To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[angellous_evangellous]

Secondly, I have actually studied these areas and they are all included in my three volume series which is actually a real 3 volume series coming out in Autumn.

A true polymath.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Secondly, I have actually studied these areas and they are all included in my three volume series which is actually a real 3 volume series coming out in Autumn.

I know. I've taken a look at your website before.

I'm sorry, too. When people make a completely unrelated knowledge claim to several fields in order to claim a kind of false authority for something else, I lose my mind a little. It's really not possible to have meaningful knowledge in all of these fields, and for a person to claim such, is intellectually dishonest and offensive to those of us who actually sacrifice to learn enough about a field to actually be an authority.

But obviously you think that you know something. Maybe you're one of the few people alive who can master more than a dozen fields. I smell fraud, but if you can be happy and publish "books" - good for you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The reason "you aren't popular at present" among historians is because this issue is old news. The idea was broached over a century ago (see in particular Bauer). Reimarus' work was significant not because his was the first critical historical view, but because it was the most comprehensive. It more or less sparked the historical-critical analysis of the gospels, which evolved a great deal in the 19th century, first with responses to Reimarus, than with the famous work of Strauss who showed how inadequate these were, then with the liberal lives (the most well-known, again, being Renan's), then with the work of the form-critics (esp. the founders, Dibelius and Bultmann) and even more so the work of Schweitzer which showed how problematic these "liberal lives" were because they were not critical enough. And that just brings us into the first half of the 20th century. You are acting like historical Jesus research is blind to this idea, but one need only take a look at the volumes of believing christian scholars, even the more uncritical ones (e.g., N.T. Wright) to know that they are quite aware of the arguments that we have no good evidence for a historical Jesus, and know how these were addressed when they were broached. Something like the first half of Wright's second volume on the historical Jesus is devoted to the history of historical Jesus scholarship. Same with Dunn's Jesus Remembered.

The bigger issue is that it seems hard to belive you've actually read them. The one thing you quote from Cline is a popular quote available from a brief internet search. You cite Renan, whom I have read, and whose view (like that of Cline) is that there absolutely is enough evidence to conclude not just that the historical Jesus existed, but that we can know things about him. And I've read Frazer, Dawkins, etc. I haven't read all the names from your list, but so far you have a history of referring to sources which completely contradict/undermine the point you are trying to make. Not just Renan or the other authors in your lists, but the post you linked to. It was written to point out the complete lack of intellectual or historical integrity of those who argue we don't have enough evidence for Jesus. Then there's Ehrman, whom you cited, but who thinks (as he says in the clip I provided) we have more evidence for Jesus' existence than for just about anybody from his day and he doesn't know of any serious historian who doubts Jesus' existence.

Again, how can you add to a field you don't know about? I've asked you for what you are basing your view of the field on, but you have yet to cite even a survey of the field written either for the non-specialist or specialist (or both, in the case of Meier's four-volume work).

First, you didn't leave out "the more dated scholarship." Schürer wrote his Geschichte des judischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi over a century ago. Second, I asked you about historical Jesus scholarship. Not a bunch of names of popular works, most of which have nothing to do with the historical Jesus. Is this the same Polkinghorne who is a (if memory serves) a physicist? I recall reading some book about belief in god in an age of science. And Lee Strobel? Seriously?

Let me ask again, only this time I'll be more specific. When I ask about historical Jesus scholarship, I mean at the very least works written on that subject by people who are specialists in some field related to it. Even better would be academic works (papers from conference proceedings, edited series, peer-reviewed journals, or books which are published by companies like Brill or a university press).




I don't have a "love" for Schweitzer (or Wrede or Strauss or Reimarus). I read them because they were important works in their day. It's like reading Gibbon on the history of the roman empire or Skinner on psychology. They wrote influential works, but they are dated. One reads them not to understand the field today, but to put modern scholarship in historical context. As for Ehrman, I loved his article in the Journal of Early Christian Studies on the so-called "secret gospel of mark." I appreciate a lot of other academic work he's done. But his book on the historical Jesus was more or less just a rehash of Schweitzer, and as I demonstrated in my last post, what he says in his sensationalist work is quite different from what he says in his academic work. But it's a moot point. Ehrman is quite certain we have enough evidence to conclude Jesus is a historical figure.



I intend to.





You have yet to demonstrate what you know about "this field." Renan has nothing compared to the critical views of some modern scholars (compare Renan to Burton Mack, for example). Yet they too, like Renan, believe we have enough evidence to conclude Jesus was a historical figure.



