Choosing a faith

We need to get this straightened out.In principle no one is totally objective about anything, because, as an old professor used to say to me, “where we stand affects what we can see.”That's why the scientific method is so successful at sorting out fact from beliefs.Almost all 'scholarly' work about the bible has been done by believers, usually theologians, often clergy. It is impossible for them to deny the resurrection as historical fact and still be a Christian, so anything written by them about the resurrection has to be regarded with deep scepticism. They have the largest conflict of interest possible.You would say that atheists have an equal but opposite bias and that's possibly true. I could make an argument why that is not the case based on the fact that I, as an atheists can be convinced by good evidence. Like I could be convinced about elves. But that's not my starting point.More interestingly, believers have to believe that Christ existed as a real person, atheists definitely do not, I'm pretty neutral - Christ could be proven to be as real Alexander the Great but it would make no difference to whether the resurrection was real or not. But the evidence for a historical Christ is so poor that it's actually impossible to find for one side or the other and the evidence for the resurrection is not just non-existant, it's actually negative. The evidence, such that it is, shows that the anonymous authors made it up.It's only recently when a few real historians have got involved that these things have been argued. For centuries it's been theologians doing literary criticism, starting from the common understanding that it's all true and that's all you've read - stuff that confirms your beliefs. We've read both sides.
​

I'll just pick this to reply to as you're dealing with others. Voting is an opinion and a preference, not necessarily based on evidence. At its worst it's an agreement with a dogma. It's rarely if ever a rational process.Modern historical methodology uses scientific methods. There's a saying amongst historians "never trust anything written as history before the 1950s" because they had little to no objective methodology.And never trust a theologian to give you history.

Nah. I use Carrier because he's a real historian that argues from the evidence which is fully referenced. His book, 'the Historicity of Jesus' is peer reviewed and published by a respected publisher. He's also as rare as rocking horsed droppings being an atheist writing academically about Christianity. By-and-large, nobody funds that kind of work unlike theologians and bishops who have a free run at it."My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well."
​
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4090​

We just did this.Everyone has a bias, but the scientific method and peer review process that real historians use is designed to reduce that bias.A theologian is, by definition, predisposed to a supernatural viewpoint and isn't necessarily concerned with historicity. For generations they've got away with talking to themselves; finally there's a few doing more robust work.

I glad you noticed. I'm trying to show you that there are properly researched and evidenced alternative views available that form totally different but equally reasonable conclusions about the historicity of Jesus. You don't have to agree with them, I'm just trying to make the point that the historical evidence that Jesus actually existed at all is incredibly weak, it's certainly not anything like the certainty taught to the laity by their religious institutions. By definition, there can not be a theist writer that does not believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can there?
​ Richard Carrier says exactly the same - almost everything in the literature written about Jesus as a myth is nonsensical, non-scholarly garbage. He claims that his book is the first peer reviewed work written by a real historian properly examining the evidence.Whether you accept Carrier's arguments or not, if you read his books, no reasonable person could deny its scholarship.This seems to be a reasonable summary of the state of play today

quote:

---

The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory,[1][q 1] is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact".[2] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[q 2]

​

In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine, and that he was baptized and was crucified.[3][4][5][6][q 3] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith".[q 4]

---

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

Well you say that, but other people who share your belief say entirely the opposite and those like me who don't belief at all say that it's evidence that it's all a fiction. It's possible to say anything at all isn't it? But that's not what is taught from the Christian pulpit is it? Christian teaching is all about the afterlife and how to get to the good place and avoid the bad place. You've created your own religion picked from the dressing up box of Christian theology and apologetics to suit your personal beliefs.There's no harm in all that, at least you've picked the nice stuff from the box, but it's still a personal invention, a pleasant pastiche of the actual religion.

Equality IS freedom you muppet.

"I want..."You really need to have a word with GDR, he at least believes in Christ's message.

