Only got LHW belt because Jon Jones is a fuckup.

Overrated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663548)

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2014/08/car388028

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44662612)

The only way to maintain the mythicist position is to have a standard of historical evidence that would pretty much cancel out our presumption about anything that happened prior to like the 1,400s.

You always say I never respond in substance so let me put this out there as one example of the problem with the mythicist position: Erhman gives 15 INDEPDENT sources for the crucifixion of Christ within 100 years. When it comes to historical evidence for someone, there is almost nothing in the ancient world that is as strongly attested to so closely to the event itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEQbvr9Dl4g

FYI, drop Carrier. I'm not sure why you cling to him. As an atheist you would be in much better company with the historical Jesus crowd that just disputes the resurrection.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44662683)

and

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/dav3680290 ). I don't know how to precisely define a "handful," but a lot of the people on this list look more than "semi-legitimate" and "tangentially involved": https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794#22

Also, if you had actually read the article I linked to, he remarks on one of the many problems with the so-called scholarly consensus: "This has happened to me countless times. A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus. This should teach us how important it is to stop repeating the phrase 'the overwhelming consensus says…' Because that consensus is based on false beliefs and assumptions, a lot of them inherited unknowingly from past Christian faith assumptions in reading or discussing the evidence, which even secular scholars failed to check before simply repeating them as certainly the truth."

So, given all of those points, I think I have enough reason to take an interest in this and not simply say to myself, well, historicity is the consensus and that's that.

"The only way to maintain the mythicist position is to have a standard of historical evidence that would pretty much cancel out our presumption about anything that happened prior to like the 1,400s."

Carrier has written about this type of argument extensively. Here he argues that the quantity/quality/type of evidence that we have for Julius Caesar, for example, is totally different from the situation with Jesus in many ways: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7862

On this page he discusses his work comparing the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for Socrates, Alexander the Great, Pontius Pilate, Spartacus, various Roman emperors, etc.: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924

"Erhman gives 15 INDEPDENT sources for the crucifixion of Christ within 100 years."

My understanding is that the mythicist thesis holds that some Christians had begun to believe in the historical Jesus within the first 100 years (so A.D. 130 or earlier), and that these sources are not actually demonstrably independent in the sense that we have no way of knowing that they aren't just repeating what Christians at the time were saying. This argument from "many different sources" is also discussed in the Caesar article I linked to above. I'm not going to sit here and discuss all 15 alleged sources, but if you are interested, Carrier has responded to Ehrman's various arguments at considerable length here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794

and from reading some of it and some of his other responses to critics, I am inclined to think Carrier has a better point, to the extent that I can tell as a layman.

"You always say I never respond in substance"

Well, you definitely do engage at length some of the time, it's more just that you tend to disappear right when we seem to have finally gotten down to the crux of the matter, and also that you make silly and dishonest arguments that barely address what I actually wrote. For an example of both, see this poast that you never responded to:

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477387

Also, you seem to have some sort of weird personal hatred for Carrier. You called him a "dummy" in another thread even though he has a PhD from Columbia and has published peer-reviewed journal articles on subjects ranging from New Testament studies to Hitler studies to philosophy of religion, which seems like an impressive breadth even if you disagree with his conclusions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44662996)

Lets just take this one as a start.

We have amazing documentation of all the heresies in the early Church. From the Judiazers, to the Gnostics, to the Arians. Yet somehow, the biggest heresy to ever exist for Christians (Jesus was a myth) just came and went without a peep?

The Book of Acts explicitly tackles early church issues through this time period. We have ZILCH talking about some debate or split in the Church between the real and mythicist positions. Nor do we see it in any of the writings of Church fathers writing EXACTLY at the same time. First Clement, written by a Pope of all people, was in the 90s (or earlier). We have Ignatius , who was a student of the Apostle John, writing on disagreements in the Church in 100. Does he mention anything about what would have been the biggest disagreement at the time? NOPE. Carrier's claim simply does not pass the sniff test.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663022)

"Then Bock falsely claims that in antiquity “no one was arguing that the accounts of Jesus’s actions were fabricated or mythical.” Sorry, but, uh yeah, not only did Celsus claim that, and extensively, writing in the same time as Justin Martyr, but Trypho (the fake Jew Justin invented for his dialogue) argues the same point, too (he says the Gospel stories are just “unfounded rumor” and a Christian “invention,” Dial. 8). So when Bock cites Trypho as not making that argument, we know Bock sucks at basic homework. But that’s not the only example. 2 Peter attacks even a fellow Christian sect that was claiming the Gospels were “cleverly devised myths.” Ignatius also spends several letters attacking fellow Christians who were teaching that at least parts of the Gospels were mythical. And Irenaeus devotes books to the subject of other Christians claiming substantial portions of the Gospels were mythical. Indeed, the genealogies for Jesus are claimed to be mythical even in the New Testament itself! (1 Tim. 1.4; Tit. 3.9.)

A passage from Carrier's book (reproduced with further discussion here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13425 ):

"The only element of the basic myth theory that is even incredible (at least at first look) is the idea that a transition from a secret cosmic savior to a public historical one happened within two generations, and without a clear record of it occurring. But the unusual circumstances of a major disruption in the church opened the door to rapid developments in its dogmas, and the complete silence of the record in the following period blocks any attempt to argue ‘from silence’ that there was no transition from myth to legend. That this development did not get recorded is because nothing got recorded.

When we consider the prospect of newly evangelized Christians, handed a euhemerized Gospel, but not yet initiated into the full secret, and then being set loose to spread their unfinished beliefs and founding their own churches and developing their own speculations, the idea that a myth could be mistaken as and transformed into ‘history’ in just a few generations is not so implausible as it may seem, particularly given that the geographical distances involved were large, lifespans then were short, and legends often grow with distance in both time and space. There may even have been a ‘transitional’ state of the cult in which the historical narratives were seen as playing out what was simultaneously occurring in the heavens (so one could believe both narratives were true), or in which certain sect leaders chose to downplay or reinterpret the secret doctrines and sell the public ones as the truth instead (as Origen seems to have thought was a good idea). Any number of possibilities present themselves; without any data from that period, we cannot know which happened.

