O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate the Christ Myth: #4, A False Dichotomy?

–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate. –o0o– Tim O’Neill (TO) excoriates Dave Fitzgerald (DF) for consistently depict[ing] the topic as some kind of starkly Manichaean conflict between Christian apologists on one hand and “critics who have disputed Christian claims” on the other (O’Neill 2011) What’s more, he produces the … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate the Christ Myth: #4, A False Dichotomy?”


O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate #3, Are Most Biblical Historians Christian Preachers?

–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate. –o0o– In Nailed David Fitzgerald (DF) wrote: It’s true enough that the majority of Biblical historians do not question the historicity of Jesus – but then again, the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers, so what else could we expect … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate #3, Are Most Biblical Historians Christian Preachers?”


O’Neill-Fitzgerald Christ-Myth Debate; #2, Point of Agreement

–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate. –o0o– The Ambiguity and Difficulty of the Evidence Tim O’Neill in his initial review: No-one except a fundamentalist apologist would pretend that the evidence about Jesus is not ambiguous and often difficult to interpret with any certainty, and that includes the evidence for … Continue reading “O’Neill-Fitzgerald Christ-Myth Debate; #2, Point of Agreement”


The O’Neill–Fitzgerald Debate over the Christ Myth: Round 1, the Agenda

–o0o– All posts in this series are archived in the O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate. –o0o– I don’t imagine very many people interested in the debate over the historical existence of Jesus would have the time to read Tim O’Neill’s 12,000+ word response David Fitzgerald’s response (10,000 words) to Tim O’Neill’s review (7,500 words) of David Fitzgerald’s Nailed: … Continue reading “The O’Neill–Fitzgerald Debate over the Christ Myth: Round 1, the Agenda”


The Nazareth Myth: Salm Responds to McGrath and O’Neill

Well worth reading are Salm’s responses to the ignorance and misrepresentation peddled by McGrath and O’Neill about Salm’s work The Myth of Nazareth. First he addresses the criticism that he is supposedly arguing there was a hiatus of settlement of a few decades at the time Jesus was supposed to have been there. Salm in … Continue reading “The Nazareth Myth: Salm Responds to McGrath and O’Neill”


Is the Nazareth Question Important? A Response to Richard Carrier

In his review of the GRC eConference on the historicity of Jesus Richard Carrier wrote with respect to the claim that the town of Nazareth did not exist in the early first century CE There is no good case to be made that Nazareth did not exist as a town in the early first century, … Continue reading “Is the Nazareth Question Important? A Response to Richard Carrier”


Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #4

The point of this post is to demonstrate how easy it is to read documents from the perspective of commonly accepted knowledge and mistakenly misread them, thinking they say what we have always assumed they say, and to fail to register that the original texts are not quite as clear in their meaning — nor … Continue reading “Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #4”


Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #3

The “again” in the title harks back to another time I responded point by point to Tim O’Neill’s erroneous declarations: Bad History for Atheists #1, #2, #3, #4 Continuing here to respond to the youtube presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_hD3xK4hRY — previous posts: #1 (wrongly saying it pays academics to find “different” and “new” or “contrarian” arguments), … Continue reading “Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #3”


Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again – and not just Probably) — #2

Tim O’Neill makes a statement about history that I have never encountered in any work by any historian explaining to readers what he or she does. The only persons I have heard make the claim come from theological faculties when they try to place the evidence for Jesus on the same (or even higher) level … Continue reading “Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again – and not just Probably) — #2”


Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #1

But the fact is this huge consensus exists. So in history, that means something. After all, academics work in an environment where it pays to find reasons to disagree with each other. — Tim O’Neill Since watching Tim O’Neill’s 28-minute video Did Jesus Exist? Yes (Probably) I have been toying with the idea of bringing … Continue reading “Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #1”


“Another Mythicist Discussion” Revisited

Responses to some points made in a larger argument for the historicity of Jesus, Another Jesus Mythicism Discussion (I posted then soon deleted much of what follows about three weeks ago. My initial post was couched in a misunderstanding about the background to the original post.) I did return to the original site to continue … Continue reading ““Another Mythicist Discussion” Revisited”


Bad History for Atheists (4) — Psychoanalyzing Dissenters

This is the final post covering my response to Tim O’Neill’s interview on MythVision. For other posts, parts one, two, three. In 1959 Khrushchev declared that there were no political prisoners in the USSR, only mentally ill people (Bukovsky). Arrests and trials became their last resort . . . . The authorities preferred other means, … Continue reading “Bad History for Atheists (4) — Psychoanalyzing Dissenters”


Bad History for Atheists (1) — Louis Feldman on Justin’s Trypho and “proving Jesus existed”

I took time out last night to follow up a comment left on Vridar and listen to Derek Lambert’s MythVision interview with Tim O’Neill, author of the blog History for Atheists. If one sets aside the revealing psychological portrait that emerges from the  incidental comments O’Neill lets drop about himself throughout the interview and focuses … Continue reading “Bad History for Atheists (1) — Louis Feldman on Justin’s Trypho and “proving Jesus existed””


Nazareth

Most Vridar posts on Nazareth focus on the archaeological evidence for its existence in the first-century, but also address the historical likelihood of Jesus being identified as from that town and the place of Nazareth in the nativity accounts of the gospels. –o0o– A more complete response to the previous post on the relevance of … Continue readingNazareth