Sort through? What you did was take a quote which has no relevance and act like it did. Cline was talking about direct archaeological evidence, such as the tomb of Jesus or Peter or James. Some argue we have such evidence, but I find it unlikely and apparently so does Cline. We don't have direct archaeological evidence for virtually anybody in ancient history. And for most we do have evidence for, we know nothing about them (they are just things names on ossuaries or signed inscriptions in brothels).

Excellent.

I appreciate your posts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Please test me on any of these chapters!

How about pointing to a single line which says anything about our lack of evidence historical Jesus? Because archaeological evidence is a very specific type of evidence not available for virtually any individuals we know of ancient history.​

Further, Renan, undercuts the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Luke, and the pseudopigraphical nature of John which is what I use him for. (see the Life of Jesus) Another book I own and have read!​

If Renan "undercuts" the historical Jesus, how is it that far more critical scholars than Renan today still think was have not just enough evidence to conclude Jesus was historical, but that we can say quite a bit about him?​

If you are simply out to slander me

​

Slander you? You posted a link to a page which ridiculed your view, but you thought it supported it. Then you referred to Ehrman, who (again) states that no serious historian agrees with you. YOU are linking to sources and authors who ridicule your view.​

I would love to have the luxury of sitting on the internet all day and responding to your crass attempts to attack my credibility, but I have a rather full life, complete with a family, job, books and research.​

I joined this forum after a serious car accident. I don't remember most of of January. My doctor suggested that before I started my research at the lab and my teaching again I should do more than just go back to studying, which doesn't involve imparting information or discussing it. Joining a forum seemed like a good way to do this when I couldn't move around. As for books and research, that's virtually all I possess. I don't know how many academic books I actually own, but somewhere in the thousands. So if you want to attack my credibility, the worse possible way would be to point to books and research. I would go back to attacking my lack of a life. I'm divorced. You can start there.

I have read quite alot on the historicity issue

​

Yet you have continually refused to provide sources other than mostly outdated non-academic sources, some of which completely undermine your position.​

and yet it is a mere fragment of my overall research

​

So give some references. That way I can obtain some understanding of where you're coming from and what you know, and we can actually discuss the issue. Simply listing random sources and names (the most credible of which range from disagreeing with you completely to simply mocking your view although, despite your research, you didn't seem to grasp this) gives me nothing to work with. I've read Renan, Cline, Ehrman, and many others. So when you just list a bunch of names, some of which just dismiss your view, how on earth can I address whatever arguments you might have? How is any discussion possible until you provide what your position is and why? Stating "we don't have the evidence" and then linking to a site which dimisses this approach, and more than one author who does as well, doesn't say much for your "research."​

My areas of research include, but are not limited to:

​

This isn't about your "areas of research." The question is what research have you done on the historical Jesus? What sources are you relying on? And why? You've listed a tiny handful of authors, some of whom completely disagree with you, and ignored the vast majority of 200+ years of historical critical scholarship.​

*Neuroscience​

*Neuro-Linguistic Programming​

I work at the Cognitive Neuropsychology Laboratory. And it has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. If you want to discuss dynamical systems in neuroscience, embodied cognition, neurocomputational modeling, computational linguistics, cognitive linguistics, etc., I'm more than happy to. But this isn't the thread to do so. So why not (again) give the sources you are using for your work in historical Jesus studies, and why you disagree with the arguments presented by virtually every historian on this issue?​

I take pieces from these authors, i.e from Renan, Luke's lack of historical accuracy, true authorship of John, Cline's honest statement regarding a lack of archaeological evidence for Jesus, which does not disprove his existence it merely adds to the uncertainty.

​

NONE of that adds to the uncertainty. It adds to the uncertainty of the absolute validity of the gospels. But as I'm not christian, I couldn't care less. A lack of archaeological evidence is indicative of nothing. The fact that the gospels can't be trusted as unbiased historical narratives is true of the entirety of ancient historiography.​

I know enough to be uncertain about the evidence and can demonstrate that we do not have enough evidence to conclude Jesus was an historical figure.