Hence I already dealt with this objection more than adequately in Chapters 6 (§7), 7 (§7), and 8 (§§4 and 12). For comparison, even if we granted historicity, then we do not know how some sects transitioned to a cosmically born Jesus in the Christianities Irenaeus attacks as heresies (Chapter 11, §9) or a cosmically killed Jesus in the Ascension of Isaiah (Chapter 3, §1), or to a Jesus who lived and died a hundred years earlier (Chapter 8, §1). Thus, our ignorance in the matter of how the cult transitioned is not solved by positing historicity. Either way, we’re equally in the dark on how these changes happened."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663065)

Lets take one claim to narrow our focus and demonstrate my point about Carrier playing fast and loose:

"Ignatius also spends several letters attacking fellow Christians who were teaching that at least parts of the Gospels were mythical. And Irenaeus devotes books to the subject of other Christians claiming substantial portions of the Gospels were mythical."

This is simply not true. Carrier takes Ignatius' critique of Docetism and tries to rebrand it as one that targets mythicists. This is a classic example of what he does. I would encourage anyone ITT to go read what he writes in Smyrnaeans and tell me if it sounds more likely he is going after Docetism or Mythicists.

Again we see the same thing with Irenaeus. In Against Heresies he is going after the Gnostics, NOT Mythicists. The mistake (I would guess intentional in Carriers' case) is that when Irenaeus defends Jesus' fleshly self, he is doing so because the Gnostic claim was that the flesh is corrupt and evil, NOT because they claimed there was no flesh in the first place. I would encourage every person ITT to read Against Heresy or any Scholarly summary of it and you will see that nobody thinks Irenaeus was addressing Mythicists.

Think about it: Academics, Christian and non-Christian alike, have had these early church father documents for 2,000 years. Nobody, at any point in the past, interpreted them to be debates with Mythicists, but rather real heresies that existed at the time. Nobody had any reason to be biased or lie in this analysis because to any Christian sitting in the 1500s, it wouldnt matter if Irenaeus was talking to a Gnostic or Mythicist - they would just think both are wrong. So we can trust that the Mythicist argument here was not artificially suppressed. This was a new interpretation that was invented in the modern world by Mythicists who wanted to write themselves into early Christian history when they simply did not exist.

Do me a favour, in your response, confine yourself to the claims re: Ignatius and Irenaeus and write the reply yourself. Your general strategy is to copy paste shit and throw it at someone with unyielding volume till they just get tired. Instead lets have a good dialogue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663197)

Rather, my aim ITT was just to respond to your "uh, it's been deboonked already, silly" with some general considerations as to why I don't consider it to have been deboonked, and to point you and other interested readers toward the sorts of things Carrier has argued in response to what you said, not to defend him to the ends of the earth. I also just don't think there is any point in me trying to have a "good dialogue" with you given how absurd I find your arguments in the Christianity-vs-atheism debate, as I mentioned earlier ITT.

And even if we were to debate this at length and you were to be proven correct, so what? It's not like mythicism stands or falls on this one issue. There would still be a hundred other things that we'd have to resolve.

"Academics, Christian and non-Christian alike, have had these early church father documents for 2,000 years. Nobody, at any point in the past, interpreted them to be debates with Mythicists..."

By this logic, we should never read the work of any modern biblical scholar at all, since all the documents have already been around for 2000 years, so how could anyone in the 21st century possibly have an original take that isn't made-up bullshit? As is documented in the OCABS link I posted ITT, academic consensus regarding the Bible can and does change. You seem to think every possible innovation in the field is already done and finished with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663316)

As someone who self-describes as not an expert (or even really knoweldgeable) in this field, you should be generally cautious of subscribing to fringe beliefs. Its a good rule of thumb.

To the issue at hand: Thank you for proving my point. If I agreed with Carrier's theory, I would be very interested in figuring out if he is right about Ignacius and Ireanious. Its not a small point that mythicism does not come up once in the writings of the Early Church. You would think one would be pretty interested in this. Yet you are not, why?

Methinks its because you are only comfortable with copypasting Carrier and wearing people down with volumes of material you don't even really understand yourself. Your the Emperor without Clothes here. The moment I press you on one keep aspect of Carrier's theory, you throw up your hands and retreat.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663511)

I am certainly cautious of that in general. Refer to my first reply to you ITT for my overview of reasons why I take this fringe theory far more seriously than other fringe theories. For the record, I do not insist on mythicism definitely being correct; I remain agnostic on the question.

"You would think one would be pretty interested in this. Yet you are not, why?"

I have already answered this argument. Whether or not something sufficiently analogous to mythicism comes up in the early church is a complex question beyond the easy reach of laymen (note that I do not, in fact, concede your premise that "mythicism does not come up once in the writings of the Early Church"), and because there are too many topics like this to research and analyze for me to attain sufficient expertise in all of them such that I can assess the overall mythicist thesis with the level of rigor that you demand. If I were to spend countless hours of time I don't have looking into this particular thing, I'd still then have to look into another and another and another.

I think a more useful strategy for researching this question is to follow along with the debates that actual scholars have had on the topic (e.g. the back-and-forth between known scholars in the comments section on that Bible & Interpretation site, Carrier's debates with his critics, etc.). I have no reason to think that this is such a "key" aspect of mythicism or that you are presenting some sort of interesting, novel criticism here that severely undermines Carrier's thesis such that I really need to look deeply into it, as your objection is (as far as I know/recall) not one of the ones most commonly raised by the usual anti-mythicist scholars like Ehrman and McGrath.

"Methinks its because you are only comfortable with copypasting Carrier and wearing people down with volumes of material you don't even really understand yourself. Your the Emperor without Clothes here. The moment I press you on one keep aspect of Carrier's theory, you throw up your hands and retreat."

I was not trying to wear anyone down. Like I said before: "My initial post in this thread and my initial response to you were not a invitation for a protracted debate... Rather... to point you and other interested readers toward the sorts of things Carrier has argued in response to what you said." I sincerely encourage you to find a more knowledgeable mythicist to pick this fight with and poast the results here.

