My sources are from scholars
So until then either of us start posting primary sources then those no need to debate this any longer
Again, Jesus is discussed in the letters of Paul, in Mark, the Didache, in Matthew, in Luke, at least twice in the historical writings of Josephus, in John, in Tacitus, in Clement's first letter, in the seven letters of Ignatius, in some correspondence by Pliny the Younger, in two places in Suetonius, in Lucian, and in the Jewish Talmud. That's Roman, Greek, Jewish, and Chrsitian souces.
You haven't cited "scholars" as your sources, you've cited clowns. Again, as Bart Ehrman, an actual scholar, states:
Acharya S was not a scholar who could be trusted (in part because she is not a scholar) in the context of eleven rather egregious mistakes that I picked out, more or less at random, in her book.
And Richard Carrier and D.M. Murdock (aka "Acharya S"), the two "scholars" you cited say THIS about each other:
Carrier on Murdock:
One of the reasons Murdock’s methodology goes off the rails is that she assumes everyone is out to get her and that there is always some sort of evil conspiracy against her work. Which insulates her from listening to criticism and correcting the way she does things. That is one of the surest ways to fail as a scholar. It likely also prevents her from having useful dialogs with experts in ancient history. Which is the surest way to make yourself irrelevant as a scholar. But that’s her own lookout.
Murdock on Carrier
Richard Carrier is dishonest, deceptive and hypocritical. He constantly invokes credentialism, while he himself is not an expert on the subject of Jesus mythicism, as he admittedly has not studied the massive body of Jesus mythicist literature dating back centuries. He is doubly hypocritical in making repeated derogatory remarks about my work when he has not studied it. His justifications for such dishonesty are simply excuses to be lazy and to monopolize the field for himself.
Here's an obvious dig at me:
"But obviously there's a zillion more threads to follow on this so I highly recommend that you explore it more thoroughly but, I do recommend not trusting amateur writers unless you hear an expert author tell you to trust them or tell you to look at them. What you want to look for is not websites that talk about how many parallels there are between Jesus and Horus - that's generally crap."
What is "generally crap" is Carrier's assessment of this field. He does not know what he is talking about; his knowledge is very shallow, and his ego is big as a bus, as Earl Doherty observed.
Seriously, you're saying, "trust these two scholars", when the two bloggers you cited
don't even trust each other.
I cited and linked to statements by James Rives, Alanna Nobbs, Edwin Judge, Paul Maier, Richard Bultmann, Richard Burridge, Michael Grant, Marcus Borg, Maurice Casey, James Charlesworth, A.E. Harvey, Larry Hurtado, Edwin Judge, J Paget, M.A. Powell, EP Sanders, Graham Stanton, Robert Van Voorst, Geza Vermes, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Craig Evens, Watson Mills, Bart Ehrman, Robert Van Voost, Helen Bond, Paul Eddy, Gregory Boyd, Robert Renehan, William Portier, N.T. Wright, and Andreas Köstenberger. You know, actual scholars with actual professorships at actual accredited universities.
And they weren't only claiming their position was their own personal opinion, but that
this is the historical consensus among nearly all scholars.
You can keep on disputing it if you want. But you claimed that nearly all academics believed Jesus didn't exist, and that you could count the ones who disagreed on two hands. I've shown you that the exact opposite is true.