You're not hearing what I'm saying. I'm not by any means convinced by the arguments I've read that the historical Jesus did not exist. Neither am I convinced by the arguments that he did. I think the evidence for both is totally lacking. It's not possible to form an evidence based conclusion from such a paucity of evidence. (Though I think the lack of evidence where there should be evidence is food for thought.) I'm pointing to the fact that perfectly valid arguments can be made by each side from those properly qualified to make them, but you're only reading one side.
​ Oh please, we're talking about the Christianity. I'll say this again and as often as you use this "argument". The overwhelming majority of writers on the historicity of Jesus are Christians. It is impossible for a Christian to come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist so any Christian writing about the historicity of Christ is not going to say he never existed now is he? This is not the case for atheists, an atheist can accept the existence of Jesus without accepting that he was anything to do with the supernatural. Erhman is is an atheist as far as belief goes.Additionally almost all the writers on the historicity of Jesus are not historians - they're theologians, clergy and apologists. Most are preaching or doing literary criticism, not history.​This is absolutely nothing like evolution - there is mountains of physical evidence for evolution, only fundamentalist religious nutters rail against evolution.Ehrman, like almost every qualified scholar that has ever written on the subject comes down in favour of a historical Jesus. Carrier's view is a minority one - but it is very well researched, referenced and argued and he's qualified to make it. But unlike evolution arguments both sides are simply placing bets based entirely on marginal interpretations of the same tiny amounts of data - the arguments both ways are lacking almost all evidence necessary to form any real conclusion.And please note that even granting a historical Jesus, Ehrman says that the New Testament is a fiction. His view on the resurrection, for example, is that Jesus was crucified, left to rot on the cross, cut down and thrown into a common grave as was routinely the case for Roman executions.The more you read about how the bible was compiled, redacted, forged and generally interfered with over the years the more you realise how utterly preposterous the entire edifice of Christianity is. I've just been reading about Christians destroying embarrassing gospels in the Middle Ages, How can anyone take this stuff seriously, it's quite plainly a pure human construct?

I suppose I could create a list of authors writing about the life of Jesus and look them up on a wiki but do you really doubt it? Can you think of any Christian writer that argues against the historicity of Jesus? I don't know any. How could it be even possible?It's also much more than something these writers are 'interested' in too, isn't it? It's something they've committed their lives and ultimate salvation to, it's an entire belief system that everything about them hangs off. This is not someone studying barnacles because they're 'interested' in them. Well sure, that approach allows you to pick the parts you like and discard those that you don't. All very convenient. But you use the word 'recorded' as though the authors of the bible were journalists writing contemporaneous reports of Jesus' words. We know that this is not true. We know that whoever the authors of the gospels were they never saw or heard Jesus and were largely inventing the stories many decades after his alleged death. We can see the mythology grow more elaborate with each author.We also can see how the writings were changed and edited. Whole gospels were discarded as heretical. They're stuffed full of contradictions. Do I need to check whether all those writers (including the etc) are Christians?You are certainly not alone in your beliefs, you have millions of views to choose from, none of which you would be alone in holding. You have the whole spectrum of views from Christ as pure myth, through Gnosticism, Orthodoxy, liberal Anglican Christianity all the way through to Christian fundamentalism. It's only possible to have this diversity of opinion because of the lack of anything substantial behind it.I'm not asking you to change your opinion, I'm just asking you to recognise that there are other opinions that are equally valid, based on what little evidence there is.

What utter crap. Instantly regrow an amputated arm on demand and we're all believers.

This is the sort of stuff that turns my stomach. It makes me feel embarrassed for you. I hear that sort of ingratiating twaddle spoken at the services I'm forced to attend for weddings and funerals and it's all I can do to not scream at the preacher.What do you think you're doing here? You say you're not stroking god or asking for anything but it looks like that's exactly what you're doing - grovelling to your Lord, asking for a better life now and in a future afterlife.This loving overlord of your belief created the world where the wolf will only lie down when its killed and eaten the lamb, so why would he change that? He obviously approves of his creation the way he deliberately created it.Why, if a better world is one where life doesn't have to consume other life just to exist, do we not have that world already? After all, you believe that there is an afterlife of perfection, so why create a life of imperfection and suffering that you have to pray will end?I'm really struggling to find the words to say how utterly stupid I think the whole thing is.