Speaking of retreating, feel free to pick this one up any time: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477387

You've also ignored many of my (non-copied-and-pasted) points ITT, so you complaining about me throwing up my hands in retreat is a bit rich.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663583)

Its not hard to pickup Ignatius' critique of "X" heresy and figure out if it was likely Docetism or Mythicism.

Do you want to know how you actually formulate a proper conclusion on the issue? You look into individual claims made and assess their reasonableness yourself. Some things are certainly outside of our reach as lay persons, but reading select early Church Fathers is not. Instead, your opinion is driven by who "wins" a few youtube debates.

I'm actually serious. Pick one key topic in the debate and analyze it for yourself. If you didn't like the one I picked, do another. Maybe Carrier's argument about the meeting with Jesus' "brother" and his interpretation of that. Ask yourself if his view is more or less likely than the mainstream view. This is how you actually formulate a grounded conclusion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663671)

I never claimed that reading early church fathers is out of our reach. This is yet another one of your lazy and/or dishonest representations of what I have written. What I said was that assessing that aspect of the mythicist case is difficult. Carrier claims that various ancient writers wrote about early analogues of mythicism (it's not only Ignatius whom he refers to, as you can see from reviewing the passages I quoted). You disagree. So clearly it is more complicated than "just read the early church fathers." I would have to read many books and articles analyzing each of these many different ancient writings to really achieve a scholarly understanding of what they are talking about.

"Instead, your opinion is driven by who "wins" a few youtube debates."

I wasn't talking about spoken debates on youtube, I was referring to what Carrier's critics have written in response to his arguments and his many lengthy written replies to his critics (he has written dozens of these: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5730 ) and then, indeed, "assess[ing] their reasonableness [my]self" as you said, to decide who had the better arguments. This seems like a far more productive use of time than engaging in my own debate as a layman against some anonymous Christian apologist. Also, why exactly shouldn't we take into account the youtube debates...? Some of these are against professors of New Testament studies such as Evans, Crook, and MacDonald.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663848)

Be honest with me: Have you analyzed in detail Josephus’ Antiquities (let alone the debated Testimonium Flavianum)? Or the sticky issue of Tacitus? Or the James issue?

In order to have a positive view of the mythecist position, you need to have had done a ton of independent work on these topics at a bare minimum yourself. Individually any one of them being true destroys the mythecist position.

The reason I react so negatively to Carrier is because you try and bring him up all the time as some Grand Poobah, copy pasting walls of text from him, when you personally have never verified or walked through the key issues.

I would say this as a good general rule, but it applies doubly so if you are going to promote a minority view: You better personally have your ducks in a row.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663894)

"you need to have had done a ton of independent work on these topics at a bare minimum yourself"

This is precisely what I am telling you about the early church father thing: it requires a ton of work and is not as simple as you repeatedly insist. Here is my take: I start out at assuming historicity due to it being the consensus. I then read about the issues that you list such as Josephus et al, doing a fair amount of reading but not becoming an expert master scholar or whatever on the subjects, and concluding (*tentatively*) that Carrier *seems* most probably correct on these issues. I also reject your premise that mythicism stands or falls on any one of those things; Carrier's book addresses what he sees as the non-fatal consequences for mythicism if historicists are right about each of those things. This is another example where things seem to me to be far less cut-and-dry than you suggest). I further find fault with the general notion that "the settled scholarly consensus is that Jesus was historical" for the reasons I already outlined: the influence of Christian bias on the formation of the consensus, the mistreatment of Thomas Thompson regarding the historicity of Old Testament patriarchs and the subsequent shifting of the consensus, the fact that reading criticisms of Carrier's work and his replies to those criticisms tends to leave me with the impression that Carrier's take was the more reasonable one, and the fact that Carrier has found at least 20 qualified scholars willing to admit that mythicism is a respectable hypothesis... all collectively leads me from assuming historicity, to moving to an agnostic position where Carrier's work seems plausible to me but I am open to it being wrong.

Contrast this with your unrelenting insistence that he simply MUST be wrong, no room for disagreement or uncertainty, the uncertainty which several non-mythicist scholars have strongly called for, to which you had no response other than that it doesn't matter because they simply must be deranged leftists.

"The reason I react so negatively to Carrier is because you try and bring him up all the time as some Grand Poobah, copy pasting walls of text from him, when you personally have never verified or walked through the key issues."

I am pretty certain this is the one and only time that I have copied and pasted stuff from Carrier ***about mythicism*** in an exchange with you so I'm not sure what you mean by all the time. In our other exchanges, when I have referred to Carrier, it has been with regard to Christian apologetics about the resurrection etc, and his responses to those apologetics do not assume mythicism; he explicitly states this in many places. There is really only one poast I made ITT where I copied and pasted "walls of text" from Carrier anyway so I don't know what your problem is. I have certainly been through the key issues on the apologetics stuff and I don't recall having copied and pasted much in our other exchanges regardless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44664163)

Perfect. Lets talk about Josephus then, since you are allegedly familiar with the subject matter. I created a new subthread at the bottom so we can hash it out. Obviously you just agreed that you looked into Josephus so you must have no problem talking about him?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665256)

1. I am more knowledgeable and confident about the Christianity-vs-atheism debate than I am about Josephus.

2. The debate over Josephus is far less interesting to me than whether belief in the fantastical supernatural claims of Christianity can be rationally justified.

3. We already started that other debate, whereas I never went looking for a fight ITT, and I find your whole approach here bizarre. Imagine if the thread was "Thoughts on William Lane Craig?" and you responded saying that you like Craig and find his case for Christianity worth looking into and provided a link to a summary of his case for anyone who's interested. Then I come charging in here like "hey bucko, you do realize that Christianity has been thoroughly discredited and the only people who seriously defend it are a bunch of dishonest hacks masquerading as objective scholars, and what about arguments 17 and 29 and 45 in my list of the 50 most potent arguments against Christianity, have you read ALL of the academic literature on them? have you? well we're gonna find out. you better clear your weekend, sit your ass down, and start defending your Jesus, cause we've got some debating to do, champ."

