Playing out religious hopes and desires

[dastardly stem]

Hey Huckelberry and drumdude. I'll address this. I think I have in previous threads already, but I'll definitely make a point to try and get to the concerns and issues you raise here. It'll be repetitive, to some degree I"m sure. On drumdude's point I"ll just state, yes, scholars on both sides are at the very least, committed to trying to discover the truth. We can attack motives for the sake of attacking them if we want. but it seems silly to me, and it is completely contrary to the goal as I see it. I guarantee there are scholars who fall in the camp of ahistoricity who say the same types of things as Ehrman has here. I've quoted them in the past, on this board saying as much. If you read what they say, they too tell us their goal is simply finding the truth...it does not matter if there was a Jesus or not. We have to let the data speak for itself. It wouldn't hurt them in the least if it was shown by someone, anyone ever that it is more likely Jesus lived then did not. But, it is interesting that i ask for someone to provide a scholarly study addressing this question wherein the qualified scholar lays out his case, gets it reviewed by peers and it gets published and concludes it's more likely Jesus existed then not and in return I get a question about motives? I mean, I don't mind people questioning motives. But to move that in the forefront as if it really matters to the question of historicity, is kind of funny. It's apologetic tactics 101, really. If believers need to accept anything in order to maintain belief they need to see leavers as wanting to sin or some such thing.

As I've said, quite briefly, Bart makes many errors in his study on this question. They've been pointed out. One glaring one I've mentioned here is he actually uses hypothetical sources (Q, M and L), claims they are sources "we have" as evidence that there was a Jesus. That alone is a big enough blunder to re-evaluate his take. Anyway, enough for now. I'll take time to get back into the data, the scholarship, etc and make a new post. HOpefully soon. I'm a bit busy, but you know, I move important seeming stuff back for this all the time. Hah.

Carrier:

I have always assumed without worry that Jesus was just a guy, another merely human founder of an entirely natural religion (whatever embellishments to his cult and story may have followed). I’d be content if I were merely reassured of that fact. For the evidence, even at its best, supports no more startling conclusion. So, I have no vested interest in proving Jesus didn’t exist. It makes no difference to me if he did. I suspect he might not have, but then that’s a question that requires a rigorous and thorough examination of the evidence before it can be confidently declared. Most secular scholars agree—even when they believe Jesus existed, they do not need to believe that.

Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (p. 10). Sheffield Phoenix Press. Kindle Edition.

After digging back for this quote from previous conversations on the topic, there is tons on this forum out there. If anyone's interested there's a solid record of previous conversations. It seems to me, in the end, it always comes back to the notion that historicists simply don't have experts in the field or related fields taking the question seriously enough to provide the rest of us an expert evaluation, while the other side has that. To me that kind of renders the discussion empty. One side has all the sources, the other simply has naysaying or motive-questioning or other such fallacies. It's kind of a silly conversation in the end...but I think our previous conversations show that some interesting stuff occurs on our journey to that end.