Toto

It is very insulting of you to assume that I would not be convinced by evidence.

I scanned the introduction to Allison's book on Amazon, and it looks like a very interesting, well argued book, but it appears that he is working in the tradition of assuming that Jesus existed and trying to tease some evidence out of the historical tradition to figure out who he was. He does not appear to even address the issue of whether a historical Jesus existed.

You tried to rely on a quote from Jeff Lowder, written at a time when he was either an undergraduate or a recent graduate, specializing in debate, and you misinterpreted it as if it were a blanket statement about historical method. The idea that all ancient documents must be given the benefit of the doubt is a favorite idea of Christian apologists, but is rejected by modern historians.

I disagree.

Here's a big difference: Holocaust deniers are ideologically motived. They believe in Hitler's Aryanism and refuse to admit any flaws in their hero. They deny the evidence in front of their faces, including eyewitnesses and hard physical evidence, and the testimony of those who survived the Holocaust. That's why Shermer classifies them along with others who believe in pseudosience.

People who question the existence of a historical Jesus have a variety of political and theological positions. They are just looking at the evidence (or lack thereof) and trying to make sense of it. All that I know of would be willing to admit that a human Jesus existed if there were real evidence, or if a historical Jesus was the best explanation of whatever evidence there is.

You may look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion, but there is no sense pretending that the evidence for Jesus is so overwhelming that no case can be made for his non-existence.

I continue to see evidence that you know nothing about the historical method. Ancient Rome has left lots of monuments, archeological remains, literary remains. Subjecting them to a normal or even extreme amount of skepticism hardly makes things easy, but it still leaves the historian a lot to write about.

You might want to check with Richard Carrier, who had written a PhD thesis on the history of science in the Roman Empire, without using your gullible criteria in regard to ancient documents.

John W. Loftus

Then welcome to the world of control beliefs. They control how we each view the evidence much like how a prosecutor and defense attorney construct stories leading to different conclusions based on the same evidence. The fact that you felt insulted is odd, given these undeniable things about the nature of human knowing. Some people cannot be convinced with the available evidence. That's no insult when the available evidence is slim, as it is in this case. Now if the evidence presented was about the fact of gravity, then it would be an insult.

Allison is a skeptical historian. William Lane Craig says of his book Resurrecting Jesus that it's the "best skeptical defense against the resurrection" he knows of. The point of Allison is that his apocalyptic picture of the textual evidence fits better than any other picture of Jesus. And if that picture is correct then we have a basis for saying it describes a real historical cult founder.

I did not misinterpret it. It is not rejected by historians. He said she said all you want to. Show otherwise. Besides, I'm making my own case.

Do I really want to go here, being in a den of skeptics who think evangelicals are deluded idiots who inhibit scientific progress, and who want to keep gays from the benefits of marriage, and so on?

Naw. I don't think so.

Wait just a minute. Where do you get that? This is another non-sequitur. I never said this at all. I said the textual evidence leads the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed scholars to conclude the picture we have of him in the NT is of an eschatological prophet. With that picture I conclude he existed as the founder of the Jesus cult, but I'm not as sure that he existed as I am of that picture.

Well, you can assert that and claim to know what I don't know if it makes you feel better about yourself, I guess. But it's a wildly improbable and exaggerated claim to say I know nothing about the historical method even based on this small sampling of evidence.

I do from time to time. And he highly recommends my book:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...mmends-my.html

I am a friend of his and Price's and Hector Avalos's. We discuss things like these when we get the chance, although rarely. Am I supposed to agree with them because of this? Why? I am first and foremost a freethinker. I left the confines of the dogmatism of the church years ago.

I hope you understand. I have not accused you of anything, except a couple of non-sequiturs. Why do you accuse me of extremely implausible accusations because I disagree? Whenever that happens it appears to me the person I'm disagreeing with is "ideologically motivated" (see above).

Cheers.

Toto

Mr. Loftus: you have missed the last eight years of debate on this board about the historical Jesus. I can't help you get up to speed with a few posts.

If you are friends with Richard Carrier, ask him about your standards for historical evidence.

John W. Loftus

I understand the debate well enough. Was I supposed to be here to read it, such that I don't understand it if I wasn't here, or something? Is it possible that I just disagree with you? Or are you now claiming that I'm ignorant because I disagree? The claim of ignorance falls on my deaf ears. Christians repeatedly say the same thing about me.

Sometime soon. I'm going to get his book. And I think you misunderstand me, probably because it suits your ideology.

Listen, I'm your friend. I have written a good book that will surely do some damage to the Christian faith. Skeptics do not agree, nor do they have to agree on everything before they can be friends in a common goal. We are a minority but we share common goals. I'm just discussing this issue and disagreeing, that's all. There is no need to make me out an enemy of historical standards or skepticism because I disagree, okay?

No Robots

Just as there is only one True Faith, so is there only one True Rationality. The quarrel about the nature of Christ has moved from the terrain of faith to the terrain of rationality, but it is not any the less visceral. The question is whether or not there can be a kind of modus vivendi. The Christian churches have been forced into accepting each other's existence. What about divergent rationalist understandings? It seems to me that the only solution is a kind of intellectual separatism, wherein people will stop trying to "cure" others of their "delusions" about what constitutes true rationality. Instead, the object will be to provide people with the opportunity to decide for themselves what constitutes true rationality, and to associate with those who hold the same view.

thedistillers

Enemy of historical standards would be an exagerration, but for a start, can you name at least one historian who takes the same approach as you do? What is your knowledge of historiography anyway?

If you would just express your modest opinion I wouldn't ask, but you seem quite confident about how history must be done, so I think it's a fair question.

Toto

The way you frame the question, and your assumptions, indicate that you do not realize the status of the debate. The idea that there is any peer reviewed historical research that supports the existence of Jesus has been thoroughly debunked here. The idea that ancient documents must be given any benefit of the doubt as valid history has been thoroughly debunked here. That old quote from Lowder has been discussed to death here.

You can't even answer me without assuming that I have some ideological bias against your position. Believe me, I don't care one way or the other if Jesus existed. You are so committed to your own interpretation that you seem to feel the need to impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees. That's not the point of a discussion. You should be able to identify whether the disagreement is over facts or interpretation, or can be resolved by defining your terms, or whatever. But if you just automatically ascribe any disagreement to your opponent's emotional state, you forclose any production discussion.

I'm sure that your heart is in the right place on some issues. So maybe you should leave it at that.

Ben C Smith

1 Corinthians 12.3b:

...and no one can say: Jesus is Lord, except by the holy spirit.

Romans 10.9:

...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Philippians 2.11:

...and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father.

Would you prefer to call Jesus is Lord confessional rather than credal, since Paul links it with saying or confessing rather than explicitly with believing (that is, with giving credence)?

J. N. D. Kelly offers Jesus is Lord as what he calls a credal element or a credal fragment in Early Christian Creeds.

Ben.

John W. Loftus

What do you want from me here? I took a masters level class called "Historiography of Theories of History," I wrote a chapter on history and revelation for my M.A. Thesis of Karl Barth, and I have a chapter in my book Carrier recommends so highly titled, "The Poor Evidence of Historical Evidence." Is that enough for you, or do you want me to also list the books and articles I've read too numberous for me to even remember them all, most of which are peer-reviewed material.

John W. Loftus

Okay, that shows I'm wrong now doesn't it?

I saw evidence of that, yes.

Neither do I.

I think you did that with me.

Likewise.

When it comes to the general case concerning Christianity I am an expert. Of that I am assured. But we can leave it at that.