Like how exactly is this whole thing supposed to work? Suppose I read along with some of Carrier's exchanges with his critics on Josephus, and come away thinking ***tentatively and with humble agnosticism*** that he got the better of them. It seems that you think that I am not justified in letting the matter rest at that point and moving on to something else. Rather, you seem to want me to achieve as much certainty as possible... and apparently, the way to do that is for me to personally engage as a layman with some random guy on the internet? Suppose you are more well-read than me on Josephus and I am unable to refute your arguments. Should I then consider you to be proven right? No, because I would want to see what Carrier or another qualified mythicist scholar has to say in response. If you have such a great case to make against Carrier's book then write a review of it and get it published somewhere and he will reply to you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666144)

You claim to have reasoned your way to agreeing with Carrier, specifically mention being convinced of his Josephus take, but are totally unwilling to actually discuss the matter. Any reasonable person is going to look at your dodges of the Ignacius/Iraneous and Josephus subjects and realize that your understanding of this issue is just skin deep.

Just be honest, you know fuck all about this topic, you've superficially read Carrier, were convinced because he talks a lot and sounds like he knows what he is doing, but never actually critically examined the claims yourself.

You've tried repeatedly to side step this core fact by turning the discussion into a subjective discussion about what the trend in academia *really* is, and steer towards a generic athiest/christian debate. Nice try but I'm not biting. I'm going to hammer this point home till the cows come; You have been going around citing Carrier for years, historically criticized me for not addressing him as seriously as you wanted, and then when I do, you run away.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666260)

"turning the discussion into a subjective discussion about what the trend in academia"

No, that was what the discussion in this thread was originally about, and you tried to change it into an endless debate about the particulars.

"steer towards a generic athiest/christian debate"

This is the debate that we already started and you ran away from. Not sure why it's unreasonable for me to want to stick to it rather than opening up a whole new can of worms, particularly when I was very unimpressed with your argumentation in that debate.

"You have been going around citing Carrier for years, historically criticized me for not addressing him as seriously as you wanted, and then when I do, you run away."

I virtually never talk about mythicism on xo and I'm pretty certain I have never talked to you about it. All my other citations of Carrier in exchanges with you have been with regard to Carrier's work in response to Christian apologetics vs atheism, not the historicity of Jesus, and his work on apologetics explicitly grants for the sake of argument that Jesus did exist and proceeds from there. If there is some other thread where I demanded you address Carrier's mythicist arguments, then link to it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666330)

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9978

This concept of non-existent martyrs is inextricably tied to the mythecist position. So yes, you have been talking about mythescism because the theory you promote on the martyrs is directly tied to mythecism. There is a reason Carrier is the guy promoting it.

As an aside, you don't get to both constantly run to him as an authority source but also claim that your pretty agnostic on his central thesis. Stop playing games.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666384)

Uh, yeah, I do, because Christianity vs atheism and historicism vs mythicism are two totally separate debates, and the case against Christianity very obviously does not rely on mythicism. One could totally concede your point that those Christians were in fact martyred and still argue against the overarching Christian apologetic in other ways, such as making the case that even if they died for their beliefs, there is no reason to think they arrived at those beliefs rationally.

"So yes, you have been talking about mythescism because the theory you promote on the martyrs is directly tied to mythecism."

Did you even read the article? Continuing from what I said above, Carrier's martyr thing is not necessarily tied to mythicism but rather to the claim that the martyrdoms are evidence for Christianity being true. This is a very commonly made argument in Christian apologetics. In the very first part of the main body of that article (the section titled "No One Dies for a Lie?"), Carrier argues that even if we grant the martyrdoms, it doesn't matter because there are many documented cases of people dying for false beliefs. So no, you cannot assume that I must have had mythicism on my mind when I posted that link. The claim that the martyrdoms did not happen is only one part of an overall anti-apologetics case.

Also, you seem to have this weird friend-or-enemy dichotomy going on where I have to agree with Carrier on everything or on nothing, with no middle ground, even as you admit that despite our many disagreements, you still think I am "very sharp normally" on politics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666484)

http://ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/80/47

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663167)

"I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability." - Philip Davies, Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/dav368029

"The question of the historicity of Jesus is unlikely to go away in the near future, however much some scholars of the New Testament may wish otherwise, and nor should it. This question does not belong to the past and nor is it irrational to raise it. It should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome, as a 'lurking monster present wherever critical studies are recognized and proceed'." - Justin Meggitt, University Senior Lecturer in the Study of Religion, University of Cambridge

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/more-ingenious-than-learned-examining-the-quest-for-the-nonhistorical-jesus/B1A4799BE91AB5300671D4013194DD4C#authors-details

(The Meggitt article is behind a paywall, but I have a copy, and anyone with institutional access or $25 to blow is encouraged to check that I am not making that quote up.)

"...scepticism about historicity is worth thinking about seriously—and, in light of demographic changes, it might even feed into a dominant position in the near future." - James Crossley, Professor of Bible, Society and Politics at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, and Editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

https://brill.com/view/book/9789004408784/front-7.xml

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663124)

From the same site:

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/science-or-politics-where-oldest-archaeological-journal-peq-headed

Spend 10 minutes reading up on these people and you will see that they are rabid leftists dead set on going after religion and, worse yet, have adopted a post-modern world view on what "Truth" is. Tell me more about "demographic" change changing our view of historicity Prof. Crossley. Lol

Your tying your wagon to insane ideologues who you would normally attack viciously just because they agree with you on this one topic. Yet you have to understand that the reason they agree with you is because of that ideology.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663248)

If you're arguing that MOST mythicists are such biased leftists, I can argue the same re MOST historicist scholars being biased Christians. Regardless of you saying "what about the Jewish, atheist, etc. scholars," surely Christians are the majority of the profession, whose religious beliefs could plausibly have influenced the formation of the consensus (a consensus which would have had influence on the views of even non-Christian scholars) in the same way that you claim mythicists are biased by their left-wing politics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663402)

There are 100 million Trump voters, I'm sure some of them are mythicists. That's irrelevant to this conversation since the genesis of this subthread is the number (and legitimacy) of academic mythicists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663519)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663063)

One theory he has, using the Ascension of Isaiah, is that Jesus was thought to have been crucified in outer space on the firmament. That is an actual idea he has articulated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663733)

This is a guy who lied about who published his book, screenshots everything anybody says about him online (he's pulled forum posts a decade after they occurred), cheated on his wife and then claimed to by polyamorous, etc.

