IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:
You seem to have missed this question: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2255721

MS2 wrote:@IanS
Let's say a historian found some 2000 year old scrolls in which the priests of a religion talked about their god living in the nearby mountain and breathing fire and smoke. Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. Would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he was relying on evidence from religious believers?

Well iirc, the above is not a valid analogy with what you have been saying.

It's entirely valid.

In your above analogy the "historian" (in the case of these HJ discussions you are actually talking about biblical scholars, in fact talking overwhelmingly about Christian religious bible scholars afaik), is not claiming the god really did live in the mountains.

Indeed. The historian does not believe the religious assertions in his texts, exactly as I do not accept the religious assertions in the texts we are talking about. The historian reads the text against itself to find out what was really going on. Which is precisely what I aim to do.

So the question is why, when you would not do so of the historian, do you repeatedly accuse me and others of 'having faith'?

No. Because your analogy was to what "historians" bible scholars today in 2015 say about the existence of Jesus from the "flames and smoke evidence" of the biblical writing. And whereas in your volcano analogy your imaginary historian did not believe the god really was ever in the mountains, whether he was making any flames & smoke or not, in the case of your biblical-scholar-"historians", they absolutely do believe Jesus was real, because of what they claim to have found in their mountain of smoking evidence known as the bible ... so your analogy was entirely erroneous.

This is pathetic. Go back and read it again. I never even mentioned 'bible scholars'. That's all in your imagination. I was talking about ME and your ridiculous accusations specifically towards ME that I 'have faith' etc on the basis that I use some religious texts to do history. I have no prior 'belief in Jesus'.

So, I ask again, in the case of a historian who concludes from some religious texts about a god of fire and smoke that the writers lived near an active volcano, would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he uses religious texts?

Of course you wouldn't. But you can't even bring yourself to concede that, because you are afraid of giving any ground at all.

MS2 wrote:

And you are also assuming that it is an evidential fact that the said mountain exists and that it was in fact an active volcano at the time in question. If that were true then it would be some sort of credible physical evidence at least of the fire and smoke appearing at the relavent time.

We all know that if there is physical evidence that helps enormously, and we all know there is very little of it in the case of HJ. This makes things much less certain, and I have said this is the case many, many times. That doesn't alter the point I am making, that your accusations of me and others of 'having faith' are unjustified.

"Very little" in the case of Jesus?? There is actually NONE at all in the case of Jesus!

I thought you might bite on that one in your urge not give any ground. Yes there is physical evidence. It's not decisive in any way. But there is some. There is the geography and archaeology of the relevant area he is purported to have lived in. There is even an inscription mentioning one of the purported characters.

And what I said about your "faith", or your "trust" as I also frequently described it, is that you are placing your faith or trust in the religious faith of the people who wrote in the bible their fantastically impossible stories of a legendary past messiah who none of the writers had ever known. That's what I said about your faith or trust in the so-called biblical "evidence" of a HJ.

And I have explained, in a section you apparently failed to take in, that you are wrong about that. Here it is for you again:

[IanS speaking:] In your above analogy the "historian" ... is not claiming the god really did live in the mountains.

Indeed. The historian does not believe the religious assertions in his texts, exactly as I do not accept the religious assertions in the texts we are talking about. The historian reads the text against itself to find out what was really going on. Which is precisely what I aim to do.

So no, I don't 'place my trust' in their religious faith. I take a highly critical approach to everything they say, and your repeated accusations on this score are frankly just pathetic.

MS2 wrote:

But your belief in Jesus ...

There you go again. I don't 'believe in Jesus'!

I've explained that numerous times to you before ... you do believe in Jesus don't you?

PATHETIC



Please don't bother to to reply to this unless you are prepared to change your approach, because your repeated smears, false reasoning and failures to read and understand what I've said have become extremely tiresome.

The HJ argument must be based on Faith or belief that Jesus stories are historical accounts since there is no mention of a character called Jesus of Nazareth by non-apologedics. People who argue for an historical Jesus always use the Christian Bible.

dejuror wrote:The HJ argument must be based on Faith or belief that Jesus stories are historical accounts since there is no mention of a character called Jesus of Nazareth by non-apologedics. People who argue for an historical Jesus always use the Christian Bible.

The faithful believe . The pray to an immortal god who came to say hello a long time ago. ( more or less)


The faithful pray




The faithless are the ones who discuss " historical Jesus".

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

Well iirc, the above is not a valid analogy with what you have been saying.

It's entirely valid.

In your above analogy the "historian" (in the case of these HJ discussions you are actually talking about biblical scholars, in fact talking overwhelmingly about Christian religious bible scholars afaik), is not claiming the god really did live in the mountains.

Indeed. The historian does not believe the religious assertions in his texts, exactly as I do not accept the religious assertions in the texts we are talking about. The historian reads the text against itself to find out what was really going on. Which is precisely what I aim to do.

So the question is why, when you would not do so of the historian, do you repeatedly accuse me and others of 'having faith'?

