Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virtually all scholars believe that Jesus existed
> for one simple reason: the evidence indicates it
> (see link at bottom).
I've pointed out that the "virtually all scholars believe that Jesus existed" claim is false on its face numerous times. Why continue to use it?
> Four dissenting "scholars" have been repeatedly
> mentioned on this board in the attempt to show
> that (A) there is no real consensus, or at least,
> that the consensus is waning, and (B) there *must
> be* good reasons to believe that Jesus did not
> exist at all.
I just put up a list of 7 in another thread. And those are only the ones who are members of the AHA. Worldwide, the number is much larger.
> Neither (A) nor (B) is true.
Neither are your claims. Pot, meet kettle.
> Citing the likes of
> Richard Carrier, Dan Barker, Earl Doherty and
> Robert M. Price to establish (A) and (B) is like
> citing John Gee, Dan Peterson, Michael Rhodes, and
> Hugh Nibley to "establish" that there is no real
> scholarly consensus about the text of the
> Breathing Permit of Hor, and that, regardless of
> whether there is or not, there *must* be *some*
> good reasons to believe it's the autobiography of
> the Israelite patriarch Abraham. Again, neither is
> true.
"...the likes of..." Nice ad-hominem. Funny how even Ehrman and numerous other "historicist" scholars consider Carrier and Price (and others) fully qualified scholars.
> The hard truth is that all eight of the guys I
> mentioned above are fringe voices working
> *against* the weight of evidence, and overwhelming
> scholarly consensus in their fields, in support of
> a conclusion seemingly predetermined by their own
> ideological commitments.
Even if they were "fringe" (which they're not), that doesn't make them wrong. You declaring them working "against the weight of evidence" is a bare assertion, which completely ignores their arguments. Notice how you offer no rebuttal of their arguments, you just declare them all invalid, call them names, and then declare they're wrong.
> Below is an interesting little piece written by a
> member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and
> Australian Skeptics named Tim O'Neill explaining
> why virtually all scholars believe Jesus to have
> been a real person. For anyone interested in this
> topic, it is worth reading carefully:
>
http://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-
> that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-s
> peaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-
> a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea
Gee, funny how you rip Doherty, and declare that he has an insurmountable ideology, for being part of/leader of an atheist organization. Then you use a different leader of an atheist organization (who has zero training in history, by the way, and is not an historical scholar of any stature) to "prove" them wrong. Hmm. I guess being a member of an atheist organization *doesn't* mean you have an insurmountable ideology then, right? So why mention it for Doherty?
I've read O'Neill's piece. It offers no new evidence to back up the "historicist" position. It's essentially an appeal to atheists to stop "making waves" by telling the christians their magic jesus didn't exist. And in it, he repeats the same fallacious claims you did above. Finally, he makes the same false dichotomy claim that bona dea and TMSH continually make: that if you don't find the evidence FOR an historical Jesus convincing, you MUST be promoting the "mythicist" claim. Which is false. And he makes a number of factually false claims (there are, for example, contemporary attestations of Hannibal).
But I'm guessing you didn't actually research any of his claims, you just "believed" them...?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 04:46PM by ificouldhietokolob.