I don't normally think that the personal life of someone is very relevant to these discussions, but if your just going to blindly follow a guy, his credibility and honesty are of paramount importance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663953)

What is this in reference to?

"screenshots everything anybody says about him online (he's pulled forum posts a decade after they occurred)"

Lol, what exactly is wrong with this? Why shouldn't he keep records of things people say about him?

"cheated on his wife and then claimed to by polyamorous, etc."

Not sure what you mean by "claimed to be polyamorous," but as I recall, he was open about not being polyamorous at the time of the affairs and that they did in fact constitute infidelity. I don't think cheating on your wife is the type of "dishonesty" that bears on any of this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663977)

http://web.archive.org/web/20150820110826/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

vs.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4090

Ridiculous crazy person screenshots:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/O%27Neill%27sLie.pdf

I'm not saying this sidebar would make or break anything Carrier says. Just that when your just reading Carrier as gospel, you better know who your dealing with. You are trusting this man with limited verification. How honest and moral and not-crazy he is matters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663990)

"Update: Since Sheffield-Phoenix is independent from the administrative control of the University, but operates as a fully peer reviewed academic press on campus facilities and is run by members of the University faculty, I am revising “the publishing house of” to “a publishing house at” with hyperlink with details for anyone confused by the matter."

This seems... pretty trivial. Could this not simply have been a careless slip-up or misconception on his part rather than deliberate dishonesty?

It's a tad ironic how you criticize him for saving a screenshot of something he says is a lie, when here you've got a saved archive link ready at hand of a blog post from nine years ago that you consider to be a lie. The pdf you linked to is titled O'Neill's Lie, and O'Neill is someone he's actually engaged with many times, so this doesn't exactly support your claim that he "screenshots everything anybody says about him online."

"your just reading Carrier as gospel"

I definitely don't read him as gospel. I consider his books to be works of history, not myth and allegory.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44664185)

For example, in the subthread at the top, I looked at his claim that Ignatius and Irenaeus were actually talking about mythecists and not gnostics and docetists in their writings. That's simply a titantic stretch that buggers belief. Carrier clings to this position because he has to, but its not at all reasonable and a plain reading of both men will lead to that conclusion.

He also intentionally misleads. For example, you will often here him talk about how thorough Roman records were, and so the absence of an account of Jesus is very strange. Yet he knows, all the records we have are from Egypt, and that none really exist from the Levant. Someone who does not know the source material might be swayed by this tricky argument (whose going to really know that all these good Roman records were geographically limited). Carrier knows this, but chooses to still use this as an argument because his goal is not to actually seek the truth, but convince through deception.

For people who are interested in Carrier and think he might be right, go read strictly non-Carrier answers to these questions:

1. Is Josephus referring to Jesus of Nazareth?

2. When Paul said he met Jesus' brother, what are the chances it was not actually a family member? Who is James?

3. Is there any solid evidence anybody in the early Church was, or debated with a mythecist? Why do we see every other heresy debated and documented, but what would have been the largest and most important was never mentioned?

4. When Tacitus refers to "Christus" Is he talking about an imaginary being, or someone that actually existed?

5. How can the Gospels be interpreted as allegorical or lies when they tell seemingly normal and reasonable stories. Even if you don't believe in the miracles, can you really come away from reading them with the view they are allegorical? How does John's gospel fit in with Mark?

When you explore these questions, I think its important to note, Carrier's hypothesis basically requires ALL of these to be decided in his favour. If even one of them is wrong, his theory is likely also wrong. The mythecist position is untenable for this very reason; it requires a dozen puzzle pieces to all fit precisely and each one of those pieces needs to be interpreted in a way distinct from how they have always been understood as. On the face of it, its a very very low probability proposition.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663816)

https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

I would encourage anyone to pick one issue, for example Tacitus' reference to "Christus", and analyze it in detail. Spend a few hours on it. Read what each side has to say on just that topic and figure out if you can be very confident that Tacitus is absolutely not talking about Jesus Christ. Remember, if it is even remotely reasonable that he is referring to a real Jesus Christ, the Mythecist argument is DOA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44663987)

Carrier holds that his "the gospels are allegorical/mythical/fictional" point is not something he argues for controversially, but is in fact the mainstream scholarly consensus, even among ordinary non-mythicist scholars. That is, even among mainstream scholars who hold that Jesus existed historically, the gospels are simply not considered to be reliable sources of factual information about him. I am going to simply copy and paste a "wall of text" from him because it seems as good a way as any of surveying the published literature in support of his point:

---

"...the actual mainstream consensus which has for decades now held that almost everything about Jesus in the Gospels is mythical... ...it consists of pretty much every expert on early Christian history who isn’t a fundamentalist or Christian apologist; the majority, in fact, of bona fide, peer reviewed experts in the matter."

"When we instead start talking about, for example, things simply made-up about Jesus in the Gospels (and thus in the Biblical texts from the beginning, but never true to begin with), we are looking at nearly the entire contents of the Gospels—and I am stating a mainstream statistic here. Just survey The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus, and Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Before the Gospels, in which one can quibble here and there for and against various conclusions, but not enough to alter the general point. Look at any modern academic (not apologetic) commentary, such as the Hermeneia series or the New Interpreter’s Bible, and for each Gospel you’ll see sufficiently comparable results."

"In actual fact, Bauckham’s propaganda on this point has been universally rejected by the mainstream consensus and has had no effect on it whatever. To the contrary, the field has continued in the opposite direction. See my discussion of Burridge studies at a recent SBL Conference for a prominent example; and recent reluctant admissions of the actual direction of mainstream scholarship in such surveys as Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, and How the Gospels Became History: Jesus and Mediterranean Myths by M. David Litwa. Even the desperate attempt by Christian apologist Dale Allison to resist this trend in scholarship concedes almost all of it in Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History.

