Video Why Did Jesus Have to Die on the Cross?

[roc_]

To get to the other side?

 

[Albertini]

The problem with this kind of thread is that it invariably attracts the Richard Dawkins fanboy types who really, really want people to know just how much they despise religion. Any attempt at discussion is buried under a tidal wave of smug hectoring and sneering.

On the plus side, most of them will be limited in their posting once the schools open up again.

 

[Vengeful Glutton]

How many of these "scholars" have a dog in the fight?

I have no idea, but scholarly historical publications, like scientific publications are peer reviewed, are they not? So, I'd expect scholarly submissions on the historicity of JC to have been peer reviewed by qualified, competent Biblical and NT scholars. As I've said the consensus is that Jesus existed. That might annoy you (and others), and I'm sorry that it does, but.....well, life goes on?

As to whether a historical Jesus figure existed or not, I'm agnostic.
But the Canonical gospels are without a shadow of a doubt a work of allegorical fiction, quite possibly originating as the core text of a Jewish mystery religion.

Do you have any evidence to support this? Again, peer reviewed scholarly articles would help.

Have a listen to this.
Richard Carrier is a very serious scholar who thoroughly debunks the horse manure that passes for orthodox scholarship on the matter.

(Starts at 14:30)

I'll listen to it later, but I get the feeling that Carrier is talking horse manure....

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Incidentally does Carrier have a "dog in this fight"?

 

[Vengeful Glutton]

The problem with this kind of thread is that it invariably attracts the Richard Dawkins fanboy types who really, really want people to know just how much they despise religion. Any attempt at discussion is buried under a tidal wave of smug hectoring and sneering.

On the plus side, most of them will be limited in their posting once the schools open up again.

I do not understand why people cite Dawkins on this subject? Dawkins is not a historian nor is he a Biblical/NT scholar.

 

[Vengeful Glutton]

Beyond the empty futile insults you throw around here, can you back any of this up with an actual argument?

Otherwise we'll consider it your opinion, and ignore it.

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"To be fair", it is wikipedia so I wouldn't draw a conclusion from it, buuuuuuttttt, Ehrman states that Carrier is one of only two Historians who argues against the existence of Jesus. A cursory look at Ehrman's blog suggests that Ehrman at any rate thinks that Carrier is talking through his hoop.

Richard Carrier - The Bart Ehrman Blog

ehrmanblog.org

 

[Vengeful Glutton]

It's all a con. There is no afterlife.
Now off you go and treat this actual life you are living as the only one you will ever have.

My xmas gift to you. Some basic reality. You're welcome!

Maybe this is all a dream!

 

[FF/FG/Lab/SF..stitchup]

all the stories in the bible were written by brainwashed loonies. And its all propaganda.

Discuss

 

[Rose]

all the stories in the bible were written by brainwashed loonies. And its all propaganda.

Discuss

There will be alot of needless death and suffering in Ireland next year.

 

[gerhard dengler]

all the stories in the bible were written by brainwashed loonies. And its all propaganda.

Discuss

You seem obsessed about the Bible.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

The problem with this kind of thread is that it invariably attracts the Richard Dawkins fanboy types who really, really want people to know just how much they despise religion. Any attempt at discussion is buried under a tidal wave of smug hectoring and sneering.

On the plus side, most of them will be limited in their posting once the schools open up again.

I hope you're not including me in that.

Pointing out that the cannonical gospels are most likely a work of allegorical fiction in the same vein as the other mystery religions of its era doesn't require any agenda other than common sense.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Richard Carrier is a clown pretending to be an academic playing to an audience who loves his act because it enables them to dodge the truth.

What truth?

(Word of advice, lose the anime avatar, you creep)

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I have no idea, but scholarly historical publications, like scientific publications are peer reviewed, are they not? So, I'd expect scholarly submissions on the historicity of JC to have been peer reviewed by qualified, competent Biblical and NT scholars. As I've said the consensus is that Jesus existed. That might annoy you (and others), and I'm sorry that it does, but.....well, life goes on?

Peer review is of limited utility; it just means consensus.
Most religious scholars are themselves religious believers.

Even Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, was a religious believer when he started his career.

Do you have any evidence to support this? Again, peer reviewed scholarly articles would help.

Carriers book on the historicity of Jesus: why we have reason for doubt Contains peer reviewed material.

I'll listen to it later, but I get the feeling that Carrier is talking horse manure....

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Incidentally does Carrier have a "dog in this fight"?

Carrier is an Atheist. But Miguel Connor, the host of Aeon Byte, most certainly isn't.