REALLY? Based on what approach to ancient history? On what reading of secondary scholarship? On what understanding of ancient historiography? On what understanding of the nature of evidence for historical individuals in the ancient world? You come to a conclusion rejected by just about everyone who has studied this issue for years. The "jesus myth" advocates are not those who have spent years studying the the period, person, culture, and so forth in question. They're guys who rely on a public audience with a lack of background in the relevant issues to judge how wrong they are.​

Michael's avenues of investigation: All​

Legion's Avenues: A select few scholars tied to either religious and or academic traditions.​

First, I've read the mythicists. Second, your avenues of investigation seem limited to whatever you can find to support the conclusion you already arrived at. That's the only thing I can imagine which would explain lwhy you linked to a post which ridiculed your view (when you thought it supported it), cited several authors who completely disagree with you, and so far have ignored the massive amount of work done over the past centuries on this topic. So if you "avenues of investigation" are "all" then where's the references to those who disagree with you (i.e., virtually all historians) and how do you address their arguments?​

would an article by Dr Richard Carrier be acceptable? Or is he not within your narrow field of accepted scholars?

Yes, so I'll await his book. As for this:​

here is a good article by Richard Carrier:​

It is quite a good article and was published in 2002.​

It was a review of a book. And it was "published" on a blog. People like Carrier, if they want their peers to take their work seriously, publish in journals or write books pubished by universities or companies with a reputation for carefully checking and reviewing the accuracy of what they publich (they have editorial boards). Doherty, who wrote the book The Jesus Puzzle has a degree in ancient Greek and Latin. So do I. I have more degrees actually. But it doesn't make me an expert, and if I did enough research to produce a significant work that others who also had a background in this area would respect, I'd publish it in an academic arena. It's easy to convince (as Ehrman put it to me once) the "barnes and nobles crowd." It's a lot harder to sell that junk to people who know what they are talking about.​

I have read all of the original sources of evidence (in English) for an historical Jesus and none convinces me that he actually existed.​

The "original sources" don't just include the N.T., Josephus, etc. The include Greek and Roman historiography in general, the Jewish writings that have nothing to do with Jesus directly, greco-roman letters, the "lives" of greco-roman "biographers," and much more.​

I know such evidence has convinced many "scholars"

And yet you still haven't listed what you've read by them or addressed what evidence convinced them.​

but I am not in the habit of following what someone says and believes,

Or knowing why.​

I suggest you leave out the personal attacks and slander.

You mean things like condescending quips like the following:

Sometimes in youth, people become overconfident and develope strong emotional bonds to information.

So whose word do I take? Do I follow the scholar Ehrman or the Layman Legion??

But now that I realize you are fresh out of your undergraduate degree, I see that there is no discrepancy.

 

[michaelsherlock]

I know. I've taken a look at your website before.

I'm sorry, too. When people make a completely unrelated knowledge claim to several fields in order to claim a kind of false authority for something else, I lose my mind a little. It's really not possible to have meaningful knowledge in all of these fields, and for a person to claim such, is intellectually dishonest and offensive to those of us who actually sacrifice to learn enough about a field to actually be an authority.

But obviously you think that you know something. Maybe you're one of the few people alive who can master more than a dozen fields. I smell fraud, but if you can be happy and publish "books" - good for you.

Thank you! I have by no means mastered any field in particular, but I am always learning and more importantly growing. My philosophy with regards to knowledge, is that one can either aquire in depth knowledge of one area alone, which has its merits all a person can study many areas and find the points where all knowledge interacts. Most importantly, knowledge is to be applied, not just merely aquired. If the knowledge does nothing to transform a person, then that knowledge is fruitless, meaningless and ultimately void of meaning. We all have our strenghts and intelligences, which is why I do not refuse to investigate even the most bizarre authors, researchers and scholars. We all have something to contribute and at the end of the day, we are all stumbling around in the dark, only some of us seem to think we can see.

I think it was Voltaire who in commenting on the state of Philosophy, said; Philosophy is like a room full of learned men, throwing three legged stools at one another's head. This is unfortunately the state of human consciousness and understanding, in my opinion.

Please be assured I have dedicated myself entirely to study and research, I spend every spare moment reading, listening and watching, seeing how I can apply what I learn to myself.

Kind regards

Michael

 

[michaelsherlock]

How about pointing to a single line which says anything about our lack of evidence historical Jesus? Because archaeological evidence is a very specific type of evidence not available for virtually any individuals we know of ancient history.​

If Renan "undercuts" the historical Jesus, how is it that far more critical scholars than Renan today still think was have not just enough evidence to conclude Jesus was historical, but that we can say quite a bit about him?​

Slander you? You posted a link to a page which ridiculed your view, but you thought it supported it. Then you referred to Ehrman, who (again) states that no serious historian agrees with you. YOU are linking to sources and authors who ridicule your view.​

I joined this forum after a serious car accident. I don't remember most of of January. My doctor suggested that before I started my research at the lab and my teaching again I should do more than just go back to studying, which doesn't involve imparting information or discussing it. Joining a forum seemed like a good way to do this when I couldn't move around. As for books and research, that's virtually all I possess. I don't know how many academic books I actually own, but somewhere in the thousands. So if you want to attack my credibility, the worse possible way would be to point to books and research. I would go back to attacking my lack of a life. I'm divorced. You can start there.