Bauckham’s failed attempt to make Christian apologetics the new mainstream consensus (instead of what has actually happened) was already pretty much killed back in 2008 with the publication of volume 6 of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, which was almost entirely devoted to meticulously refuting his entire case; likewise the critical review of Dean Bechard of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome in Biblica 90 (2009, pp. 126-29). The failure of Bauckham’s argument to impress anyone outside Christian apologetics is well summarized by Thomas Brodie in the Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Memoir of a Discovery (2012, pp. 115-36). Instead, we find mainstream scholars moving in the other direction (e.g. John Crossan’s The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus and Richard Miller’s Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity; and all those surveys cited above). This is especially the case regarding the Gospel of John, which, contrary to Brierley’s gullible reliance on Bauckham wishing it were not so (p. 116), is admitted by pretty much all Johannine specialists today to be a late, multiply-redacted tract that contains even more fiction than any of the other Gospels (see the evidence and scholarship I cite on this point in Chapter 10.7 of On the Historicity of Jesus). Real history is going entirely the other direction from apologetics."

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19736

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44664438)

His argument effectively boils down to the claim that because the Gospels record many miracles performed by Jesus, and because *obviously* those miracles are fake, the Gospels themselves must be mythical.

The fatal flaw in this analysis is that even if you remove all the miracle accounts, your still left with most of the material of the Gospels intact. "Jesus went here, and met with this person who lived in this town and spoke about this topic".

There is no way to get around the fact that the bible talks about real people, in real locations, interacting with Jesus. Those are historical claims, not metaphorical or allegorical claims. The academic work on this topic supports this conclusion.

Take this claim:

"Just survey The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus, and Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Before the Gospels, in which one can quibble here and there for and against various conclusions, but not enough to alter the general point."

This is typical for Carrier. If you actually read Erhman you can see that while he disputes aspects of the Gospel accounts and perceives certain inconsistencies, he still affirms the historical reality of most of the events that are described. Most academics, obviously secular ones, will hold to the view that the Gospels get things wrong. This is true. Where Carrier goes off the deep-end is when he takes that conclusion, and tries to stretch it to say that "therefore the Gospel accounts are not actually talking about a real person". I hope you can see this is wrong.

As an aside, if you somehow think that biographies/historical writings on someone that include mythical content = the person must not have existed, your going to have a very difficult time with history. Augustus is reported by Suetonius as being concieved by a seperent. Vespasian is described as having healed a blind man. etc.

Its funny because often atheists will use the fact that there are many miracles and extraordinary attributed to normal men in history as proof that the claims made about Jesus are likely wrong. But that argument can also cut in another direction: When the Gospels record these unbelievable (in your view) claims, it says nothing of the actual physical existence of Jesus.

Instead what we see in the Gospels is a recording of Jesus going to meet specific people with specific names, in specific places, and travelling specific distances at specific times.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665110)

I've seen Erhman and others talk about issues around what Mary and Joseph did prior to Jesus' birth (# of homes owned, travel to Egypt, etc) and I can see some merit from a secular standpoint, but I find the perceived issues with travel and logistics during the ministry itself as very weak.

Edit: Also be honest, when you come up with something that is a perceived inconsistency, its because you googled it, not because you actually knew it beforehand having thought extensively about the issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665161)

He received word that Lazarus was sick. Bethany was 15 - 20 miles away (based on the commentary re: baptismal location). He waited 2 days when he got the news of the sickness, walked one day to Bethany. Lazarus had been dead 4 days at that point, so at the point that Jesus first received the information of the sickness, Lazarus had been dead 1 day.

Lazarus sick: Message sent

Lazarus dead 1 day: Message Received

Day 2/3: Jesus hangs arond

Day 4: Jesus travels to Lazarus who is now dead 4 days.

What's so complicated about that? Besides trying to cop-out of this discussion because I allegedly don't think critically, engage on the merits of the debate. What part of the travel/logistics around the Lazarus account is impossible?

Its funny you raise this one, because we have so much flexibility in the account as "4 days" could mean either 24 x 4 hours, or just 4 calendar days and Jesus could have walked quickly to Bethany in one day or more slowly in 2. Its extremely easy to get the math to work. The message was also sent when Lazarus was sick, so we have tons of flexibility around when he actually died (I assumed when the message was received, but you could assume otherwise).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665210)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665271)

As to the comment about the distance the pigs ran: It occurred next to the sea of Galilee. I think where someone can have confusion is that when Matthew and Mark relate the story, they are doing so in reference to a major city or center of power. Mark is referring to the big city further inland (where you get your "100 miles") while Matthew is placing it next to the Sea in a smaller town. The reason you see this discrepancy is because of how people refer to locations. For example:

A family is asked where they live. The Wife says "NYC" the husband says "Long Island".

Obviously they are both right. The wife is referring to the large important and central location. The Husband is referring to a part of that location which is a fair distance away from the center.

If someone said "I live in NYC and jogged to the Hamptons" You might be confused and think they are lying. But if they said "I live in Long Island and jogged to the Hamptons" suddenly the story makes a lot more sense.

This argument becomes even more clear once you zoom out further and talk about states/provinces.

You see this in the same way in the locating of the pigs (Gadara vs. Gerasa)

Hope that clarified things for you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665302)

This is not the argument Carrier makes at all. Again, this is not to initiate a debate on the specifics on this point (though I have no doubt that you will now insist on us having one) but merely to clarify what is actually being argued, in order to show that you are being lazy or dishonest in your representation of Carrier. I will quote his actual argument from his book:

"The Gospels generally afford us no evidence whatever for discerning a historical Jesus. Because of their extensive use of fabrication and literary invention and their placing of other goals far ahead of what we regard as ‘historical truth’, we cannot know if anything in them has any historical basis—except what we can verify externally, which for Jesus is next to nothing. They are simply myths about Jesus and the gospel. They are not seriously researched biographies or historical accounts—and are certainly not eyewitness testimonies or even collected hearsay. Their literary art and structure are simply too sophisticated for that. This is equally expected on both minimal historicity and minimal mythicism, however, and therefore (apart from what we’ve already accounted for in determining the prior probability in Chapter 6) the Gospels have no effect on the probability that Jesus existed, neither to raise or lower it."