No. Because your analogy was to what "historians" bible scholars today in 2015 say about the existence of Jesus from the "flames and smoke evidence" of the biblical writing. And whereas in your volcano analogy your imaginary historian did not believe the god really was ever in the mountains, whether he was making any flames & smoke or not, in the case of your biblical-scholar-"historians", they absolutely do believe Jesus was real, because of what they claim to have found in their mountain of smoking evidence known as the bible ... so your analogy was entirely erroneous.

This is pathetic. Go back and read it again. I never even mentioned 'bible scholars'. That's all in your imagination. I was talking about ME and your ridiculous accusations specifically towards ME that I 'have faith' etc on the basis that I use some religious texts to do history. I have no prior 'belief in Jesus'.

So, I ask again, in the case of a historian who concludes from some religious texts about a god of fire and smoke that the writers lived near an active volcano, would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he uses religious texts?

Of course you wouldn't. But you can't even bring yourself to concede that, because you are afraid of giving any ground at all. .

I did not say that you did mention “bible scholars” in your earlier post above. What I said was that in your analogy you talked about a “historian” deducing things about a volcano, and that you were presenting that as analogous to what “historians” bible scholars say about their belief in Jesus using the bible as their evidence.

In your analogy your mountain climbing historian is presented by you as the equivalent not of “historian” but of bible scholars who claim the bible as their evidence of Jesus.

See below re. what I said about your “faith or trust” being placed in what the biblical writers wrote about Jesus.

MS2 wrote:

And you are also assuming that it is an evidential fact that the said mountain exists and that it was in fact an active volcano at the time in question. If that were true then it would be some sort of credible physical evidence at least of the fire and smoke appearing at the relavent time.

We all know that if there is physical evidence that helps enormously, and we all know there is very little of it in the case of HJ. This makes things much less certain, and I have said this is the case many, many times. That doesn't alter the point I am making, that your accusations of me and others of 'having faith' are unjustified.

"Very little" in the case of Jesus?? There is actually NONE at all in the case of Jesus!

I thought you might bite on that one in your urge not give any ground. Yes there is physical evidence. It's not decisive in any way. But there is some. There is the geography and archaeology of the relevant area he is purported to have lived in. There is even an inscription mentioning one of the purported characters.

The fact that a country/geography exists, is certainly not physical evidence of a HJ, is it LoL!

And I have no idea what inscription you are referring to. Which inscription is this that is actually physical evidence of Jesus?

MS2 wrote:

And what I said about your "faith", or your "trust" as I also frequently described it, is that you are placing your faith or trust in the religious faith of the people who wrote in the bible their fantastically impossible stories of a legendary past messiah who none of the writers had ever known. That's what I said about your faith or trust in the so-called biblical "evidence" of a HJ.

And I have explained, in a section you apparently failed to take in, that you are wrong about that. Here it is for you again:

[IanS speaking:] In your above analogy the "historian" ... is not claiming the god really did live in the mountains.

Indeed. The historian does not believe the religious assertions in his texts, exactly as I do not accept the religious assertions in the texts we are talking about. The historian reads the text against itself to find out what was really going on. Which is precisely what I aim to do.

So no, I don't 'place my trust' in their religious faith. I take a highly critical approach to everything they say, and your repeated accusations on this score are frankly just pathetic.

Well for a start, the people you are calling “historians” reading religious texts, are actually bible scholars. And contrary to what you just said, those bible scholars do in fact ALL all believe that certain “assertions” in those biblical texts are indeed evidenec of a human Jesus.

And in this thread you have been saying have you not, that like those bible scholars, you too believe certain “assertions” in the bible about Jesus, to be true as evidence of Jesus

But those “assertions” in the anonymous late biblical writing, are from writers who never knew any such person as Jesus, and hence could have been writing nothing more than their religious faith beliefs about a messiah who was actually unknown to them.

What I am saying about you and about bible scholars who claim that biblical religious faith writing as evidence of a Jesus figure unknown to any of those biblical writers excepts as a figure of their religious faith, is that you are putting your faith or trust in that religious faith writing that comprises the bible (that biblical writing is actually completely un-evidenced as far as any of it's writers every knowing a human Jesus. What they were recording was purely and completely their religious faith in an unknown messiah).

MS2 wrote:

But your belief in Jesus ...

There you go again. I don't 'believe in Jesus'!

I've explained that numerous times to you before ... you do believe in Jesus don't you?
PATHETIC

Please don't bother to reply to this unless you are prepared to change your approach, because your repeated smears, false reasoning and failures to read and understand what I've said have become extremely tiresome.

Well do you believe in Jesus or not? Yes or no?

I did not insist that you were a religious Christian.(I don't know if you are or not).