Yet you have continually refused to provide sources other than mostly outdated non-academic sources, some of which completely undermine your position.​

So give some references. That way I can obtain some understanding of where you're coming from and what you know, and we can actually discuss the issue. Simply listing random sources and names (the most credible of which range from disagreeing with you completely to simply mocking your view although, despite your research, you didn't seem to grasp this) gives me nothing to work with. I've read Renan, Cline, Ehrman, and many others. So when you just list a bunch of names, some of which just dismiss your view, how on earth can I address whatever arguments you might have? How is any discussion possible until you provide what your position is and why? Stating "we don't have the evidence" and then linking to a site which dimisses this approach, and more than one author who does as well, doesn't say much for your "research."​

This isn't about your "areas of research." The question is what research have you done on the historical Jesus? What sources are you relying on? And why? You've listed a tiny handful of authors, some of whom completely disagree with you, and ignored the vast majority of 200+ years of historical critical scholarship.​

I work at the Cognitive Neuropsychology Laboratory. And it has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. If you want to discuss dynamical systems in neuroscience, embodied cognition, neurocomputational modeling, computational linguistics, cognitive linguistics, etc., I'm more than happy to. But this isn't the thread to do so. So why not (again) give the sources you are using for your work in historical Jesus studies, and why you disagree with the arguments presented by virtually every historian on this issue?​

NONE of that adds to the uncertainty. It adds to the uncertainty of the absolute validity of the gospels. But as I'm not christian, I couldn't care less. A lack of archaeological evidence is indicative of nothing. The fact that the gospels can't be trusted as unbiased historical narratives is true of the entirety of ancient historiography.​

REALLY? Based on what approach to ancient history? On what reading of secondary scholarship? On what understanding of ancient historiography? On what understanding of the nature of evidence for historical individuals in the ancient world? You come to a conclusion rejected by just about everyone who has studied this issue for years. The "jesus myth" advocates are not those who have spent years studying the the period, person, culture, and so forth in question. They're guys who rely on a public audience with a lack of background in the relevant issues to judge how wrong they are.​

First, I've read the mythicists. Second, your avenues of investigation seem limited to whatever you can find to support the conclusion you already arrived at. That's the only think I can imagine which would explain lwhy you linked to a post which ridiculed your view (when you thought it supported it), cited several authors who completely disagree with you, and so far have ignored the massive amount of work done over the past centuries on this topic. So if you "avenues of investigation" are "all" then where's the references to those who disagree with you (i.e., virtually all historians) and how do you address their arguments?​

Yes, so I'll await his book. As for this:​

It was a review of a book. And it was "published" on a blog. People like Carrier, if they want their peers to take their work seriously, publish in journals or write books pubished by universities or companies with a reputation for carefully checking and reviewing the accuracy of what they publich (they have editorial boards). Doherty, who wrote the book The Jesus Puzzle has a degree in ancient Greek and Latin. So do I. I have more degrees actually. But it doesn't make me an expert, and if I did enough research to produce a significant work that others who also had a background in this area would respect, I'd publish it in an academic arena. It's easy to convince (as Ehrman put it to me once) the "barnes and nobles crowd." It's a lot harder to sell that junk to people who know what they are talking about.​

The "original sources" don't just include the N.T., Josephus, etc. The include Greek and Roman historiography in general, the Jewish writings that have nothing to do with Jesus directly, greco-roman letters, the "lives" of greco-roman "biographers," and much more.​

And yet you still haven't listed what you've read by them or addressed what evidence convinced them.​

Or knowing why.​

You mean things like condescending quips like the following:​

Look Legion, you are just after a fight, one which I will not give you! If you want a fight, go somewhere else, you are wasting my time and your own.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Please be assured I have dedicated myself entirely to study and research, I spend every spare moment reading, listening and watching, seeing how I can apply what I learn to myself.

I suppose that you don't know what tragic irony is.

Or is it ironic tragedy?

