Did Jesus Actually Exist?

From the page history, as a part of complaint of vague, unspecified "scholars" holding a certain view, the following passage, which you seem to have overlooked:



I note that you still have not directly responded to Feldman's 1984 paper in which he states that the majority of modern scholars, over the 50 year period 1933-1983 consider the Josephus passages to in part or entirely interpolation.

LOL. You're the weasel here, trying to change the question. You think you can pull that out and make believe we are discussing magics?

Whatever. Sorry if I hurt you, since I was not targeting you here, but I sincerely think that debating with hyper-doubters (about Jesus, global warming, the holocaust or the evolution) --- as I have been doing here for months about an issue that has been consensual amongst academia since the 1930, just like GW is consensual in academia but hotly debated here --- that it amounts to facing the same tired and sick tactics: change the goalpost constantly, peddle crazy paranoid theories, instill doubt where there is none, never believe any contradictory source, treat scientists as ****, etc.

Much of that has happened right here. The similarities between different types of hyper-doubters are obvious, for all to see. And the tiresome, unproductive nature of their debating style weights down A2K. It makes almost any discussion go to ****. So it's important IMO to raise the issue of hyper-criticism, also called 'epistemologic paranoia' (just made that up)...

It's one thing to, say, not believe in global warming. One is entitled to one's opinion. It's entirely another to peddle lies from crappy sites as Timur has done in order to actively spread where there isn't, and lie about scientists. And I don't think he did it on purpose, not anymore than Bill when he links you to a crappy anti-GW-paid-by-Big-Oil website. Both are duped by their own bias: if the website says what they agree with, it MUST be reliable. That's why these wackos never check their sources, because mentally they are incapable of doubting their own sources and theories (while doubting yours galore). They are locked into a mental prison of doubts that are so strong that they are in fact beliefs.

Here is a perfect illustration of what I am saying about hyper-criticism: Set will not believe Wikipedia on these matters or any other issue where Wikipedia contradicts him. It's 'tampered' etc.

Now, what would a RATIONAL person do? A rational mind would think something like: "maybe Wikipedia was tampered, so LET'S TRY AND CHECK THE INFO ANOTHER WAY." A rational person with a degree of curiosity and interest for the issue being debated would not stop there and would try to check the source.

Not Set, because he is not curious about what Feldman ACTUALLY SAID on Josephus, book 20 mention of "James, brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". He does not care. KNOWLEDGE IS NOT THE GOAL -- SUFFICE TO INSTILL DOUBT.

Unfortunately for Setanta, I am a rational person curious about the truth, so I looked at Google Books for a copy of the book referenced in the Wikipedia article. And found it.... Wikipedia is correct: Feldman says that Josephus did talk about Jesus. And here is the proof: page 56 of 'Josephus, Judaism and Christianity by Louis H. Feldman and Gōhei Hata, 1997, ISBN 90-04-08554-8:

http://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC&pg=PA57&lpg=PP1&focus=viewport&dq=Josephus,+Judaism+and+Christianity+Louis+H.+Feldman,+Gohei+Hata&output=html_text

Now, what does an hypercritic do when one of his central argument crumbles? Usually he just ignores the rebuttal, move to other arguments for a while, then some time later he quietly pulls out the discredited argument again, hoping people forgot it has been debunked. I trust that's what Set will do.

Feldman says the mention of James in book 20 is accepted near universally. Carrier knows little about Josephus and his theory is of the 'I don't agree with this source so I will tamper it' variety. A facile lack of respect for sources that contradict them characterizes the doubters.

It doesn't really matter if your comment was aimed at me. There is a world of difference between Holocaust denial, which is actually illegal in Germany, and the other types of denial you've mentioned. Holocaust denial is deeply racist, anti Semitic and is motivated by pure hatred. You cannot say that of other types of denial, even Quahog's ridiculous gravity denial.

So to liken anyone to a Holocaust denier, unless they've been racist in some way, is completely unacceptable.

