# Was Jesus Real or a Myth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360 "2015-02-22T18:39:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/401 "2015-04-18T03:07:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Your argument here is ludicrous. Perhaps you’ve been immersing yourself in the works of Earl Doherty that you’ve started forgetting how actual scholars think, speak, and write. You know what’s ludicrous? Your posts! You’re a self-blinded, dogmatic apologist whose arguments clearly demonstrate a near-total lack of critical thinking skills. When the facts are so totally against you – as in the present thread – like all dogmatic apologists you dismiss all the countless arguments you’ve already lost or cannot defend with strong reason and then you start throwing out random potshots in an effort to evade and deflect the fact that you’ve already lost the debate. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > When scholars take a position, they state it clearly. Perhaps, but only to those whose reading comprehension skills are far better than yours and are not inhibited by dogmatic apologetics. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The entire peer review system is designed to ensure that, among other things. Hilarious!! You actually think there’s a peer review system in place for theology?? Kindly tell us exactly the name, identity, and details of the “peer review system” that “peer reviewed” Mack’s book! It is to laugh! > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Your characterization of Ehrman’ s book is flatly wrong, but even if it was true that would scarcely explain why Mack refuses to say that he’s a mythicist if he actually is one. More infantile rhetoric. I never said Mack “refused” to do any such thing! I said he made his point with elegance, wit, and subtlety – something that’s so extremely alien to you that you have not eyes to see. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Scholars are used to controversy; those studying the life of Jesus doubly so. Especially since there is no such life to study! > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No one would fail to say his position directly just for fear of being laughed at. You just can’t help yourself, can you? Then why don’t you admit you’re just another dogmatic historicist apologist who is incapable of critical thinking? I can think of a few completely fictional stories that demonstrates just that: That “Jesus” character in Mark 15, and that other fictional character described in John 18:15 for just two examples! > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > After I asked whether you had any facts or citations to back up the claims you made, you didn’t respond. Maybe in the future you should plan your “lectures” more carefully. And you, my dear denialist, never responded to my careful explication as to why Eusubius (or whomever) invented the so-called _Testimonium Flavianum_ entire long after Josephus died! ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/402 "2015-04-18T03:58:35Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > You know what’s ludicrous? Your posts! You’re a self-blinded, dogmatic apologist whose arguments clearly demonstrate a near-total lack of critical thinking skills. When the facts are so totally against you – as in the present thread – like all dogmatic apologists you dismiss all the countless arguments you’ve already lost or cannot defend with strong reason and then you start throwing out random potshots in an effort to evade and deflect the fact that you’ve already lost the debate. > > Perhaps, but only to those whose reading comprehension skills are far better than yours and are not inhibited by dogmatic apologetics. > > More infantile rhetoric. … I said he made his point with elegance, wit, and subtlety – something that’s so extremely alien to you that you have not eyes to see. > > Especially since there is no such life to study! > > … Then why don’t you admit you’re just another dogmatic historicist apologist who is incapable of critical thinking? It looks as if you’ve got a lot of personal insults to lob at me, and nothing else. > [@](#): > > And you, my dear denialist, never responded to my careful explication as to why Eusubius (or whomever) invented the so-called _Testimonium Flavianum_ entire long after Josephus died! Yes I did, in post #258. You are flatly wrong in saying that I never responded to your “careful explication”. I challenged you to provide cites and explain what you were talking about. You never did so. Here are some other things that you have not even tried responding to: [ul] [li]In post #223, you brought up Porphyry, and said “Porphyry utterly refuted to the notion that Jesus ever lived.” Then you linked to a Wikipedia page which proves that you’re wrong about what Porphyry said. In post #234 I pointed out that the Wikipedia page you linked to contradicted what you had said, and provided a better source which also refuted what you claim about Porphyry. You never mentioned Porphyry again.[/li][li]Also in post #223, you claimed that “the Jews … totally rejected the entire notion of a historical found of Christianity”. I pointed out the well known evidence from the Talmud, among others, that proves this to be untrue, and challenged you to defend what you said. So did other posters. You never even attempted to defend what you wrote.