 

[michaelsherlock]

How about pointing to a single line which says anything about our lack of evidence historical Jesus? Because archaeological evidence is a very specific type of evidence not available for virtually any individuals we know of ancient history.​

If Renan "undercuts" the historical Jesus, how is it that far more critical scholars than Renan today still think was have not just enough evidence to conclude Jesus was historical, but that we can say quite a bit about him?​

Slander you? You posted a link to a page which ridiculed your view, but you thought it supported it. Then you referred to Ehrman, who (again) states that no serious historian agrees with you. YOU are linking to sources and authors who ridicule your view.​

I joined this forum after a serious car accident. I don't remember most of of January. My doctor suggested that before I started my research at the lab and my teaching again I should do more than just go back to studying, which doesn't involve imparting information or discussing it. Joining a forum seemed like a good way to do this when I couldn't move around. As for books and research, that's virtually all I possess. I don't know how many academic books I actually own, but somewhere in the thousands. So if you want to attack my credibility, the worse possible way would be to point to books and research. I would go back to attacking my lack of a life. I'm divorced. You can start there.

Yet you have continually refused to provide sources other than mostly outdated non-academic sources, some of which completely undermine your position.​

So give some references. That way I can obtain some understanding of where you're coming from and what you know, and we can actually discuss the issue. Simply listing random sources and names (the most credible of which range from disagreeing with you completely to simply mocking your view although, despite your research, you didn't seem to grasp this) gives me nothing to work with. I've read Renan, Cline, Ehrman, and many others. So when you just list a bunch of names, some of which just dismiss your view, how on earth can I address whatever arguments you might have? How is any discussion possible until you provide what your position is and why? Stating "we don't have the evidence" and then linking to a site which dimisses this approach, and more than one author who does as well, doesn't say much for your "research."​

This isn't about your "areas of research." The question is what research have you done on the historical Jesus? What sources are you relying on? And why? You've listed a tiny handful of authors, some of whom completely disagree with you, and ignored the vast majority of 200+ years of historical critical scholarship.​

I work at the Cognitive Neuropsychology Laboratory. And it has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. If you want to discuss dynamical systems in neuroscience, embodied cognition, neurocomputational modeling, computational linguistics, cognitive linguistics, etc., I'm more than happy to. But this isn't the thread to do so. So why not (again) give the sources you are using for your work in historical Jesus studies, and why you disagree with the arguments presented by virtually every historian on this issue?​

NONE of that adds to the uncertainty. It adds to the uncertainty of the absolute validity of the gospels. But as I'm not christian, I couldn't care less. A lack of archaeological evidence is indicative of nothing. The fact that the gospels can't be trusted as unbiased historical narratives is true of the entirety of ancient historiography.​

REALLY? Based on what approach to ancient history? On what reading of secondary scholarship? On what understanding of ancient historiography? On what understanding of the nature of evidence for historical individuals in the ancient world? You come to a conclusion rejected by just about everyone who has studied this issue for years. The "jesus myth" advocates are not those who have spent years studying the the period, person, culture, and so forth in question. They're guys who rely on a public audience with a lack of background in the relevant issues to judge how wrong they are.​

First, I've read the mythicists. Second, your avenues of investigation seem limited to whatever you can find to support the conclusion you already arrived at. That's the only thing I can imagine which would explain lwhy you linked to a post which ridiculed your view (when you thought it supported it), cited several authors who completely disagree with you, and so far have ignored the massive amount of work done over the past centuries on this topic. So if you "avenues of investigation" are "all" then where's the references to those who disagree with you (i.e., virtually all historians) and how do you address their arguments?​

Yes, so I'll await his book. As for this:​

It was a review of a book. And it was "published" on a blog. People like Carrier, if they want their peers to take their work seriously, publish in journals or write books pubished by universities or companies with a reputation for carefully checking and reviewing the accuracy of what they publich (they have editorial boards). Doherty, who wrote the book The Jesus Puzzle has a degree in ancient Greek and Latin. So do I. I have more degrees actually. But it doesn't make me an expert, and if I did enough research to produce a significant work that others who also had a background in this area would respect, I'd publish it in an academic arena. It's easy to convince (as Ehrman put it to me once) the "barnes and nobles crowd." It's a lot harder to sell that junk to people who know what they are talking about.​

The "original sources" don't just include the N.T., Josephus, etc. The include Greek and Roman historiography in general, the Jewish writings that have nothing to do with Jesus directly, greco-roman letters, the "lives" of greco-roman "biographers," and much more.​

And yet you still haven't listed what you've read by them or addressed what evidence convinced them.​

Or knowing why.​

You mean things like condescending quips like the following:​

You are right! I apologize for saying those things! It is just that I came into this thread to express the fact that people I consider scholars, like Mangasarian for example, have contributed to this field with some very convincing arguments, in my opinion. From that moment on you jumped on me and tried your hardest to take me down. I was offended and so I said some emotionally charged things which I should not have. For that, I am sorry. I have read quite abit regarding this issue, yet, this is no reason to get abusive, so I am sorry.