For example - if I asked you/anyone if you/they believe in God, you would either say “Yes I do believe in God” or “No I don’t believe in God”. It’s perfectly clear that I would be asking if you believed he existed. This thread is entirely about whether Jesus actually existed or not. And I am describing your position saying you do believe in Jesus. I am not asking you if you believe that people wrote about Jesus in the bible! ... we all know people did that, and nobody is disputing that biblical writers did indeed write about a messianic supernatural figure called “Iesous” (Jesus) ... I am simply saying that all your posts state very clearly that you do believe in that figure.

For hundreds of years, at least eighteen hundred years, christians have taught that their Jesus was born of a ghost without a human father and the Lord from heaven.
Bible scholarhave also admitted Jesus is a figure of myth.
There is no historical evidence to contradict the argument that Jesus was a figure of myth.

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:
It's entirely valid.



Indeed. The historian does not believe the religious assertions in his texts, exactly as I do not accept the religious assertions in the texts we are talking about. The historian reads the text against itself to find out what was really going on. Which is precisely what I aim to do.

So the question is why, when you would not do so of the historian, do you repeatedly accuse me and others of 'having faith'?

No. Because your analogy was to what "historians" bible scholars today in 2015 say about the existence of Jesus from the "flames and smoke evidence" of the biblical writing. And whereas in your volcano analogy your imaginary historian did not believe the god really was ever in the mountains, whether he was making any flames & smoke or not, in the case of your biblical-scholar-"historians", they absolutely do believe Jesus was real, because of what they claim to have found in their mountain of smoking evidence known as the bible ... so your analogy was entirely erroneous.

This is pathetic. Go back and read it again. I never even mentioned 'bible scholars'. That's all in your imagination. I was talking about ME and your ridiculous accusations specifically towards ME that I 'have faith' etc on the basis that I use some religious texts to do history. I have no prior 'belief in Jesus'.

So, I ask again, in the case of a historian who concludes from some religious texts about a god of fire and smoke that the writers lived near an active volcano, would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he uses religious texts?

Of course you wouldn't. But you can't even bring yourself to concede that, because you are afraid of giving any ground at all. .

I did not say that you did mention “bible scholars” in your earlier post above. What I said was that in your analogy you talked about a “historian” deducing things about a volcano, and that you were presenting that as analogous to what “historians” bible scholars say about their belief in Jesus using the bible as their evidence.

Well you were wrong. You should have been able to tell that because (a) I didn't mention bible scholars, (b) I was talking specifically about your ridulous assertions about ME and then (c) when you continued to get it wrong I explained it to you.

In your analogy your mountain climbing historian is presented by you as the equivalent not of “historian” but of bible scholars who claim the bible as their evidence of Jesus.

Incredible! You are still getting it wrong. The analogy refutes your accusations about ME. (Your fixation suggests you are worried about what it also does to your arguments about bible scholars, and indeed you should be, but the matter at hand is your accusations about me.) And what are you talking about mountain climbing for, have you completely lost track of the argument?


And you STILL haven't answered the question. Would you accuse the historian of 'having faith' in the religious texts about the fire god?

See below re. what I said about your “faith or trust” being placed in what the biblical writers wrote about Jesus.

MS2 wrote:

And you are also assuming that it is an evidential fact that the said mountain exists and that it was in fact an active volcano at the time in question. If that were true then it would be some sort of credible physical evidence at least of the fire and smoke appearing at the relavent time.

We all know that if there is physical evidence that helps enormously, and we all know there is very little of it in the case of HJ. This makes things much less certain, and I have said this is the case many, many times. That doesn't alter the point I am making, that your accusations of me and others of 'having faith' are unjustified.

"Very little" in the case of Jesus?? There is actually NONE at all in the case of Jesus!

I thought you might bite on that one in your urge not give any ground. Yes there is physical evidence. It's not decisive in any way. But there is some. There is the geography and archaeology of the relevant area he is purported to have lived in. There is even an inscription mentioning one of the purported characters.

The fact that a country/geography exists, is certainly not physical evidence of a HJ, is it LoL!

I didn't say it was evidence in favour of J being historical, just that there is some physical evidence that is relevant when we are studying the case of HJ. It was a parallel to your mention of the mountain being physical evidence in the case of the fire god. The mountain isn't 'evidence of' a fire god, but it is relevant evidence in the study of the case of the fire god. It's ridiculous that you need these things spelling out for you. Your failure to get the point is getting extremely tiresome.

And I have no idea what inscription you are referring to. Which inscription is this that is actually physical evidence of Jesus?

Are you actually trying to misrepresent everything I say? I didn't say it was physical evidence of Jesus, I said it mentioned one of the purported characters. Look up 'purported'. At least you'll have learned something. (The inscription in question mentions Pilate.)

MS2 wrote:

And what I said about your "faith", or your "trust" as I also frequently described it, is that you are placing your faith or trust in the religious faith of the people who wrote in the bible their fantastically impossible stories of a legendary past messiah who none of the writers had ever known. That's what I said about your faith or trust in the so-called biblical "evidence" of a HJ.