[/li][li]I linked to an [excellent article by Christopher Price](http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm) about the Testimonium. You responded by calling it a “ludicrously desperate collection of reguritated drivel”, but failed to offer any factual reply to anything that Price says.[/li][li]And so forth. Suffice it to say, you have completely failed to provide any argument with any basis in logic or facts on any topic, and whenever you’ve been challenged to do so, you’ve only responded with a torrent of insults.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/403 "2015-04-18T04:05:36Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > No, it was a typo on my part, but I was referring to Mack’s _The Christian Myth—Origins, Logic, and Legacy_, of which you recommended. It should have read, 2003, not 2013, so my bad. And his original printing of this book goes back to 2001. I have the Sept 2003 edition. But this much time is even more reason to wonder why nobody has commented on Mack’s conversion if this is truly the case. Well, for one thing, “conversion” is a loaded, emotion-laden term. I would use the term “evolved”, which isn’t nearly as dramatic as a “conversion” and hence would be considerably less noteworthy. No disrespect intended, but perhaps you are unaware just how extremely skeptical Mack has always been about the so-called “quest” for a historical Jesus? You (and the dogmatic Champion) for some inexplicable reason expected Mack to make a bold, explicit announcement that he has changed his position, but I dare either of you to point to an equally bold and explicit assertion on Mack’s part that he was an unequivocal historicist! > [@razncain](#): > > Concerning Erhman, his book was supposed to be a scholarly source on Jesus historicity, a publication many were looking forward to including me, but in the end Erhman admits he just turned out another popularization. Oh, he did far, **FAR** worse than that! I could not more strongly recommend his _“Did Jesus Exist?”_ to all Philosophy 101 professors as a casebook in the most gratuitous use of flagrant logical fallacies in existence! I mean, Deepak Chopra and Jenny McCarthy and the like have no edge on Erhman in that regard! Take just one example of Ehrman’s “logic”: He just baldly **asserts** that **only** those in the historicist “Guild” of which he considers himself a member is qualified to evaluate the question of the historicity of Jesus, and since Doherty and the rest are not members of that Guild, nothing they say has any value! I urge you to get a copy of Doherty’s trenchant logical analysis of Erhman’s book: _ **The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest** _ and marvel at Erhman’s blatant intellectual dishonesty! > [@razncain](#): > > [Peter Kirby lists Mack’s Jesus as a wise sage.](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jesus/burtonmack.html) He cites four sources, of which I have all of these, with the exception of the last one. But this I don’t think is concrete either as Mack supporting some kind of a historical Jesus. I suspect Kirby put him in this camp possibly from the very book you have recommended, particularly chapter two entitled _The case for a cynic-like Jesus_… I am unfamiliar with this Kirby person but from what little he’s written I contend that he’s seriously misinterpreting Mack’s work as well as Mack’s evolution as a thinker. I admit I have to work from memory here, since my copy of his _The Lost Gospel_ is in my remote storage facility (I have way too many books to store in my home!), but if this expands into it’s own debate I’ll buy another copy (far easier than finding it in storage), but here’s what I recall… _The Lost Gospel_ examines the entirety of the alleged source “Q” – a notion that has lost quite a few adherents in recent years (i.e., more and more critical scholars are rejecting the idea that “Q” even existed, let alone that it holds any legitimate information regarding a historical Jesus). So what I recall Mack arguing is that the alleged Jesus of the alleged “Q1” fits the tradition of a wandering Cynic philosopher, not that Jesus _ **was** _ a Cynic-like sage! In other words, Mack simply pointed out – like quite a few other “Q” scholars – that the first layer of “Q” presents a list of sayings (with nothing at all about Jesus’ alleged life or family or anything else even _remotely_ historical) that sound exactly as if they were the collected sayings of a whole school of itinerant Cynic wanderers. Nothing more! I would be truly astonished if you could cite where Mack explicitly states that Jesus _ **was** _ a Cynic-like sage, let alone that Jesus was an actual historical figure. To the best of my recollection, Mack **NEVER** claims that Jesus was a historical person. I once again apologize if this is exactly what you were saying (i.e., we’re in agreement), as seems to probably be the case… > [@razncain](#): > > As far as Mack converting to the mythical camp, I do not think he was fully entrenched with Jesus’ historicity to begin with, was he? If so, there is no conversion to be had, but don’t think it is quite accurate to consider him a mythicist either. I haven’t looked at your blog of Mack yet, but will try to find some time in the future, just don’t know when that will be. Oops, it seems we _ **are** _ already in general agreement on these questions. 