 

[outhouse]

I joined this forum after a serious car accident. I don't remember most of of January.

I hope you get better, im glad your not letting it become a game changer in your life.





for what its worth, you have a higher IQ then most people ive run across, that keeps it balanced and groomed. When are you going to write a book on this subject???? i wouldnt be suprised if you dont already have books authored in different subjects

 

[fallingblood]

Look Legion, you are just after a fight, one which I will not give you! If you want a fight, go somewhere else, you are wasting my time and your own.

I think he has been here for a debate, as should be suggested as this is a religious debate thread.

It is just that most of the information you're putting out is either based on very old scholarship, or simply not well researched. I've been debating you on the subject of Jesus and Josephus, and it seems like you continually go back to sources that are either doubtful, or simply way too old to be of any real use. That seems to be your usual method though.

It also seems like you keep referring back to you writing a book as if that makes you some sort of scholar, or authority on the subject. But it doesn't. Anyone can write a book on a variety of subject. It doesn't mean much though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Anyone can write a book on a variety of subject. It doesn't mean much though.

Not everyone can get published by a reputable publisher, though. Something like 3% of manuscripts submitted in the humanities get published - or so I've heard. And biblical studies seems to attract weirdoes, so a good portion of those works are useless.

I suspect that our friend is publishing with these guys:

VDM Publishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fallingblood]

Not everyone can get published by a reputable publisher, though. Something like 3% of manuscripts submitted in the humanities get published - or so I've heard. And biblical studies seems to attract weirdoes, so a good portion of those works are useless.

I suspect that our friend is publishing with these guys:

VDM Publishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's true.

I once submitted a shoddy manuscript to a print on demand company, just to see if they would accept it. They did, and I never had anything more to do with them, because if they would accept the manuscript I submitted, I'm pretty sure they would accept anything.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's true.

I once submitted a shoddy manuscript to a print on demand company, just to see if they would accept it. They did, and I never had anything more to do with them, because if they would accept the manuscript I submitted, I'm pretty sure they would accept anything.

I hope you didn't attach your name to the manuscript.

 

[fallingblood]

I hope you didn't attach your name to the manuscript.

No, I actually just attached an email address to it. I guess it didn't really matter that the person submitting it had an email address for a name.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Not everyone can get published by a reputable publisher, though. Something like 3% of manuscripts submitted in the humanities get published - or so I've heard. And biblical studies seems to attract weirdoes, so a good portion of those works are useless.

I suspect that our friend is publishing with these guys:

VDM Publishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I bet that he also cut a CD and filmed a video with these guys
Ark Music Factory - Get Discovered!

[youtube]kfVsfOSbJY0[/youtube]
Rebecca Black - Friday - Official Music Video - YouTube

 

[michaelsherlock]

How about pointing to a single line which says anything about our lack of evidence historical Jesus? Because archaeological evidence is a very specific type of evidence not available for virtually any individuals we know of ancient history.

I agree and I apply the same level of scepticism to Socrates and others. ​

If Renan "undercuts" the historical Jesus, how is it that far more critical scholars than Renan today still think was have not just enough evidence to conclude Jesus was historical, but that we can say quite a bit about him?

​

I did not say that Renan undercut the “historical Jesus” but that he cast doubt over the Gospel of Luke and the authorship of John, which does help us chip away at some of the sources which scholars and theologians use to show an historical Jesus. Again, I never said that Renan or any of the scholars I have quoted in the list or thereafter believed that an historical Jesus did not exist, unless I specifically said so, i.e. Carrier.

Slander you? You posted a link to a page which ridiculed your view, but you thought it supported it.

​

When did I say that this link supported my view? Although it does not disagree with my view, in that the author of the link concedes that there is a lack of certainty, which has been my central argument all along. I thought you might be interested in it in fact these were my very words:

Have you ever heard of a "scholar" by the name of Neil Godfrey?

Read this;
Mythicism vs. the Socratic Historians « Exploring Our Matrix

Thought you might find it interesting.

I did not provide this link to further my argument. I gave it to you because I genuinely thought you might be interested in it and you were very interested in it as I recall.

Then you referred to Ehrman, who (again) states that no serious historian agrees with you. YOU are linking to sources and authors who ridicule your view.