So it is clear, especially from the last sentence, that he is most certainly not arguing that "therefore the Gospel accounts are not actually talking about a real person," as you suggest.

---

"There is no way to get around the fact that the bible talks about real people, in real locations, interacting with Jesus... what we see in the Gospels is a recording of Jesus going to meet specific people with specific names, in specific places, and travelling specific distances at specific times."

Why should any of this mean it is actually historically true rather than realistic fiction? Carrier provides a bibliography of published works in defense of his assertion that even mainstream scholarship holds that "things an author said or wrote (even fictionally) were often converted into stories about them, and these legends then spread and were collected by biographers and became the ancient pagan equivalent of “Gospels” for such luminaries as Euripides, Homer, or Empedocles":

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1026#biography

He further provides several examples of "biographies" written about fictional people: Romulus, Numa, Coriolanus, Hercules, and Aesop. I am sure that at this point you will complain that I am once again quoting/linking to Carrier instead of arguing on my own. But this issue of whether "realistic biographies" were often fictional is just one of the many esoteric sub-sub-sub-debates we would have to have. I suppose you think I should actually read every single tome he lists to find out if he is correct about this. Well, maybe I should, but that's why I am remaining agnostic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666410)

Lmao

Ah, yes, of course! We've all seen the threads about the fellow with a Princeton PhD in geophysics who recently published a lengthy peer-reviewed academic monograph arguing for the flat-earth theory

And who can forget that one editor of a academic journal of geology who commented that skepticism about sphericity is worth thinking about seriously and may even feed into a dominant position in the field one day

And who among us hasn't read about the debate among astronomers that shifted the field from a consensus in the 1970s that Mars is a flat disc to a new consensus a few decades later that it is *probably* a sphere

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44667589)

1. Testimonium Flavianum is entirely fabricated - not just that there are some embellishments or issues with its credibility, but that it is likely entirely false.

2. Josephus does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth in Antiquities XX.200 (which has been fully corroborated as a legitimate work).

Please proceed Pumo. Refrain from posting walls of text. Stick to just the straight facts. Use bullet points if necessary.

I encourage every lurker to read both of those and tell me whether you think its reasonable to assume he is talking about Jesus of Nazareth or someone else. If there is even a reasonable chance that Josephus is talking about Jesus of Nazareth, the Mythecist argument is dead. At that point you have a non-Christian talking about Jesus in very close proximity to his own life. By any ancient historical standards, thats the gold seal for existence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665257)

Much of the Josephus u mention is a known interpolation added years later. There *is* however a colorable argument that Josephus may have included language about a Christos that was *not* forged years later, a passing reference to a Jewish leader or entity. Whether that portion was or was not a later interpolation is up for debate.

Using historical methods of likelihood, carriers point here is that there is high room for doubt.

More interestingly The point I find most problematic about carriers position is the reference by Paul about meeting James the brother of Jesus. This is hard to get around, unless one concludes that the “brother” doesn’t mean brother as in a blood relative. Or that someone was simply lying. Carriers response here does not seem strong.

As an aside What I find interesting are all the later interpolations of epistle passages *not* by Paul that insist clear as day that Jesus was a real man. It is almost as if there was some debate on that subject very early on and the forged epistles and passages were included in the canon to try to resolve that issue from an early stage. As if it were a matter of questioning quite early in the church’s history that was papered over.

I am responding to u only because I feel like u earned a response earlier today.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665320)

Oh I've done my homework on that. His Bayesian probabilities approach has been laughed out of room. I don't normally just post links but if your serious about this topic and actually interested:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/305750452/Richard-Carrier-s-On-the-Historicity-of-Jesus

If you have the time go through this I'd strongly suggest you do. Your view of Carrier's credibility will never be the same.

"Much of the Josephus u mention is a known interpolation added years later. There is a colorable argument that Josephus may have included language about a Christos that was *not* forged years later, a passing reference to a Jewish leader or entity."

This *might* apply to Testimonium Flavianum but not Antiquities XX.200.

"The point I find most problematic about carriers position is the reference by Paul about meeting James the brother of Jesus. This is hard to get around, unless one concludes that the “brother” doesn’t mean brother as in a blood relative. Carriers response here does not seem strong."

I think Tacitus is equally as much a challenge for Carrier that he does not address adequately.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665343)

As to the antiquities, it doesn’t take much to find valid argument that the applicable parts were forgeries as well.

In the meantime, as a matter of intellectual honesty why don’t u detail the ways in which “James brother of Jesus” could mean something other than a biological brother. Argue ur contra.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665393)

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10989

The comments section in the above link also contains an extended debate between Carrier and the author of the article.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666251)

In his analysis, Carrier basically is saying all the pieces of evidence have no effect on each other. Take First Clement as an example for ITT discussion. Carrier is asking you to consider "Assuming Jesus was historical, what is the probability 1 Clement would be written?"

Then, he is implicitly asserting that that previous probability is the exact same as "Assuming Jesus was historical AND Paul wrote his letters AND the gospels were written, what is the probability 1 Clement would be written". Even if you aren't an expert in probability, you can probably see why that's ridiculous. Of course the likelihood Clement would write something is different in a vacuum vs as part of an existing collection of Christian works.

This isn't me saying I disagree with the probabilities that he is assigning to given pieces of evidence. I'm saying the arithmetic he's doing with them is not Bayes theorem.

The BT discussion is important because it shows that Carrier is also out to lunch when it comes to statistics. Again, do a search for Math geeks talking about Carrier's analysis. You will find them all pan him.

Just to recap: Most bible scholars, classics scholars (on Tacitus) and math/stats folk (on his application of BT) all find his analysis severely flawed. These are all people approaching his work from different angles with no common bias. Red flag alert to laypersons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666351)

Just to recap: Most bible scholars, classics scholars (on Tacitus) and math/stats folk (on his application of BT) all find his analysis severely flawed."