And I have explained, in a section you apparently failed to take in, that you are wrong about that. Here it is for you again:

[IanS speaking:] In your above analogy the "historian" ... is not claiming the god really did live in the mountains.

Indeed. The historian does not believe the religious assertions in his texts, exactly as I do not accept the religious assertions in the texts we are talking about. The historian reads the text against itself to find out what was really going on. Which is precisely what I aim to do.

So no, I don't 'place my trust' in their religious faith. I take a highly critical approach to everything they say, and your repeated accusations on this score are frankly just pathetic.

Well for a start, the people you are calling “historians” reading religious texts, are actually bible scholars.
And contrary to what you just said, those bible scholars do in fact ALL all believe that certain “assertions” in those biblical texts are indeed evidenec of a human Jesus.

Read what I fucking write. For fuck knows how many times, I DIDN'T mention bible scholars and I WAS talking about me.

(Here's hoping stronger language helps your comprehension!)

And in this thread you have been saying have you not, that like those bible scholars, you too believe certain “assertions” in the bible about Jesus, to be true as evidence of Jesus

The historian reads a scroll that says, 'All hail holy MooMoo, mighty fire god in the mountain'. The historian believes this is explained (in part, along with development of religious superstitions etc) by there having been an active volcano. Similarly, I believe the biblical assertions are explained (in part, along with development of superstitions etc) by an ordinary man getting crucified. If you think what the historian is doing or what I am doing amount to 'having faith' in religious writings, well your argument is just moronic.

But those “assertions” in the anonymous late biblical writing, are from writers who never knew any such person as Jesus, and hence could have been writing nothing more than their religious faith beliefs about a messiah who was actually unknown to them.

What I am saying about you and about bible scholars who claim that biblical religious faith writing as evidence of a Jesus figure unknown to any of those biblical writers excepts as a figure of their religious faith, is that you are putting your faith or trust in that religious faith writing that comprises the bible (that biblical writing is actually completely un-evidenced as far as any of it's writers every knowing a human Jesus. What they were recording was purely and completely their religious faith in an unknown messiah).

And what you are saying is pure propaganda. It is just as bad as those Christian apologists who do it. They argue non-christians 'have faith' too when they put their trust in science. It's moronic and you should feel embarrassed.

MS2 wrote:

But your belief in Jesus ...

There you go again. I don't 'believe in Jesus'!

I've explained that numerous times to you before ... you do believe in Jesus don't you?
PATHETIC

Please don't bother to reply to this unless you are prepared to change your approach, because your repeated smears, false reasoning and failures to read and understand what I've said have become extremely tiresome.

Well do you believe in Jesus or not? Yes or no?

I did not insist that you were a religious Christian.(I don't know if you are or not).

Well perhaps you might have got a clue from the multiple times I've told you I don't believe in Jesus. On, I forgot, you don't actually read what people write do you.

For example - if I asked you/anyone if you/they believe in God, you would either say “Yes I do believe in God” or “No I don’t believe in God”. It’s perfectly clear that I would be asking if you believed he existed. This thread is entirely about whether Jesus actually existed or not. And I am describing your position saying you do believe in Jesus. I am not asking you if you believe that people wrote about Jesus in the bible! ... we all know people did that, and nobody is disputing that biblical writers did indeed write about a messianic supernatural figure called “Iesous” (Jesus) ... I am simply saying that all your posts state very clearly that you do believe in that figure.

There are historians who think the figure of Father Christmas has its origins in the historical man called Saint Nicholas. Would you accuse such historians of 'believing in' Father Christmas? No you wouldn't. Yet you clearly want to be able to smear me with the 'I believe in Jesus' phrase along with me 'having faith', 'trusting in religious writings' etc. It's pathetic.

And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

MS2 wrote:And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

There certainly are historical volcanoes. And I can write a story that has a volcano in it that is 100% fictional invention, a fact HJers seem unable to grasp. You guys want us to believe that a story about a volcano erupting in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is somehow historically accurate because the author somehow, somewhere witnessed the eruption that inspired his story, and then other people have been talking about the story for 2000 years.

That's called fiction.

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

There certainly are historical volcanoes. And I can write a story that has a volcano in it that is 100% fictional invention, a fact HJers seem unable to grasp. You guys want us to believe that a story about a volcano erupting in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is somehow historically accurate because the author somehow, somewhere witnessed the eruption that inspired his story, and then other people have been talking about the story for 2000 years.

That's called fiction.

Err no.

Harry Potter - fiction

Captain Hornblower - Fiction based on history

Robin Hood - mostly fictional - based on history - but could have originated with a real person.

King Arthur - fiction based on romantic ideas of the past, the character as portrayed does not fit with the era.

Jesus Christ - mostly mythical - based in a historical period - examination of texts both christian & pagan suggests may have been an actual person. Difficult to explain the material without at least someone who was understood to be a normal ordinary human at some point. Fits well with the time period, fits badly with old testament prophecy that he was supposed to explain. Has unusual unexpected demise with physical evidence of mocking by ancient and original graffiti.