​

Again I am not out to seek the approval or follow the conclusions of scholars I reference, rather I am seeking to find crumbs which I might collect to create a meal with. I never say that Ehrman or anyone else agrees with me and in the first volume of my work, I specifically point out that Ehrman does not agree with my position.

I joined this forum after a serious car accident. I don't remember most of of January. My doctor suggested that before I started my research at the lab and my teaching again I should do more than just go back to studying, which doesn't involve imparting information or discussing it. Joining a forum seemed like a good way to do this when I couldn't move around. As for books and research, that's virtually all I possess. I don't know how many academic books I actually own, but somewhere in the thousands. So if you want to attack my credibility, the worse possible way would be to point to books and research. I would go back to attacking my lack of a life. I'm divorced. You can start there.

I have apologized for my insults and am sorry to hear about your situation, life can be a real b*, don’t worry, I know!

Yet you have continually refused to provide sources other than mostly outdated non-academic sources, some of which completely undermine your position.

​

Once again, I do not care for the overall opinion of any given scholar or researcher I refer to, I only care about the information and information can be taken, or extracted from a variety of sources without being tainted by the belief of the scholar/researcher.

Did Cline say that there is no archaeological evidence for an historical Jesus or his apostles, yes. What does this piece of information tell us? It tells us that there is no physical evidence for an historical Jesus, which is also the case for ancient characters across the board. Does this piece of evidence have to be tied to Cline’s overall opinion? No. It is like the law! One can draw from aspects of precedence (former cases) without being affected by the overall case itself.

So give some references. That way I can obtain some understanding of where you're coming from and what you know, and we can actually discuss the issue.

​

But can I give references that are “dated” as you put it, even if they go towards establishing the building blocks of historical issues surrounding Jesus, as you also put it?

Do I have to supply scholars who are in agreement with me, or can I supply references to pieces of evidence from scholars who may not agree with me overall?

Can I provide sources that are not “official” scholars in this particular field, yet who have contributed to arguments for uncertainty surrounding the historical Jesus?

I need to know the answer to these questions before I can supply you with what you want.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Simply listing random sources and names (the most credible of which range from disagreeing with you completely to simply mocking your view although, despite your research, you didn't seem to grasp this) gives me nothing to work with.

​

The sources are not random, instead, they go toward establishing a larger picture of uncertainty surrounding the historicity of Jesus. Again, I care not for the opinions of the authors and scholars I quote from, even the ones who are more critical of the historicity of Jesus, they could be wrong! Jesus could have been the one true son of the one true god! He could have performed those miracles and risen from the dead! I do not know, I think it seems insane, but who knows?

I've read Renan, Cline, Ehrman, and many others. So when you just list a bunch of names, some of which just dismiss your view, how on earth can I address whatever arguments you might have?

​

Again, same issue here! I do not need to follow the scholar’s outcome, just sift through what they have said to establish doubt. That is all.

I guess here would be an appropriate place to ask you a question.

Is ancient history a sure science? Do historians approach a given event or person in the ancient past, with scepticism or certainty to begin with?

How is any discussion possible until you provide what your position is and why?

​

I am quite sure that you are aware of my position. But I will state it for you one more time. We do not have enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was an historical character, especially the one recorded in the Gospels and epistles of the NT, which constitute the primary sources and give us the most information with regards to this incredible character.

Stating "we don't have the evidence" and then linking to a site which dimisses this approach, and more than one author who does as well, doesn't say much for your "research."

​

The reason for linking to that site was explained above and had nothing to do with my research.

I work at the Cognitive Neuropsychology Laboratory. And it has nothing to do with the historical Jesus. If you want to discuss dynamical systems in neuroscience, embodied cognition, neurocomputational modeling, computational linguistics, cognitive linguistics, etc., I'm more than happy to. But this isn't the thread to do so.

​

That is very interesting. I use a few neuroscientific studies and reference Dr Patrick McNamara’s work on neuroscience and the religious experience to examine belief from a neuroscientific point of view, yet it has nothing to do with an historical Jesus, well not directly anyway.

It adds to the uncertainty of the absolute validity of the gospels. But as I'm not christian, I couldn't care less. A lack of archaeological evidence is indicative of nothing. The fact that the gospels can't be trusted as unbiased historical narratives is true of the entirety of ancient historiography.

I think here you make a very good point.

The gospels cannot be trusted along with other Christian sources, and sources that have been shown to be, or at least potentially altered by Christians, or else completely eradicated by the Church, a Church who was in control of almost all historical documents for the good part of the history in question. I think this fact goes towards weakening the ‘Best Evidence’ principle as it relates to the historical Jesus question.

