stephan huller

i dont know why all this is necessary. it all comes down to - were the Marcionites "mythers"? if so, fuck the consensus

Toto

He has stated fairly explicitly that he doesn't think enough historical evidence has survived to come close to proving what he thinks is most likely.

I think it is more that Price has rejected what he sees as the current evangelical hijacking of what passes for scholarship in his field. His books are not an easy read for someone without a good background in the subject matter.

Diogenes the Cynic

It depends on which book. Sometimes he can seem deceptively light, but he can turn on those two PhD engines when he wants to.

I also think he's right about the evidence. I don't think the current state of the evidence is sufficient to prove the question either way. I certainly don't think a seminal event involving a real crucifixion of a real person is implausible, but I don't necessarily think such a hypothetical person had to resemble the New testament character. I think a real person could have easily been subsumed into mystery cult traditions and churned up this weird new, Jewish-Pagan hybrid.

Juma

Same old bullshit. When will you understand that you cannot know? That the question is nota valid question? Thjat there is no answer? Think of all the time you all, and many more has wasted on these shit issues. There must be better things to ponder thN this shit! Please!

aa5874

We are NOT dealing with Proofs.

There are TWO fundamental arguments for or against an historical Jesus.

ALL we need to see is the evidence from antiquity to support each opposing argument.

It is quickly realized that there is NO actual evidence from antiquity to support an Obscure preacher man of Nazareth.

Virtually all the Evidence from antiquity support the Argument for a non-historical Jesus.

As soon as it was declared the NT is NOT historically reliable then the argument for an HJ was Crushed.

And in addition, the very argument for an historical Jesus MUST show that the NT cannot be trusted.

In effect, the HJ argument is WITHOUT Source, WITHOUT Evidence and ultimately WITHOUT Proof.

The Quest for an historical Jesus signifies that NO historical Jesus has ever been found and that the NT is about the Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus, the Son of a Ghost.

ApostateAbe

The mythicist position has been known for one hundred years, their arguments have fallen just as short, and Robert Price thinks it is still too early for Bart to tell. How much time does it take? Not nearly as long, in my opinion. I have examined the arguments in comprehensive detail, and the position is just as unlikely as it should appear on first glance. A comparison to Immanuel Velikovsky would be an exaggeration. Mythicism is maybe one step above that. Any theory with teeth needs to first convince the academics--or at least a sizable camp of the academics. Oh, darn it, that isn't an option because almost all of the academics are biased against them. Even the non-religious academics. So, like true cranks, they market to the public instead.

aa5874

What you claim makes very little sense. For hundreds of years HJers have been on a QUEST for a Human Jesus because the Jesus of the NT is a Myth.

You have even RE-WRITTEN the Jesus story based on YOUR imagination and Guesswork AFTER you have Expunged Myth Jesus.

HJers have ALREADY admitted hundreds of years ago that the NT contains a Jesus of Faith based on the actual Evidence in the NT itself.

Is NOT Matthew 1.18 in the NT??

Does it not say Mary was With child of a Ghost who was called Jesus at birth??

Is NOT Luke 1.26-35 in the NT??

It says Jesus was FATHERED by a Over-shadowing Ghost.

Is it NOT claimed Jesus Walked on the Sea, transfigured and resurrected in gMark 6, Mark 9 and Mark 16???

You and Ehrman MUST EXPUNGE the evidence for Myth Jesus.

Ehrman wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist?" and his peer Carrier has determined that it is a Failure of Facts and Logic.

Carrier considers "Did Jesus Exist?" as worse than bad.

Schorlarly consensus certainly did NOT help Ehrman.

Scholarly consensus means absolutely nothing once it is NOT based on Credible evidence.

HJers are still on the QUEST for a human Jesus--it will never end.

When did your human Jesus live??? Stop Guessing!!!

The Scholarly consensus on human Jesus is based DIRECTLY on Guessing and discredited sources..

outhouse

Maybe Carrier can bring a better arguement

Price and his 3 pillars, are pretty weak

No Robots

The irony being that this is the one place where mythicists actually imitate Christ's methods.

James The Least

I think a "scholarly consensus" is a strong argument in most cases. No one has the time to research all the views on every subject. We need a summary of majority opinion.

But, of course, we're talking about Bible studies here. The supposed consensus is largely formed by seminary students trained to think their religion is "historical" while other ones aren't, and a whole host of similarly duplicitous mental gymnastics. The consensus in such a field is going to simply be the result of confirmation bias and a highly selective application of criteria designed to reach the desired results -- basically, the opposite of what the historical method should be, in theory anyway.