Elephant in the room - metaphorical idiom for glaringly obvious fact that MJ proponents are desperate not to look at even though it has now started playing Trumpet Voluntary in stereo whilst pirouetting on the coffee table.

Owdhat wrote:
Jesus Christ - mostly mythical - based in a historical period

"a historical period" is what?

Owdhat wrote: examination of texts both christian & pagan suggests may have been an actual person.

Which texts? What examination/s?

Owdhat wrote: Difficult to explain the material without at least someone who was understood to be a normal ordinary human at some point. Fits well with the time period, fits badly with old testament prophecy that he was supposed to explain.

What material? Who said he was supposed to explain the things written about him, after his death?

Perhaps the narratives about him arose out of the OT prophecies?

Owdhat wrote:Has unusual unexpected demise with physical evidence of mocking by ancient and original graffiti.

the criteria of embarrassment is embarrassing.

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

There certainly are historical volcanoes. And I can write a story that has a volcano in it that is 100% fictional invention, a fact HJers seem unable to grasp. You guys want us to believe that a story about a volcano erupting in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is somehow historically accurate because the author somehow, somewhere witnessed the eruption that inspired his story, and then other people have been talking about the story for 2000 years.

That's called fiction.

I was discussing your fiction claims back in April. (Last post here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2216472.) You bailed out, presumably because you couldn't sustain your position! As I said in that exchange, it is your claim that it is pure fiction, so it is for you to provide the evidential support for your claim. As everybody knows, 'Could be' doesn't cut it. You didn't provide evidence in support back then. Let's see if you can do better this time.

MS2 wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

There certainly are historical volcanoes. And I can write a story that has a volcano in it that is 100% fictional invention, a fact HJers seem unable to grasp. You guys want us to believe that a story about a volcano erupting in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is somehow historically accurate because the author somehow, somewhere witnessed the eruption that inspired his story, and then other people have been talking about the story for 2000 years.

That's called fiction.

I was discussing your fiction claims back in April. (Last post here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2216472.) You bailed out, presumably because you couldn't sustain your position! As I said in that exchange, it is your claim that it is pure fiction, so it is for you to provide the evidential support for your claim. As everybody knows, 'Could be' doesn't cut it. You didn't provide evidence in support back then. Let's see if you can do better this time.

You want me to provide evidence that an author composing a story about a guy who performs impossible feats isn't composing fiction? You want me to explain how miraculous events in the OT are no different than miraculous events in the NT? What exactly are you asking me to do? Prove a negative?

Moses rapping with Pharoah is no different than Jesus rapping with Pilate. Raining manna from heaven is no different than feeding a crowd with loaves and fishes. Turning water into wine is the same as turning water into blood. Jesus last words while he was alive are identical to what we find in older writings. What is it you don't get?

These stories were written for people versed in these similarities. They got it and they knew it was not factual. So would you if you'd lived at the time, just as today you know that Superman, for all his moral impregnability, is still just made up.

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

There certainly are historical volcanoes. And I can write a story that has a volcano in it that is 100% fictional invention, a fact HJers seem unable to grasp. You guys want us to believe that a story about a volcano erupting in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is somehow historically accurate because the author somehow, somewhere witnessed the eruption that inspired his story, and then other people have been talking about the story for 2000 years.

That's called fiction.

I was discussing your fiction claims back in April. (Last post here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2216472.) You bailed out, presumably because you couldn't sustain your position! As I said in that exchange, it is your claim that it is pure fiction, so it is for you to provide the evidential support for your claim. As everybody knows, 'Could be' doesn't cut it. You didn't provide evidence in support back then. Let's see if you can do better this time.

You want me to provide evidence that an author composing a story about a guy who performs impossible feats isn't composing fiction? You want me to explain how miraculous events in the OT are no different than miraculous events in the NT? What exactly are you asking me to do? Prove a negative?

Moses rapping with Pharoah is no different than Jesus rapping with Pilate. Raining manna from heaven is no different than feeding a crowd with loaves and fishes. Turning water into wine is the same as turning water into blood. Jesus last words while he was alive are identical to what we find in older writings. What is it you don't get?

These stories were written for people versed in these similarities. They got it and they knew it was not factual. So would you if you'd lived at the time, just as today you know that Superman, for all his moral impregnability, is still just made up.

Yours is an unusual view (which of course does not mean it is wrong necessarily). Conventional wisdom is that the people who wrote these stories believed their miraculous contents etc. IanS in this thread waxes lyrical about how their credulity means we can't believe a word they say. (Apparently you are prepared to give him a free pass despite this, presumably because his conclusion is close enough to yours.) Furthermore, the earliest hearers of those stories that we know of seemingly believed them to be recounting actual events. And then there is Paul, who wrote earlier than those stories and clearly believed the crucifiction at least had happened. But regardless of this, you are making a very specific claim, namely that the author of Mark (for example) knew that the stories he told had not happened. It is your specific claim, so it is for you to provide the evidential support.