Are any of these anti-Carrier conclusions published under peer review anywhere? Carrier has published a peer-reviewed book defending his arguments on Bayes' Theorem. If they aren't published, then how are we math laymen supposed to assess your claim that "most" math/stats folk find his analysis flawed? Should we just google and count up the opinions of anonymous internet posters claiming to possess mathematical expertise? This is what I was getting at before with regard to literature reviews.

Here is an academic journal review of Carrier on Bayes' Theorem written by a Harvard scholar of historiography who has also written a book on Bayesian historical reasoning himself:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/hith.10791

He doesn't seem to think that Carrier is a crank.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666651)

Post said valid argument? I haven't seen one that is in the least bit convincing.

"In the meantime, as a matter of intellectual honesty why don’t u detail the ways in which “James brother of Jesus” could mean something other than a biological brother. Argue ur contra."

I think there are a couple of possibilities:

1. Paul is lying about meeting James. He wants to brag about "seeing" an important figure and so fabricates it wholesale.

2. The stronger argument is that "brother" really just means "fellow believer". We do see this come up from time to time (e.g. "Brother in Christ" or "Brothers in the Lord"). If a Mythecist could show that with a high degree of certainty they could defeat this argument.

It's worth noting the Carrier himself "assigns" a 2:1 probability that it historically happened. How Carrier can admit this and still cling to the mythecist position? Well it hinges on the flawed Bayesian analysis he does (discussed in the link above).

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13573#brothers

I also find it funny because Protestants will, with some very plausible reasoning, use references to Jesus' family as proof that Mary did not remain a virgin when going after Catholic dogma. So you have a pretty big camp that is arguing the most extreme position in the opposite camp too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665563)

Carrier re Tacitus says there are 2 references to Jesus and at least 1 if not both were forgeries added to the text later, but even for the one that wasnt, it was information repeated thirdhand (if I remember his argument correctly)

I’ll find and paste the timestamps if you really care.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665582)

Yes, I posted that above as the strongest position. There is no doubt Paul used "brother" in this way as well. For sure.

The problem with Carrier argument here is that in both Galatians 1:18-9 and 1 Cor 9:5 the “brothers of the Lord” are mentioned alongside and separate from other believers.

Go read Galatians yourself, “James, brother of the Lord” is somehow distinct from Cephas (who would have also been a brother if Paul just meant "fellow believer"). Carriers argument would only work if, when Paul was referring to James alongside other believers, he didn't single him out in this manner. As a layperson, I encourage you to read those parts where James is mentioned and ask yourself if they make sense contextually if James was just another believer.

"Carrier re Tacitus says there are 2 references to Jesus and at least 1 if not both were forgeries added to the text later, but even for the one that wasnt, it was information repeated thirdhand (if I remember his argument correctly)"

Carriers argument with Tacitus is that a few scholars have argued some or all of Tacitus’ report is a 4th century (or later) interpolation and not original to Tacitus. The problem is that no scholar today actually holds that view. Again, Carrier argues against the entire body of academics. In this case Roman academics who study Tacitus outside of the context of the bible (so they aren't bible scholars who might have biases).

I encourage you to go read the works of classicists and Roman historians. All the leading figures, who are far removed from bible scholarship, will still affirm the legitimacy of Tacitus. For example, this is what James River wrote on Carriers claim

https://classics.unc.edu/people-3/faculty-2-2/james-b-rives/

“I’ve never come across any dispute about the authenticity of Ann. 15.44; as far as I’m aware, it’s always been accepted as genuine, although of course there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind it. There are some minor textual issues (the spelling ‘Chrestianos’ vs. ‘Christianos’, e.g.), but there’s not much to be done with them since we here, as everywhere in Tacitus’ major works, effectively depend on a single manuscript.”

Again, I don't think appeals to authority are really all that useful. But as a layperson you need to ask yourself if Carrier is right, when he goes against not only the entire establishment of Bible scholarship BUT ALSO Roman historians who have no skin in the Jesus game.

How many separate and distinct academic communities does Carrier have to run completely contra to in order for alarm bells to go off?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665617)

I do think I somewhat butchered carrier’s argument on Tacitus from the video and will find and post the timestamp later.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665631)

Does it really make sense to say Paul spent 15 days with Cephas and the only non ranking Christian he met was James? What about Cephas’ family? It would make sense if Paul was saying the only other apostle he met was James.

The distinction between Cephas and James is not that one is an apostle and the other is just a regular Christian, but that both are apostles and one is Jesus’ brother, while the other is not.

Just think about how many pretty far out assumptions one has to make on just this one topic to get to Carriers position. At some point its too much. At some point a simple reading of the text is in order.

"I do think I somewhat butchered carrier’s argument on Tacitus from the video and will find and post the timestamp later."

I've read him on Tacitus. This is his main work on it behind a paywall. I'm sure he's summarized it in free blogs somewhere as well

https://brill.com/view/journals/vc/68/3/article-p264_2.xml

He argues the interpolation angle and just tries to chip away at Tacitus (again in stark contrast to all the classicists who study the matter).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665647)

In case anyone reading this wants to know for a fact that CGM is not bothering to accurately summarize Carrier's full case, I have screenshotted the e-book of Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" to show the entirety of the Tacitus section, as it's not that long:

https://imgur.com/a/CedjKDX

The journal paper CGM linked to above is what Carrier is referencing when he says in the screenshot that "I elsewhere demonstrate (following the arguments of scholars before me who have argued the same) that this line is probably an interpolation," but as is clear from the remainder of the passage, he is not at all depending on it being an interpolation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666623)

I honestly don't understand why mainstream atheism hitches its wagon to the mythecists. I'm seeing it more and more and its now entering the academic world via hyper leftist anti-religion post modernists that believe in no objective reality and view history through critical theory

There is simply no need and if anything it just hurts their credibility. Argue against inerrancy and miracles, not whether the dood existed or was just all in Paul's imagination.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44665706)

That said, u are conflating atheism with mythicists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666633)

Cow goes moo is an intellectual, a smart guy, but he is really blinded by his faith and relies on readings of extreme minutia from texts that has been altered, fabricated, or pushed forward ideological reasons and he treats it as the literal word of God. Hes a smarter version of lsd tp.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2484135&forum_id=2Reputation#44666772)