Part 2: Spoiler: Spoiled for length and maybe truth ;) - part 2 Richard Carrier wrote his own book and got that book published by an peer reviewed academic press. 2014: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier Carrier looked at the probabilities and found that a minimum historical Jesus (Ehrman's Jesus) had a 1/3 chance of being true. Carrier expand Doherty's work and provided citations. Carrier lists out 50+ facts (he calls them elements) that affect the Jesus historicity argument that are a consensus among historians. He uses these facts as a basis for setting his probabilities.
Yup, trust in other scientists for not faking data in there paper and numbers. Whereas people trust **** pastors, priests and Imans out of the sheer prestige they've built. A scientist could possibly make a life from building lie upon lie daring someone to reproduce results. That's religion, amirite?? All a pastor needs to do to recover from crimes is to ask for forgiveness to the big one who already knows he's a criminal and chronic hypocrite. How well could a scientist pull off that whopper? I've been told before to "fake it till you make it" in order to believe. What happens when you fake it all the way to the top? Do you then encourage others below you to trust you enough to look past things if you're exposed? I've respected pitches a lot more when they risked looking crazy to strangers rather than shrouding themselves with ancient text or cultures in order to appear like the normal one. All that shrouding is a practice in vanity rather than legitimate missionary work That's tv faith in a nutshell. Double sealed with the lack of falsifiability and tribalism with just enough contempt for the outsider to justify and enable your own failings within the tribe.
It isn't just Biblical scholars. A vast majority of those that study antiquities, as well and classic historians all believe that Jesus was a real person that was baptised and crucified. The issue was debated for years, and based on the number of sources and variety of sources, it really isn't an open debate among those that study the subject. I want to make clear, there is a lot of debate on other elements of Jesus, but his existence and how he died are not debated.
Bart Ehrmam is very good on the issue and his works are always well sourced and he is clear as to what his opinions are and what they are based on. He tends to lean more against the traditional view of Jesus than many, but even he agrees that Jesus was a real person, a teacher, was baptized and crucified. Earl Doherty isn't nearly as well versed on the topic, and his opinions hold less weight. His sources are often dubious and I believe that he has been somewhat marginalized. Over the last 25 years, there has been a contraction on the issue of the historical Jesus from both sides of the issue. Most of the skeptics now agree that he lived, and that he was a teacher and the basic frame work that he had disciples and followers. Likewise most of the "pro-mystic" Jesus have agreed that he didn't turn water into wine or physically rise from the dead. There are a lot of issues that need to be broached but it is more accurate and better than it was years ago.
In Quran, he wasn't a God~son, but but..so... superhuman, if you think resurrection is too much,then take this (5:110) And when God will say: “O Jesus, son of Mary, remember the favours I bestowed on you and your mother, and reinforced you with divine grace that you spoke to men when in the cradle, and when in the prime of life; when I taught you the law and the judgement and the Torah and the Gospel; when you formed the state of your people’s destiny out of mire and you breathed (a new spirit) into it, and they rose by My leave; when you healed the blind by My leave, and the leper; when you put life into the dead by My will; and when I held back the children of Israel from you when you brought to them My signs, and the disbelievers among them said: “Surely these are nothing but pure magic.” "I will recall you and raise you up to Me and will purify you ( of the company ) of those who disbelieve , and will set your followers above the unbelievers till the Day of Resurrection . Then to Me you shall return , and I will judge between you regarding what you differed "
Doherty wrote to a layman audience, so he did not provide the citations that both Ehrmam and Carrier do. Funny thing though, most of the points that Doherty made were also made by Carrier in his peer reviewed book.
I do. And there was a time I would have been interested in some theological argument with you to prove it up. I'm not remotely interested in that at all. Hopefully I can try to live like I believe it, and that's the best way I know to communicate it. Mind you, I suck at doing that...but still!!!
Doherty is a writer, he isn't a historian and has a very limited background in antiquity studies and lacks the pedigree of others on the topic. There are a lot of academics and historians that are critical of Doherty. Indeed he has been accused of misrepresentations and lacking the education or background to understand ancient documents from that time period. Doherty is fine for someone with a passing curiosity on the subject, but most of his points are those that are just restatements or previous works.