People who argue for an historical Jesus cannot prove Jesus was not a figure of myth.
Jesus of Nazareth was described as a ghost -a water walking transfiguring son of a God.
It is virtually impossible to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was not a ghost story. There is no evidence that christians were writing history.

MS2 wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Ducktown wrote:
There certainly are historical volcanoes. And I can write a story that has a volcano in it that is 100% fictional invention, a fact HJers seem unable to grasp. You guys want us to believe that a story about a volcano erupting in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is somehow historically accurate because the author somehow, somewhere witnessed the eruption that inspired his story, and then other people have been talking about the story for 2000 years.

That's called fiction.

I was discussing your fiction claims back in April. (Last post here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2216472.) You bailed out, presumably because you couldn't sustain your position! As I said in that exchange, it is your claim that it is pure fiction, so it is for you to provide the evidential support for your claim. As everybody knows, 'Could be' doesn't cut it. You didn't provide evidence in support back then. Let's see if you can do better this time.

You want me to provide evidence that an author composing a story about a guy who performs impossible feats isn't composing fiction? You want me to explain how miraculous events in the OT are no different than miraculous events in the NT? What exactly are you asking me to do? Prove a negative?

Moses rapping with Pharoah is no different than Jesus rapping with Pilate. Raining manna from heaven is no different than feeding a crowd with loaves and fishes. Turning water into wine is the same as turning water into blood. Jesus last words while he was alive are identical to what we find in older writings. What is it you don't get?

These stories were written for people versed in these similarities. They got it and they knew it was not factual. So would you if you'd lived at the time, just as today you know that Superman, for all his moral impregnability, is still just made up.

Yours is an unusual view (which of course does not mean it is wrong necessarily). Conventional wisdom is that the people who wrote these stories believed their miraculous contents etc. IanS in this thread waxes lyrical about how their credulity means we can't believe a word they say. (Apparently you are prepared to give him a free pass despite this, presumably because his conclusion is close enough to yours.) Furthermore, the earliest hearers of those stories that we know of seemingly believed them to be recounting actual events. And then there is Paul, who wrote earlier than those stories and clearly believed the crucifiction at least had happened. But regardless of this, you are making a very specific claim, namely that the author of Mark (for example) knew that the stories he told had not happened. It is your specific claim, so it is for you to provide the evidential support.

Then you have a problem. You have to figure out why authors still write stories about dragons, and why those stories are still popular.

There's is zero evidence that any letter of the Pauline corpus predated stories of Jesus of Nazareth. Christian writers of antiquity admitted the Pauline writers knew the gospel according to Luke and that the Pauline corpus was composed after the apocalypse of John.
The letters of the Pauline corpus were unknown in the late 2nd century

There's is zero evidence that any letter of the Pauline corpus predated stories of Jesus of Nazareth. Christian writers of antiquity admitted the Pauline writers knew the gospel according to Luke and that the Pauline corpus was composed after the apocalypse of John.
The letters of the Pauline corpus were unknown in the late 2nd century or after writings attributed to celsus

Your argument contradicts most bablical scholars who say that the writings of Paul, [the ones attributed to him] were the very first xtian wrintings. There are some who argue that G Mark was the very first xtian writings. There is evidence for both sides of the tale. But both can't be correct.

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:


No. Because your analogy was to what "historians" bible scholars today in 2015 say about the existence of Jesus from the "flames and smoke evidence" of the biblical writing. And whereas in your volcano analogy your imaginary historian did not believe the god really was ever in the mountains, whether he was making any flames & smoke or not, in the case of your biblical-scholar-"historians", they absolutely do believe Jesus was real, because of what they claim to have found in their mountain of smoking evidence known as the bible ... so your analogy was entirely erroneous.

This is pathetic. Go back and read it again. I never even mentioned 'bible scholars'. That's all in your imagination. I was talking about ME and your ridiculous accusations specifically towards ME that I 'have faith' etc on the basis that I use some religious texts to do history. I have no prior 'belief in Jesus'.

So, I ask again, in the case of a historian who concludes from some religious texts about a god of fire and smoke that the writers lived near an active volcano, would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he uses religious texts?

Of course you wouldn't. But you can't even bring yourself to concede that, because you are afraid of giving any ground at all. .

I did not say that you did mention “bible scholars” in your earlier post above. What I said was that in your analogy you talked about a “historian” deducing things about a volcano, and that you were presenting that as analogous to what “historians” bible scholars say about their belief in Jesus using the bible as their evidence.

Well you were wrong. You should have been able to tell that because (a) I didn't mention bible scholars, (b) I was talking specifically about your ridulous assertions about ME and then (c) when you continued to get it wrong I explained it to you.

In your analogy your mountain climbing historian is presented by you as the equivalent not of “historian” but of bible scholars who claim the bible as their evidence of Jesus.