You come to a conclusion rejected by just about everyone who has studied this issue for years.

I think here a quote by Gandhi may be appropriate:

“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.”

I do not claim to represent the truth, I am simply arguing that we do not have enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was an historical person!

The "jesus myth" advocates are not those who have spent years studying the the period, person, culture, and so forth in question. They're guys who rely on a public audience with a lack of background in the relevant issues to judge how wrong they are.

I am not a Jesus mythicist, just a person who is asking questions and seeking answers and at this stage of my research I have not found sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus was an historical person.

Convince me!

your avenues of investigation seem limited to whatever you can find to support the conclusion you already arrived at.

Not at all! I am referencing information that establishes uncertainty, not conclusion!

So if you "avenues of investigation" are "all" then where's the references to those who disagree with you (i.e., virtually all historians) and how do you address their arguments?

As I am only trying to establish doubt with regards to the certainty of an historical Jesus, I see no point in presenting a side which is already overrepresented.

It was a review of a book. And it was "published" on a blog. People like Carrier, if they want their peers to take their work seriously, publish in journals or write books pubished by universities or companies with a reputation for carefully checking and reviewing the accuracy of what they publich (they have editorial boards).

I do not care about the snobbery of academia, nor do I follow what mainstream scholarship concludes at any given moment in history, whether it be the great Saint Augustine, who was a brilliant scholar in his day, yet concluded that people could not possibly exist on the other side of the world (from Egypt), as the bible does not give an account of such people. Mainstream scholarship is always tied to the constraints of its time, now, I am not advocating ignorance of scholarship, but a slightly more critical and less linear approach to assessing “recognized facts!”

Doherty, who wrote the book The Jesus Puzzle has a degree in ancient Greek and Latin. So do I. I have more degrees actually. But it doesn't make me an expert, and if I did enough research to produce a significant work that others who also had a background in this area would respect, I'd publish it in an academic arena. It's easy to convince (as Ehrman put it to me once) the "barnes and nobles crowd."

Again, I do not care for the snobbery of the dinner jacket crowd whose arrogance leads them to conclusions which will most likely be overturned in the future, as is usually the case with “knowledge,” but instead I would like to be free to investigate beyond common perception. Perhaps you might call me “intellectually claustrophobic!”

Have you spoken with Ehrman?

The "original sources" don't just include the N.T., Josephus, etc. The include Greek and Roman historiography in general, the Jewish writings that have nothing to do with Jesus directly, greco-roman letters, the "lives" of greco-roman "biographers," and much more.

Yes, I address the two main ones in my book, those being, Suetonius and Tacitus. I also dedicate quite a few words to Josephus as well.

 

[michaelsherlock]

it seems like you continually go back to sources that are either doubtful, or simply way too old to be of any real use. That seems to be your usual method though.

How far do my sources go back that they are rendered unreliable and of no use? 50 years, 100 years, even 2000 years perhaps!!

It also seems like you keep referring back to you writing a book as if that makes you some sort of scholar, or authority on the subject. But it doesn't.

Not at all! I am no scholar, I am someone with an opinion who was lucky enough to land a publishing deal for work I have written.

Anyone can write a book on a variety of subject. It doesn't mean much though.

I agree!

 

[fallingblood]

How far do my sources go back that they are rendered unreliable and of no use? 50 years, 100 years, even 2000 years perhaps!!

50 years, in many instances, is definitely stretching it. When you use sources such as the Toledot Yeshua, which is extremely old, it really has no use, as it isn't close enough to the actual events, yet is too old to be any use.

Sources from the 1800's simply are not good enough. Sources from the early 1900's are too out dated.

Not at all! I am no scholar, I am someone with an opinion who was lucky enough to land a publishing deal for work I have written.

If you're going to publish though, you have a responsibility to have the best information. From what we are seeing here, you simply don't. We can look at the James passage in Josephus again. There are nearly no scholars who deny it's authenticity. And there is no reason to suggest that it isn't authentic. Yet you continue to hold onto an idea that you can't support.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

50 years, in many instances, is definitely stretching it. When you use sources such as the Toledot Yeshua, which is extremely old, it really has no use, as it isn't close enough to the actual events, yet is too old to be any use.

Sources from the 1800's simply are not good enough. Sources from the early 1900's are too out dated.

I think what we should convey to him is:

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

The Toledot Yeshu is too far removed from the actual events to give us any historical information (and it's propaganda, which can't be entirely trusted). Josephus, Paul and the Gospels are closer, while they might not be the most accurate or fullest sources we can glean some historical facts from them.