4 ms·

The burden is actually on you to go against the virtual entirety of professional historians.

dorchadas 8y ago
Not to mention that Jesus has more evidence to back up his historicity than most. Unless, of course, you just dismiss all of the Gospels and Pauline letters as not being evidence. And even then there still is quite a bit of evidence, really.
- owens99 8y ago
  Actually, nowhere in the Gospels or Pauline letters does it say Jesus was a living person. These documents are written in the same way as the stories of Hercules or any other mythological figure.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    Except Paul explicitly states he met James, brother of Jesus. And there's plenty of differences between how those documents are written and the ways myths are told. Try actually reading an introductory New Testament text, like Ehrman's (who himself is agnostic, and went through an atheist period), and you'll see.
    - owens99 8y ago
      I have read many translations and interpretations of the actual text. There is significant debate about whether Paul is saying James is Jesus's biological brother. So this passage is far from rock solid evidence. Many experts believe Paul is referring to James's name/tagline as a preacher, "Brother of the Lord." Meaning James was not Jesus's biological brother, but metaphorical. Any priest today could say he is the brother of the lord in a metaphorical sense. The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. Overall, the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is very sparse and all evidence is contested (Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries, this example not mentioning James as a biological brother). One would think if he was living there would be many more examples to support it.
      - dorchadas 8y ago
        > The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. How does it not? Nowhere does it say Jesus was Mary and Joseph's only child. It merely said he was born while she was a virgin, not that she ever had kids after. Even if you take the Roman Catholic approach, Joseph was older and easily could have had children from a previous marriage, which is what they contend. > Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries this example not mentioning James as a biological brother These are all minority views in scholarship, as I'm sure you're well aware; it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers. But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising; and, of course, it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic.
        owens99 8y ago
        > Nowhere does it say Jesus was Mary and Joseph's only child This is a very weak argument. Of course, almost anything you imagine could be possible. > These are all minority views in scholarship You should read this article on evaluating argument from consensus: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 It does a great job explaining in what situations consensus should be challenged. The evidence for and against these three examples is contested to varying degrees. The Josephus example is 90% a forgery. Let's say Tacitus and James examples are each 50% likely to be valid evidence for a historical Jesus. > it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers It's not. We're not contesting the words, we're contesting the meaning. James was called by his followers "Brother of the Lord." This could mean biological brother, or it could mean he was metaphorically considered him to be the brother or the lord. It's not clear or explicit, we have to admit this. > But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising This is not the case at all. I am happy to consider all of the scholarship done by Christians. I have looked at tons of work by Christians. > it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic. You may think this is the case, but it's not. I would love to see new research from anyone that can shed light on whether or not there was a historical Jesus. I just find Carrier's arguments and research superior to those that contest his points. I have read extensively through both points of view. I actually came into this search with an open mind under the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure. I was surprised to learn of Carrier's findings and even more surprised by all the people who try to discount his research merely on the basis of it being "not consensus." I haven't heard many good arguments used to contest his work, just appeals to authority. If you have better evidence for Tacitus, Josephus, or James, I would love to see it.
owens99 8y ago
The case is not as clear cut as you suggest. This article explains well why the current consensus should be questioned: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553

Not to mention that Jesus has more evidence to back up his historicity than most. Unless, of course, you just dismiss all of the Gospels and Pauline letters as not being evidence. And even then there still is quite a bit of evidence, really.

owens99 8y ago
Actually, nowhere in the Gospels or Pauline letters does it say Jesus was a living person. These documents are written in the same way as the stories of Hercules or any other mythological figure.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  Except Paul explicitly states he met James, brother of Jesus. And there's plenty of differences between how those documents are written and the ways myths are told. Try actually reading an introductory New Testament text, like Ehrman's (who himself is agnostic, and went through an atheist period), and you'll see.
  - owens99 8y ago
    I have read many translations and interpretations of the actual text. There is significant debate about whether Paul is saying James is Jesus's biological brother. So this passage is far from rock solid evidence. Many experts believe Paul is referring to James's name/tagline as a preacher, "Brother of the Lord." Meaning James was not Jesus's biological brother, but metaphorical. Any priest today could say he is the brother of the lord in a metaphorical sense. The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. Overall, the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is very sparse and all evidence is contested (Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries, this example not mentioning James as a biological brother). One would think if he was living there would be many more examples to support it.
    - dorchadas 8y ago
      > The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. How does it not? Nowhere does it say Jesus was Mary and Joseph's only child. It merely said he was born while she was a virgin, not that she ever had kids after. Even if you take the Roman Catholic approach, Joseph was older and easily could have had children from a previous marriage, which is what they contend. > Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries this example not mentioning James as a biological brother These are all minority views in scholarship, as I'm sure you're well aware; it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers. But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising; and, of course, it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic.
      - owens99 8y ago
        > Nowhere does it say Jesus was Mary and Joseph's only child This is a very weak argument. Of course, almost anything you imagine could be possible. > These are all minority views in scholarship You should read this article on evaluating argument from consensus: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 It does a great job explaining in what situations consensus should be challenged. The evidence for and against these three examples is contested to varying degrees. The Josephus example is 90% a forgery. Let's say Tacitus and James examples are each 50% likely to be valid evidence for a historical Jesus. > it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers It's not. We're not contesting the words, we're contesting the meaning. James was called by his followers "Brother of the Lord." This could mean biological brother, or it could mean he was metaphorically considered him to be the brother or the lord. It's not clear or explicit, we have to admit this. > But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising This is not the case at all. I am happy to consider all of the scholarship done by Christians. I have looked at tons of work by Christians. > it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic. You may think this is the case, but it's not. I would love to see new research from anyone that can shed light on whether or not there was a historical Jesus. I just find Carrier's arguments and research superior to those that contest his points. I have read extensively through both points of view. I actually came into this search with an open mind under the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure. I was surprised to learn of Carrier's findings and even more surprised by all the people who try to discount his research merely on the basis of it being "not consensus." I haven't heard many good arguments used to contest his work, just appeals to authority. If you have better evidence for Tacitus, Josephus, or James, I would love to see it.

owens99 8y ago

The case is not as clear cut as you suggest. This article explains well why the current consensus should be questioned: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553