5 ms·

This is one of those times trusting Wikipedia is laughable. Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. No, really. Impressive, yes, but it's not co

This is one of those times trusting Wikipedia is laughable. Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. No, really. Impressive, yes, but it's not correct 100% of the time. In fact sometimes it's crazy how wrong it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. Wikipedia is not (by design, one should note) an authority on anything. As a tertiary source, it summarizes and provided pointers to actual authority, when it's quality standards are being upheld. It is never more than that.
antidesitter 8y ago
The article I linked to is well-referenced. > Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. Are you attributing this view to me?
anjbe 8y ago
What, then, is the consensus view among New Testament scholars and Near East historians of the historicity of Jesus?
- hughrlomas 8y ago
  What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"? A group of people with an agenda writing volumes of tautological speculation doesn't make it credible.
  - anjbe 8y ago
    > What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"? Near East historians have an agenda? News to me. What’s the proportion of Christians versus non‐Christians in that field? Even if that group is replete with biased theists (something you seem to be suggesting but haven’t presented any evidence for), surely there is some scholarly group whose views on historical science you can agree would be worth listening to. So what’s their consensus on the historicity of Jesus?
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      Did you listen to the history podcast in my original comment? He presents a very strong case for there not being a Jesus. Everyone keeps saying there’s some sort of consensus on his existence yet I’ve posted a very thorough argument that argues the opposite. Last I checked, Stanford was pretty reputable.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        See my top-level comment. There is a historical consensus on Jesus’ existence and some basic facts about his life (with wide disagreement beyond that). And Thomas Sheehan, the philosopher and presenter of the podcast you linked to, accepts the historicity of Jesus.
        owens99 8y ago
        This article does a great job of explaining why you should question that consensus. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553
  - owens99 8y ago
    This is a perfect response.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. Wikipedia is not (by design, one should note) an authority on anything. As a tertiary source, it summarizes and provided pointers to actual authority, when it's quality standards are being upheld. It is never more than that.

antidesitter 8y ago

The article I linked to is well-referenced. > Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. Are you attributing this view to me?

anjbe 8y ago

What, then, is the consensus view among New Testament scholars and Near East historians of the historicity of Jesus?

hughrlomas 8y ago
What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"? A group of people with an agenda writing volumes of tautological speculation doesn't make it credible.
- anjbe 8y ago
  > What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"? Near East historians have an agenda? News to me. What’s the proportion of Christians versus non‐Christians in that field? Even if that group is replete with biased theists (something you seem to be suggesting but haven’t presented any evidence for), surely there is some scholarly group whose views on historical science you can agree would be worth listening to. So what’s their consensus on the historicity of Jesus?
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    Did you listen to the history podcast in my original comment? He presents a very strong case for there not being a Jesus. Everyone keeps saying there’s some sort of consensus on his existence yet I’ve posted a very thorough argument that argues the opposite. Last I checked, Stanford was pretty reputable.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      See my top-level comment. There is a historical consensus on Jesus’ existence and some basic facts about his life (with wide disagreement beyond that). And Thomas Sheehan, the philosopher and presenter of the podcast you linked to, accepts the historicity of Jesus.
      - owens99 8y ago
        This article does a great job of explaining why you should question that consensus. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553
- owens99 8y ago
  This is a perfect response.