Oops the link I posted was for page 57 (also worthwhile). Just navigate from it to page 56, or click:

http://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC&pg=PA56&lpg=PP1&focus=viewport&dq=Josephus,+Judaism+and+Christianity+Louis+H.+Feldman,+Gohei+Hata&output=html_text

Ok, holocaust denial is illegal (in France too). That's an objective difference alright.

Note that I have already said that morally speaking, holocaust denial is about doubting the lives and deaths of 6 million Jews, which is arithmetically 6 million times graver an offense than denying one Jew's life and death... I realize though that's this caveat cannot be repeated again and again so the comparison is indeed potentially misleading. I never meant to equate the two on a moral plane.

So your point is well taken. I will stick from now on to a comparison with deniers of GW, evolution, or the value of Pi...

I still think this debate is a polemic motivated by, if not downright hatred, at least very strong anti-Christian bias. Knowledge is not the goal of the doubters, obfuscation is. Theirs are not positive motives.

Pretending to know whats going on on other people's minds and their feelings is the summit of arrogance.

What do you know about my goals?

Slow down, little person!

Some deniers deny because they see no reasons to think otherwise. Getting personal against them is never a good tactic.

Perhaps but I can trace patterns just like anybody else.

One is entitled to one's opinion, but not to one's facts. So if one says: 'there is no evidence' while some considerable evidence has in fact been put on the table, one is lying. What one really should say is: 'I don't TRUST the evidence provided'. 'I don't trust Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Paul.' 'I don't trust the Gospels and the Talmud'. That's fine, as long as one explains one's reasons, and these reasons are considered strong scientifically. The Testimonium Flavianum for instance has obvious INTERNAL CONSISTENCY issues, which is why it is RIGHTLY critiqued, but the Josephus Antiquities book 20 mention of James brother of Jesus is considered genuine on solid historic and philologic grounds.

One can say: 'I don't trust historians'. That's fine, but one cannot say: 'historians/scientists are divided on the issue of a historical Jesus (or Pi, or Global Warming), because that's just not true.

I am just saying that similar psychological forces are at play: a strong personal bias, a refusal to acknowledge sources and treat them seriously, a fear of being duped, etc. leading to endless and unproductive debates.

I think you are so biased you can't comment properly on those who oppose you.

I am agreeing with an overwhelming majority of qualified scientists. That's how 'biased' I am.

One can say that as amply demonstrated on this thread.

Only you will not admit it, having a strong personal bias, a refusal to acknowledge sources and treat them seriously.

You are lying now. The only poster who managed to find ONE scientist doubting a historical Jesus is ME. I did YOUR homework, and that's why I can easily handle your BS now. I found Carrier, later quoted by Set. Carrier's own blog says the Jesus myth thesis has never been published in a peer reviewed journal or press. Never published.

So stop lying, stop making scientists say what they don't say, and don't present columnists as scholars, for these are the despicable tactics of obfuscators. Do your homework, research the issue seriously as I did, and check your sources.

Cause if you don't, I will....

You are the liar here and your persistence in impugning the scholars I cited is pitiful.

Others have already noted that you are being dishonest in your characterization of doubters.

Another list of authors that is worth reading:
The denial of the historicity of Jesus

When I'll see it fit, I'll come back with more sources as apparently you are up to dismiss the ones I give, even though they include Carrier.

Is that another crappy site full of lies and conspiracy ion theories, or did you checked that one's sources? Did you check what the true scientists among them say about Jesus?

What keeps you from checking it out?

The feeling that these people are a lot more knowledgeable than you are about the existence of Jesus?

Crappy ipse dixit assertions are not sufficient.

You still haven't provided a single indisputable source for the existence of Jesus.

Oh sorry, that was not so crappy, just old. Many dead people in there. Most of them loooong dead. I found only two "modern" dudes in this wiki article:

- Hermann Raschke, (1887–1970), a Lutheran minister ( ) this tedious fact-checking has its rewards...); and

- G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga (1874–1957): the last of the Dutch Radical School to hold a professorship... Dutch theologian. From 1936 to 1944 he was professor in New Testament exegesis at the University of Amsterdam... So the last blip of your thesis on the scholarship radar dates back to the 40s or 50s... That's how ALIVE it is...

Or did I miss someone???