by his Head Scholar - the Pope.

Mike Licona loses his job over the Matthean Zombie Affair ...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularout ... atthew-27/

It is common knowledge that scholars studying at a theological institution or college MUST accept the dogma of the Church industry. It has been so for 16 centuries, and it - the Dogma - is not going to change, unless it is exposed as a forgery.

I have absolutely no reason to trust the historical integrity of the so-called "Historical Narratives" of the Church Organisation and every reason to classify them as false, corrupt, forged and pseudo-historical material, based upon the evidence of exposed forgeries, and upon the depraved actions of the church in its historical framework. No amount of modern scholarship is going to turn this history of Church corruption into any semblance of legitimacy.

The same distrust applies to the documents and manuscripts "found by the Church Industry in its archives".


The Tertiary Industry Sector supplying dogmatic education in the area of "Church History" is still reliant upon a documentary tradition that was preserved by the corrupt church organisation during a ruthless epoch of late antiquity and the middle ages.

What I don't understand is why modern scholarship refuses to countenance the corruption of the church industry in centuries past but instead automatically extends to them the benefit of the doubt in regard to the authenticity of manuscripts which they "suddenly find in their archives" - for example with the Tacitus and Pliny manuscript "discoveries" of the 15th century. Or indeed the handwritten letter of Jesus or the One True Cross, "discovered" in the 4th century?

Shall these manuscripts be considered legitimate until they are demonstrated to be MORE CHURCH INDUSTRY FORGERIES, or shall they be considered as more church industry forgeries until they are proved to be legitimate? Modern scholarship runs with the former, IMO in great error. Why should the Church Industry be trusted given its history?

You don't seem to have answered this fundamental question. Is it a matter of faith, or of principles, or of a belief cultured by research, or is it the matter of the status quo of "Church Industry Dogma"?

[99percentatheism]

There is probably upwards of thousands of "scholars" that believe Jesus existed.

The label scholar, is about as weighty as the title "Doctor."

Dime a dozen nowadays.

[Joab]

There is probably upwards of thousands of "scholars" that believe Jesus existed.

The label scholar, is about as weighty as the title "Doctor."

Dime a dozen nowadays.

My advice would be to stay away from doctors.
Did you know that they use "evilution" to heal the sick?

[Strider324]

And yet when called to present this alleged direct evidence, christians are woefully inadequate to the task.

You should never mistake people who ignore you as "inadequate to the task". You're prejudging people who are truly ignoring you.

I've never been inadequate to the task. Since the four gospels detail Jesus' life and ministry, we have evidence of his existence. If you don't consider the Bible to be evidence, you may have a problem with bias. Anti-Bible prejudice is not a sound point of view. You carry a burden of proof to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the Bible. Until you show something reasonable, we have to accept the evidence of the gospels as-is since it has a 2000-year pedigree of acceptance as actual history.

(You may also want to revisit how you define "direct evidence". That would include eye-witness accounts, which is what the gospels are. "Indirect evidence" would be that of non-eye-witnesses who had TEMPORAL RELEVANCE, and most historians who wrote of Jesus did have it in the form of access to primary sources. Non-temporal indirect sources, referring to Bible Scholars in the 21st century, are not legitimate sources because they are neither eye-witnesses, nor do they have access to them. From this point of view, the gospels are the only legitimate direct evidence, and there is no DIRECT evidence in existence that contradicts them.)

It is beyond laughable to pretend that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, being that these spurious 'eyewitnesses' apparently thought that this Jesus was so unimportant that they never bothered to write a single word about him until DECADES after his alleged death. If you yourself were a witness to Lazarus being brought back from the dead - just how long would you wait to write EVERYTHING you could about this miracle. And yet these 'believers' couldn't spare the time from their busy lives to put pen to paper for more than 50 years?? Again, laughable.

You can pretend as well that the Bible is evidence of Jesus, just as I can pretend that the Lord of the Rings is evidence of Frodo Baggins. We're still both pretending.....

[Strider324]

[Replying to Leucius Charinus]

I can tell you the cause of the "deepening of silence" of the first century:

The farther away we get from any point in time, the less available evidence there is. The reason for this is simple: evidence degrades over time. The longer the stretch of time, the less evidence you can ever expect to find.

Your assertion is demonstrably false. Alexander of Macedonia lived a full 3 centuries before this alleged Lamb of God, and yet we know volumes more about his life than we do of Jesus. We have ACTUAL historians of the time that witnessed his life and exploits, related in a number of different works by different historians detailing his life - and he healed no one, performed no miracles, promised no bribe of heaven. Where was this Jesus anyway - from shortly after his birth until some 30 years later? History has no frickin clue.

This is the alleged Son of the Living God, and yet not ONE secular historian of the time ever met him, or ever heard of him except through self-interested parties with an agenda to sell their brand new religion. And again, even his most ardent believers never thought this Savior important enough to even write their own words about him until DECADES later. You sir, have been duped.

[Strider324]

The Me's scribed

By the way, there's no such thing as "negative evidence". The only thing you can ever find is POSITIVE evidence that refutes a concept directly.

You are wrong yet again. It is becoming a habit with you. Negative evidence is simply the absence of evidence. It is used in courts all over the world where evidence gets more respect than it does from theists.

"Mr prosecutor, do you have the murder weapon?"

"No, your honor, we weren't able to find it."

"Do you have any independent witnesses that saw the defendant at the crime scene?"

"No, your honor."

"Do you have a motive?"

"No, your honor."

"Then what do you have??"

"We have the testimony of the defendants pissed off ex-wife who is currently in a custody suit against the defendant and she says he did it....."

"Yeah.... OK. This case is dismissed for lack of credible evidence."

Jesus was from the bustling town of Nazareth? Archaeological evidence shows that the town of Nazareth did not even exist in the early 1st century as anything more than a few mud huts. That sir is 'negative evidence' that shows the bible to be a lie.

500 saints marched through Jerusalem upon Jesus alleged resurrection? I think a lot of people and historians would have found that to be newsworthy - and yet we have ZERO confirmation of this bizarre Zombie Walk. A credulous mind knows why.

[historia]

Considering that none of us here are experts, I should think that the scholarly consensus on this, or any, topic should be of great value. I would not merely dismiss the overwhelming consensus of biologists regarding Evolution, for example, as mere 'double fallacy'. At the same time, we have to recognize that consulting experts in a field of study cannot, in and of itself, decide a matter. In any debate, we must always examine the evidence.

Sure, but the level of evidence for a process that has been occuring around the world for millions of years, and the level of evidence for the existence of one man who was not a secular ruler who lived thousands of years ago is not the same to say the least.

To be sure. The point of an analogy is not to say that two things are "the same." Rather the point of an analogy, per the dictionary, is to point out "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

My wider point here is that the arguments put forward by Jesus Mythicists is similar to the arguments of Creationists.