Incredible! You are still getting it wrong. The analogy refutes your accusations about ME. (Your fixation suggests you are worried about what it also does to your arguments about bible scholars, and indeed you should be, but the matter at hand is your accusations about me.) And what are you talking about mountain climbing for, have you completely lost track of the argument?


And you STILL haven't answered the question. Would you accuse the historian of 'having faith' in the religious texts about the fire god?

See below re. what I said about your “faith or trust” being placed in what the biblical writers wrote about Jesus.

MS2 wrote:



We all know that if there is physical evidence that helps enormously, and we all know there is very little of it in the case of HJ. This makes things much less certain, and I have said this is the case many, many times. That doesn't alter the point I am making, that your accusations of me and others of 'having faith' are unjustified.



I thought you might bite on that one in your urge not give any ground. Yes there is physical evidence. It's not decisive in any way. But there is some. There is the geography and archaeology of the relevant area he is purported to have lived in. There is even an inscription mentioning one of the purported characters.

The fact that a country/geography exists, is certainly not physical evidence of a HJ, is it LoL!

I didn't say it was evidence in favour of J being historical, just that there is some physical evidence that is relevant when we are studying the case of HJ. It was a parallel to your mention of the mountain being physical evidence in the case of the fire god. The mountain isn't 'evidence of' a fire god, but it is relevant evidence in the study of the case of the fire god. It's ridiculous that you need these things spelling out for you. Your failure to get the point is getting extremely tiresome.

And I have no idea what inscription you are referring to. Which inscription is this that is actually physical evidence of Jesus?

Are you actually trying to misrepresent everything I say? I didn't say it was physical evidence of Jesus, I said it mentioned one of the purported characters. Look up 'purported'. At least you'll have learned something. (The inscription in question mentions Pilate.)

MS2 wrote:

And what I said about your "faith", or your "trust" as I also frequently described it, is that you are placing your faith or trust in the religious faith of the people who wrote in the bible their fantastically impossible stories of a legendary past messiah who none of the writers had ever known. That's what I said about your faith or trust in the so-called biblical "evidence" of a HJ.

And I have explained, in a section you apparently failed to take in, that you are wrong about that. Here it is for you again:

Indeed. The historian does not believe the religious assertions in his texts, exactly as I do not accept the religious assertions in the texts we are talking about. The historian reads the text against itself to find out what was really going on. Which is precisely what I aim to do.

So no, I don't 'place my trust' in their religious faith. I take a highly critical approach to everything they say, and your repeated accusations on this score are frankly just pathetic.

Well for a start, the people you are calling “historians” reading religious texts, are actually bible scholars.
And contrary to what you just said, those bible scholars do in fact ALL all believe that certain “assertions” in those biblical texts are indeed evidenec of a human Jesus.

Read what I fucking write. For fuck knows how many times, I DIDN'T mention bible scholars and I WAS talking about me.

(Here's hoping stronger language helps your comprehension!)

And in this thread you have been saying have you not, that like those bible scholars, you too believe certain “assertions” in the bible about Jesus, to be true as evidence of Jesus

The historian reads a scroll that says, 'All hail holy MooMoo, mighty fire god in the mountain'. The historian believes this is explained (in part, along with development of religious superstitions etc) by there having been an active volcano. Similarly, I believe the biblical assertions are explained (in part, along with development of superstitions etc) by an ordinary man getting crucified. If you think what the historian is doing or what I am doing amount to 'having faith' in religious writings, well your argument is just moronic.

But those “assertions” in the anonymous late biblical writing, are from writers who never knew any such person as Jesus, and hence could have been writing nothing more than their religious faith beliefs about a messiah who was actually unknown to them.

What I am saying about you and about bible scholars who claim that biblical religious faith writing as evidence of a Jesus figure unknown to any of those biblical writers excepts as a figure of their religious faith, is that you are putting your faith or trust in that religious faith writing that comprises the bible (that biblical writing is actually completely un-evidenced as far as any of it's writers every knowing a human Jesus. What they were recording was purely and completely their religious faith in an unknown messiah).

And what you are saying is pure propaganda. It is just as bad as those Christian apologists who do it. They argue non-christians 'have faith' too when they put their trust in science. It's moronic and you should feel embarrassed.

MS2 wrote:

But your belief in Jesus ...

There you go again. I don't 'believe in Jesus'!

I've explained that numerous times to you before ... you do believe in Jesus don't you?
PATHETIC

Please don't bother to reply to this unless you are prepared to change your approach, because your repeated smears, false reasoning and failures to read and understand what I've said have become extremely tiresome.

Well do you believe in Jesus or not? Yes or no?

I did not insist that you were a religious Christian.(I don't know if you are or not).

Well perhaps you might have got a clue from the multiple times I've told you I don't believe in Jesus. On, I forgot, you don't actually read what people write do you.