The case for the prosecution. Exhibit 1.

quote:

---

Is a New Testament scholar an authority regarding the true facts and reliability of the narratives concerning Jesus? If you are like many people, you would say “yes.” What if this scholar is an atheist and doesn’t believe that God exists, or the texts written in the New Testament are true, would you still look to this scholar as an authority?

​

For a majority of Christians, the answer would be “no.” For a majority of atheists, the answer is “yes.”

​

Today the New Testament is under assault by an enemy disguised as a scholar. Millions of unsuspecting people have been fooled by the deception of best-selling authors that assert the New Testament is not to be trusted.

​

The New Testament contains proving criteria for anyone who asserts they are an authority in these texts. First, they must be a believer in Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit. Second, they must believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is the primary method of communication God has chosen to reveal Himself.

​

See: “The Ruse of Atheist New Testament Scholars,” at Amazon

​

Jesus said that unless a person is “born again” by the Spirit of God, they will not have the capacity to understand the surviving texts of the New Testament. Paul elaborated on this principle by saying that what is written and preserved for us is “spiritually discerned.” This means that only those who believe God exists and are diligently seeking Him (Hebrews 11:6) have the capacity to understand the texts of the Bible and be a genuine scholar, through decades of diligent study in these texts.

​

Who Is Qualified To Be A Biblical Scholar?

​

According to Jesus, a scholar is not a person with a secular education or a PhD. There are many men and women who have achieved these distinctions but do not believe God exists.

​

Today, modern New Testament scholarship includes atheist scholars. The Christian church has permitted this because these persons have done their due diligence in obtaining an advanced degree. The problem is that a PhD does not convey the Holy Spirit to anyone. Jesus said that no scholar can understand the texts about Him without the Holy Spirit.

​

Jesus often condemned the leaders of Israel, who were the “Doctors of the Law” while committing grievous errors in their exposition and hermeneutics of the Hebrew scriptures.

​

When Nicodemus came to Jesus late one night, he was a PhD in the Hebrew scriptures but he didn’t recognize that Jesus was the Messiah who was promised by the Old Testament scriptures. An advanced education prevented what was most needed: the Spirit of God that imparts genuine knowledge.

​

A person without the Spirit of God is not capable of genuine scholarship concerning the New Testament. We see this demonstrated by the comments and conclusions of atheist scholars in their published works concerning the New Testament. There are numerous errors made by these men and women because they do not have the ability to comprehend what they are seeking to evaluate.

​

According to atheist scholars, and many secular scholars, it is not necessary to believe in God or that the New Testament is true. In fact, they see their non-belief as a valuable asset in being impartial as a scholar. This is not true, according to Jesus and the writers of the Bible. The Hebrew and Greek scriptures were never meant for evaluation by any non-believer. Any person can read the Bible and gain enough understanding to make a commitment to believe in the God it reveals; they cannot gain sufficient knowledge to make valid scholarly criticism concerning these texts.

​

This book provides the evidence that proves an atheist New Testament scholar is not qualified to evaluate or make valid conclusions regarding the New Testament. In these twelve chapters, the errors and incorrect conclusions of atheist scholars are revealed, which prove they are incapable of unbiased criticism because of their unbelief.

---

The Ruse Of Atheist New Testament Scholars
BY ROBERT CLIFTON ROBINSON on AUGUST 3, 2021 •

... and NT Wright really oughtn't be saying stuff like this if he wants any rational skeptic or real historian to take him seriously

quote:

---

I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this assumption at length against people who try from time to time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus’ contemporary, was a figment of the imagination than to believe that there never was such a person as Jesus.

---

– N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996)

It's almost like you didn't read it.It says that "A person without the Spirit of God is not capable of genuine scholarship concerning the New Testament."He's saying explicitly that only those that already believe fervently in the Jesus and the bible can study it in a scholarly fashion. The exact opposite of what scholarship is - independent analysis not tainted by bias and pre-conviction.Lucky he's absolutely dead wrong. What a dickhead.