Just do a basic google search and they will come up. Another option is to do a simple wiki search and they list multiple citations concerning the theory of the historical Jesus and the fact that the overwhelming majority of those that study the topic, be they historians or biblical historians or those with a background studying the antiquities all accept that there was a man that was "Jesus" that was baptised and crucified and was a teacher that walked the earth over 2000 years ago. You are free to believe that Jesus never walked the earth, but you are strongly in the minority among those that study the topic as a career and are highly educated in that period of history. Also the argument that all these people have an over riding self interest in Jesus having been a real person, is very flawed. In the 20th century there were many in the applicable fields that questioned whether Jesus was a real person. The self interest in the field didn't magically change over the last 25-30 years. Further many of those in the field are athiests.
Just putting him in there to help build up another faith. Just like the Christians did in making his birthday on the Winter solstice as it lined up with pagan holidays. The Muslim faith had one guys version as allegedly the word of the arch angel Gabriel, even though any human could be talking to an Alien and not know the difference...whereas Christianity modified Jesus message some 300+ years after the fact, cut out women from positions of power, and buried the Gnostic sects....out of Cannon. To me, all religions are made up by man to control the masses. I get that part of the messaging is spiritual and noteworthy, but the stories made up about prophets or Jesus are very hard to believe, and the Old Testament is even worse as it lines up with religions that had long since died off. Seems like those stories told around the camp fires by the elders of a tribe - consistently embellished until they were written down. DD
Mesopotamian and paganism were dominant through ME, aside from scattered places around Palestin,and fertile urban spots, thanks mainly to Roman Church for keeping Eastren church followers under population control. If the connection made by design to reach to Judisim and Christianity , probably it would be a bad idea hence An Arab prophet would never appeals to Jews, and Christians they didn't find a (one God) idea so appealing Gabriel is the holy Spirit to Islam,the go to Angle for Abrahamic religions It either this , or the other way around, a pure message looses it's authentic value overtime by human this happened often and end up worshipping their ancestors I guess. Now if I had the modification power over Islam , I would probably skip Christianty and Judisim and start with clean cut figures, less hassle and controversies. ED;
I don't know if Jesus was resurrected but this thread was. From what I've seen there is some good evidence that a Jesus as a historical figure did exist and he was a leader of a Jewish sect that was crucified by the Romans roughly around the first C. AD. That said there were a lot of leaders of Jewish sects including a few different Messiahs. Also the Romans were crucifying a lot of people. Chances are the historical Jesus was a person but many of the stories of his life were amalgamations from different people. My question to people who believe in him is does it matter if there is any actual physical proof of Jesus or his resurrection? If nothing definitive can ever be found of Jesus would that lessen your faith?
The evidence around Jesus as a historical figure is, afaik, as strong as pretty much any ancient person. I don’t know that many/any credible historians dispute the historical Jesus. I don’t think people have much difficulty with that. Proof of the resurrection? Well, you have to look at the evidence and come to a determination on your own. Mostly what we have is some form of testimony. I’m not sure what ironclad proof would look like. Was Jesus God? I believe so but I think sitting here in the West in 2021 that’s a minority position. I’m nonplussed either way. If I’m wrong and spent my life trying to live by the tenants of my faith, worst case scenario is I die and go into a hole. If I’m right, well, maybe I’ll go to heaven. There’s not much I’m losing or missing out on living by the tenants of my faith. I’d live a similar lifestyle anyway.
Pascal's wager.. I disagree the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure as strong as any ancient person, especially at the time of the Roman. Empire. Tiberius who was the Emperor of the time, Pontius Pilot and Herod all have many many times more documentation than Jesus. It would be like 2000 years from now determining the amount of documentation of the Donald Trump versus a social media influencer. That said I think it's strong enough to point to that a Jewish religious leader named Jesus did exist and was crucified at that time.
This was one of the harder tenets to let go. Believing in a god is easy. The JC angle made it difficult . God can be completely subjective. A god being born as human takes a lot of faith, especially one who rejects you as a follower if you don't drink the entire pitcher of koolaid.
