The Jesus Myth: An unrelenting case for history

[Res Ipsa]

Alright, thanks for the posturing. if you have a case for historicity, I'm all ears.

The case has been made over and over and over again. You're not interested in the evidence, only your conspiracy theory.

Although there are conspiracy theories about creation of Christianity, I don’t think Stem’s argument is one of them.

[Doctor Scratch]

A related tangent:

DCP has been making the argument (well just copying it from someone else like always) that if we take anything from ancient history seriously, we should also take the empty tomb story seriously.

He thinks that there’s enough wiggle room to get his lever into the gap made by the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed, to lift the entire hypothesis that Jesus must have been raised from the dead.

Thoughts?

Sure, take seriously. But in what sense? I say Jesus existed, but I am uncertain about the resurrection as a historical matter. The evidence is just not good enough to be certain. Faith in the resurrection is a different question.

I remember the good old days when Drs. Peterson, Hamblin, Midgley, et al. would cite Peter Novick’s That Noble Dream at every opportunity. It really gave them a lot of mileage in terms of responding to critics who would bring up historical accounts that were unflattering to the Church. At some point, though, they completely tossed that out the window and now historical accounts are pretty much iron-clad truth.

[drumdude]

Grave robbing please.

I don't see the burial practices as particularly relevant to the question, since obviously people were often buried with their stuff, and though I don't see Christ as the type to have much stuff to be buried with, grave robbers wouldn't necessarily know that.

But my point stands, I think. People at the time obviously saw the disciples as the more likely culprits, so why would you prefer the more strained grave robbing hypothesis? Sure, robbers may have bribed the guards and they may have dumped the body nearby, and it may not have been discovered (despite what likely would've been a very thorough search), but that's a lot of maybes, and they'd all be equally applicable to the disciples themselves. I just don't see any more reason to prefer it than the Pharisees apparently saw.

Literally any explanation is more plausible than a dead person coming back to life.

[dastardly stem]

Alright, thanks for the posturing. if you have a case for historicity, I'm all ears.

The case has been made over and over and over again. You're not interested in the evidence, only your conspiracy theory.

Lol. I"m trying here. You have something, all ears.

[dastardly stem]

A related tangent:

DCP has been making the argument (well just copying it from someone else like always) that if we take anything from ancient history seriously, we should also take the empty tomb story seriously.

He thinks that there’s enough wiggle room to get his lever into the gap made by the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed, to lift the entire hypothesis that Jesus must have been raised from the dead.

Thoughts?

Apparently he's listening to some pretty prominent Christian apologists on this. That's the typical route taken.

[Rivendale]

The case has been made over and over and over again. You're not interested in the evidence, only your conspiracy theory.

Lol. I"m trying here. You have something, all ears.

Conspiracy theories? How can you get anymore conspirial than a reanimated dead person?

[PseudoPaul]

The case has been made over and over and over again. You're not interested in the evidence, only your conspiracy theory.

Lol. I"m trying here. You have something, all ears.

It's been shown to you over and over again. You just say "nuh uh" and move on.

[PseudoPaul]

The case has been made over and over and over again. You're not interested in the evidence, only your conspiracy theory.

Although there are conspiracy theories about creation of Christianity, I don’t think Stem’s argument is one of them.

The idea that Jesus was never a historical person is quite literally a conspiracy theory, one with almost no support in mainstream secular Biblical scholarship.

[dastardly stem]

It's been shown to you over and over again. You just say "nuh uh" and move on.

I haven't seen where. I've read the scholarship and have read the pop books like Erhman's. I've critiqued his book here to some degree of depth. I've interacted with some of the most ardent historicists. I'm not sure what you think you're proving by saying these things.

All of that said, I'm still quite interested in any credible case someone can present. If you have it, please stop dodging and provide something.

[dastardly stem]

Conspiracy theories? How can you get anymore conspirial than a reanimated dead person?

Yep.