😉 Well, a lot of the time I write for the gallery as well as to the specific poster, so I hope you’ll forgive me. > [@razncain](#): > > Like you, I also don’t care to quote massive texts onto a BB. It is difficult to quote Mack accurately and get to the gist of it all he is saying by being selective of what one decides to quote from and still try to get the best context from him as to the message he is trying to convey. I’m no authority on Mack, or anybody else, I can barely keep up with myself. I could always refresh my memory on a great deal of it, but my interest in going down these rabbit holes isn’t as great as it once was. I will say, I have a lot of respect for Mack, his books read like more like a textbook, unlike all of the popularizations of Jesus’ historicity that is out there, and I do find a minimum mythical Jesus similar to Carrier’s as plausible which doesn’t require any conspiracy theory, just don’t know enough to determine which side may be closer to the truth though, and I’m afraid scholars are not much closer to knowing either, and will probably never know. I understand your reluctance to wade into all this more deeply, but I cannot more strongly recommend both of Doherty’s most recent books: _ **Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus** _, which although a massive scholarly tome is remarkably easy to read (Doherty’s style is quite accessible and even compelling, much more so than, say, Carrier), and _ **The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest** _, a much shorter book (with no small element of scholarly humor along the way) that I read with great pleasure in a single night (I can’t pull that off too often anymore!) Take care, my friend. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/404 "2015-04-18T04:31:55Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Hilarious!! You actually think there’s a peer review system in place for theology?? I never said anything about peer-reviewed theology, so that would be an obvious straw man argument from you. (But for the record, there are many peer-reviewed theology journals; _The American Journal of Biblical Theology_, _The Journal of Theological Studies_, _Scottish Journal of Theology_, and _Harvard Theological Review_ would be just a few of the many. Thus when you implied that there’s no peer review system for theology, you were totally wrong. Again.) > [@ambushed](#): > > Kindly tell us exactly the name, identity, and details of the “peer review system” that “peer reviewed” Mack’s book! I didn’t say that anybody peer reviewed any book by Mack, so that’s another straw man argument on your part. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/405 "2015-04-18T06:12:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So your response to Christopher Price’s article is to insult it, but not to provide any reasons to doubt the facts and logical arguments presented in it. Hey, _you_ worship this Price person, not me! You cite him because he is as extremely gullible and dogmatic as you, not because he has any claim to being a respected scholarly authority, let alone a critical thinker! He’s merely another hopeless dupe – just like you – in the “Me, too!” school of pedantic apologetic credulists who will do or say _anything_ to protect his gullible Christian belief system. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Christopher Price actually looked at every scholarly citation regarding the Testimonium in the past few years, and found a majority in favor of partial authenticity. What a hoot!! You continue to make of your “arguments” naught but a gullible sloppy joke, Champion. Your “argument” is nothing more than that Price’s “objective scholarship” results from tallying votes!! It is to laugh our loud! If anyone as **spectacularly gullible** as you and Price counted up every scholarly citation regarding the efficacy of acupuncture – to take just one example I’ve dealt with this last hour – you would be forced to the conclusion that the majority hold that acupuncture is an extremely successful treatment option that’s been been so for millennia, which is in fact entirely false. I bet you accept meta-analysis results at face value too, you’re so gullible! But most meta-analyses of the published literature demonstrate that psychic powers are an undeniable fact. You’re clearly **far** too gullible to even be _aware_ that most published scientific studies – particularly in the area of scientific medicine – are false! See, for example, John P. A. Ioannidis’s article in [Why Most Published Research Findings Are False](http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124) And yet you DARE to ultra-gullibly just _assume_ that truth is to be found by counting votes – in _ **theology** _ of all things! How credulous can one person get? **You are an utterly unworthy opponent and you are unworthy of my time.** Why don’t you go witness elsewhere and leave the intellectual debate to the rest of us? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/406 "2015-04-18T10:17:02Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > You know what’s ludicrous? Your posts! You’re a self-blinded, dogmatic apologist whose arguments clearly demonstrate a near-total lack of critical thinking skills. When the facts are so totally against you – as in the present thread – like all dogmatic apologists you dismiss all the countless arguments you’ve already lost or cannot defend with strong reason and then you start throwing out random potshots in an effort to evade and deflect the fact that you’ve already lost the debate. > > Perhaps, but only to those whose reading comprehension skills are far better than yours and are not inhibited by dogmatic apologetics. > > Hilarious!! You actually think there’s a peer review system in place for theology?? > > Kindly tell us exactly the name, identity, and details of the “peer review system” that “peer reviewed” Mack’s book! It is to laugh! > > More infantile rhetoric. I never said Mack “refused” to do any such thing! I said he made his point with elegance, wit, and subtlety – something that’s so extremely alien to you that you have not eyes to see. > > Especially since there is no such life to study! > > You just can’t help yourself, can you? Then why don’t you admit you’re just another dogmatic historicist apologist who is incapable of critical thinking? > > I can think of a few completely fictional stories that demonstrates just that: That “Jesus” character in Mark 15, and that other fictional character described in John 18:15 for just two examples! > > And you, my dear denialist, never responded to my careful explication as to why Eusubius (or whomever) invented the so-called _Testimonium Flavianum_ entire long after Josephus died! Insults aren’t allowed in GD. That’ll be a warning and please don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/407 "2015-04-18T11:11:06Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > I understand your reluctance to wade into all this more deeply, but I cannot more strongly recommend both of Doherty’s most recent books: _ **Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus** _, which although a massive scholarly tome is remarkably easy to read (Doherty’s style is quite accessible and even compelling, much more so than, say, Carrier), and _ **The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest** _, a much shorter book (with no small element of scholarly humor along the way) that I read with great pleasure in a single night (I can’t pull that off too often anymore!) > > Take care, my friend. Do his books contain more information than what is on his website? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/408 "2015-04-18T12:19:47Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Hey, _you_ worship this Price person, not me! That would be incorrect. I do not “worship” Christopher Price; I have cited a couple of articles by him. Most people are capable of telling the difference between those two things. > [@](#): > > You cite him because he is as extremely gullible and dogmatic as you, not because he has any claim to being a respected scholarly authority, let alone a critical thinker! It is true that Christopher Price is not a professional scholar. I’ve never said that he is. His articles are written at a professional level, with proper citations to scholarly sources. Considering how often you’ve cited Earl Doherty, you look rather silly accusing anyone else of not being a respected scholarly authority. Doherty’s books and articles are as far away from respected scholarly work as you can get. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360/409 "2015-04-18T21:10:22Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > What a hoot!! You continue to make of your “arguments” naught but a gullible sloppy joke, Champion. Your “argument” is nothing more than that Price’s “objective scholarship” results from tallying votes!! It is to laugh our loud! > … > And yet you DARE to ultra-gullibly just _assume_ that truth is to be found by counting votes – in _ **theology** _ of all things! You say that both Christopher Price and I believe that “truth is to be found by counting votes”. Let me ask you a simple question: can you quote any instance in which either I or Price says that? If you can’t, then this will be yet another straw-man argument from you; your third in a 12-hour span. Christopher Price wrote [this outstanding article](http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm) about the _Testimonium Flavianum_. He presents six arguments for authenticity, and ably rebuts Earl Doherty’s arguments against authenticity. He does mention the well-known, long-established fact that a huge majority of scholars believe that Josephus wrote the original _Testimonium_, but none of his arguments in any way rely on that well-known, long-established fact. You are therefore both deliberately misrepresenting what Price says and failing to even acknowledge the arguments that he does make. A double helping of shame on you. > [@](#): > > **You are an utterly unworthy opponent and you are unworthy of my time.** Why don’t you go witness elsewhere and leave the intellectual debate to the rest of us? I love you too, Sweetie Pie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-real-or-a-myth/713360.md?page=20)