Layman

Credibility? From the person who insisted that Matthew and Luke both had census and that Paul and Peter never met until their disagreeable incident in Galatians?

Spare me, Toto.

The article cannot be substandard because what it does is explain what real scholars think about the Jesus Myth. I know you guys don't like that fact. But that is the state of the question.

Dominus Paradoxum

Nevertheless, you are behaving irrationaly in accepting it. Just because something is widely accepted does not make it true. The probability that supernatural events occur remains exactly what it is irrespective of how many non-supernatural events occur.

Toto

The article explains nothing. It's just an appeal to authorities without even a critical examination of those authorities, more handwaiving saying "the case has been examined and found wanting." But there is no explanation of what methodology was used, what current scholars think, how views have changed, etc.

You seem to be practicing the broken record technique. Just keep repeating the same thing until you wear down the opposition. It's boring.

Layman

Sure it does. It explains the state of the scholarly view of the Jesus Myth.

Like I said, this shows us how pathetic the Jesus Myth appears to real scholars.

Whether you are bored or not, at least I tend to read my stuff before I open my mouth and make arguments like you do.

I know you guys would like to ignore the scholarly consensus and want it to go away, but it will not. But you should at least admit what the state of the question is.

Of course, I have and will continue to level substantive criticism at Doherty. I recently linked to a 30 page review I did on his treatment of Hebrews. Have you even read 30 pages of his book?

And given the swarm tactics the atheist moderators of this site permit here, it is very ironic that you would complain about me wearing down anyone. Yeah, me versus all you guys. I've got you surrounded.


:boohoo:

sodium

So do you reject the principle of induction in general? That is, do you reject it as useful in acquiring knowledge in science and daily life? Or do you reject it only for the purposes of New Testament scholarship? Or only for the purposes of questioning naturalism?

Also, the probability that supernatural events occur is not relevant. The important question is the probability that supernatural events account for the stories in the New Testament.

Toto

I am willing to admit that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. But I don't think that has any relevance to the question of whether he existed or not. I have yet to see any demonstration of any method behind that consensus, or the overwhelming facts that allow it to continue. Since most scholars today tend towards a postmodern, literary approach to the New Testament, it is not even clear if the issue is of concern to many.

I have indeed read Doherty's book. If I decide to contribute to the thread on Hebrews I will read every word of your review.

As for the swarm technique, a subject that is off topic here, I don't know of a way for moderators to prevent it without being paid to sit in front of our computers 24/7, and I have seen more than a few theist swarms on these boards. If you have a specific example you need to complain about, take it to the Bugs section.

edited to add: if we are going to dredge up old mistakes, I recall you wrote a lot about Robbins without ever reading him. I'm glad you learned that lesson.

Dominus Paradoxum

I reject its application to all contingent affairs. So unless it is true that causes logically necessitate their effects, I reject it in both science and daily life. And note, I do not say that I accept new testament miracles. Only that the principle of induction is a bad reason to reject them. The reason that I reject them is that hearsay does not constitue evedence, and that if they actually occured it would be more likely that historians would have noticed.

Amaleq13

After reading the article, I have to agree!

Howard Marshall: Observes that a Russian encyclopaedia identifies Jesus as the mythological founder of Christianity and that Wells’ conclusions have not been accepted by the consensus. No serious attempt is made to address any specific claims. He appears to rely entirely upon the logical fallacy of an appeal to majority.

Michael Grant: Offers an example of the logical fallacy of an argument from adverse consequences (i.e. if we question Jesus' historicity, we have to question a whole bunch of folk's). He offers no specific responses to actual arguments. Instead, he asserts that “first rank scholars” have “annihilated” it and observes that no “serious” scholar has tried to argue otherwise in recent years. The former, absent a description of the specifics of their arguments, is an appeal to authority. At the very least, it nothiing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. The latter is nothing more than an ad hominem against any scholar holding a minority view.

Will Durant: Needs to actually read Paul’s letters.

This is simply untrue. Paul never refers to anyone as having known the living Jesus.

Crucifixion many times, the “Lord’s Supper” only once. Paul identifies his depiction of Jesus eating the Lord’s Supper as a revelation from the Risen Christ.

He also repeats the fallacious argument from adverse consequences:
Rudolph Bultmann: Offers nothing except an ad hominem against anyone questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Robert Van Voorst: Ad hominem generalizations and, essentially, an appeal to the majority.

Graham Stanton: Appeal to majority (historians).

That’s six “experts” relying on logical errors and false information.

I have to agree, Layman, your article clearly presents an accurate portrait of the state of current scholarly argument against Doherty’s thesis.

Layman

Excuse the rest of the world if it does find a universal consensus among experts from a broad range of perspectives is relevant to the issue.

Since you argued that Luke and Matthew both discuss the census and insisted in the face of mounting evidence against you that Peter and Paul did not meet until their disagreement recorded in Galatians, why should I think you have the first clue what most scholars of New Testament think today? Can you possibly defend this statement with any evidence?

And here I thought that writing the 30 pages, providing its conclusion, and linking to it was "contributing" to the thread.

Guess only guys who drop by with a few one liners count, eh?

Cop out. Do you guys even want to have a serious discussion board?

I read all I could about his theory and posted my thoughts on it. I got the article and read it as soon as I could. Not that you were any help by your refusal to send me a copy despite my request and offer to pay for it.

And I was right about Robbins. I proved him wrong here and at cross-talk.

Mr. Kirby did his own investigation, which was admittedly more thoroughy than my own, and agreed that Robbins completely failed to show the existence of any literary convention regarding sea travels: http://didjesusexist.com/wesea.html

Per Kirby: There are no known examples of a simply generic first person plural (where the person speaking is not present but rather employing an expected style) in an ancient sea voyage story, and this suggests strongly that an ancient author would not have slipped into the first person plural in response to a supposed demand of a sea travel genre. There is no precedent, and, thus, there is no such literary device.

Only you could try and say that my being wrong was wrong.

Truly amazing Toto.

:notworthy

Ted Hoffman

One of us wrote to Doherty regarding Laymans link and since I wanted to do the same, Doherty provided me with his response to that person. I post this because this is a matter of general interest and see no reason to treat it as confidential material.

Let me repeat one last time to layman: Scholarly consensus regarding the historicity of Jesus has zero weight. They have no methodology and are simply coalescing for social purposes and not intellectual purposes.

Because of their inertia and childhood indoctrination, the thought of a mythical Jesus is anathema.

In any event, THE BULK of them are apologists and theologians who studied nonsense ideologies like Divinity wherein belief in the supernatural was etched in their brains - Crossan has even been a priest and never distanced himself from the prattle they teach in Church. The inertia that propels their thinking is colossal!

They also hold positions in universities and schools of theology that are predicated on their confessional interests. Even if they knew there is no HJ, their hands may be tied.
Indeed, being found with a copy of Doherty's book may cost them their jobs.