For example - if I asked you/anyone if you/they believe in God, you would either say “Yes I do believe in God” or “No I don’t believe in God”. It’s perfectly clear that I would be asking if you believed he existed. This thread is entirely about whether Jesus actually existed or not. And I am describing your position saying you do believe in Jesus. I am not asking you if you believe that people wrote about Jesus in the bible! ... we all know people did that, and nobody is disputing that biblical writers did indeed write about a messianic supernatural figure called “Iesous” (Jesus) ... I am simply saying that all your posts state very clearly that you do believe in that figure.

There are historians who think the figure of Father Christmas has its origins in the historical man called Saint Nicholas. Would you accuse such historians of 'believing in' Father Christmas? No you wouldn't. Yet you clearly want to be able to smear me with the 'I believe in Jesus' phrase along with me 'having faith', 'trusting in religious writings' etc. It's pathetic.

And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

Your posts are becoming quite hysterical and as if you were foaming at the mouth!

Calm down please.

Look - you made a very silly trite analogy about a historian looking for a god up a volcano, an entirely imaginary proposal from you. And you tried to present that as analogous to the case of biblical scholars who believe they have found evidence of Jesus in the bible.

But apart from the fact that your analogy is a completely imaginary invention which has nothing whatsoever to do with the case of Jesus, it is in any case the complete opposite of what has happened in the case of Jesus.

I have already taken the trouble to explain this to you many times before, but to repeat - in your analogy the historian climbs up the mountain and verifies that there is no god present (he finds that the smoke and flames come from volcanic activity).

But in the case of Jesus, bible scholars (not "historians") look in the bible, and claim that they do find there evidence of Jesus! That's is the 100% complete opposite of your historian up a volcano!

And as for your repeated complaints that I must not describe your belief in Jesus as "believing in Jesus", you are being far too sensitive about other peoples perfectly reasonable choice of words. You are not here to dictate which words and phrasing other people can or cannot use. What I have said about that to you, at least 20 times now over many months, is -

- that you do believe Jesus existed. And you agree with that yourself. I do not need to keep spelling it out by saying that I am not insisting, and never have insisted, that you are in any way religious (although you may be, I don't know).

Instead what I have spelt out to you about it in great detail dozens of times now, is this - when you say you believe in the existence of Jesus, the evidence which you are relying upon, is actually just the biblical writing. But in the biblical writing, the writers only ever gave evidence of their own religious beliefs in a Jesus figure who was completely unknown to them. The biblical writing is in fact evidence only of 1st century religious belief in an unknown, un-evidenced Jesus. In fact belief in an unknown un-evidenced supernatural Jesus.

And what I have repeatedly said to you about that, is this - when you use that religious biblical writing as the source of evidence for your own belief in Jesus, you are in fact placing your trust or faith in the religious faith of 1st century religious fanatics who in fact had NO evidence of Jesus. That's actually a religious faith position, by which I mean - you are in fact trusting to the religious faith writing of the bible.

dejuror wrote:... Christian writers of antiquity (i) admitted the Pauline writers knew the gospel according to Luke; and that (ii) the Pauline corpus was composed after the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation; 'Revelation'?)...

Do you have more information about these propositions, dejuror?

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:
I was discussing your fiction claims back in April. (Last post here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2216472.) You bailed out, presumably because you couldn't sustain your position! As I said in that exchange, it is your claim that it is pure fiction, so it is for you to provide the evidential support for your claim. As everybody knows, 'Could be' doesn't cut it. You didn't provide evidence in support back then. Let's see if you can do better this time.

You want me to provide evidence that an author composing a story about a guy who performs impossible feats isn't composing fiction? You want me to explain how miraculous events in the OT are no different than miraculous events in the NT? What exactly are you asking me to do? Prove a negative?

Moses rapping with Pharoah is no different than Jesus rapping with Pilate. Raining manna from heaven is no different than feeding a crowd with loaves and fishes. Turning water into wine is the same as turning water into blood. Jesus last words while he was alive are identical to what we find in older writings. What is it you don't get?

These stories were written for people versed in these similarities. They got it and they knew it was not factual. So would you if you'd lived at the time, just as today you know that Superman, for all his moral impregnability, is still just made up.

Yours is an unusual view (which of course does not mean it is wrong necessarily). Conventional wisdom is that the people who wrote these stories believed their miraculous contents etc. IanS in this thread waxes lyrical about how their credulity means we can't believe a word they say. (Apparently you are prepared to give him a free pass despite this, presumably because his conclusion is close enough to yours.) Furthermore, the earliest hearers of those stories that we know of seemingly believed them to be recounting actual events. And then there is Paul, who wrote earlier than those stories and clearly believed the crucifiction at least had happened. But regardless of this, you are making a very specific claim, namely that the author of Mark (for example) knew that the stories he told had not happened. It is your specific claim, so it is for you to provide the evidential support.

Then you have a problem. You have to figure out why authors still write stories about dragons, and why those stories are still popular.

I don't have to figure out anything at all. It's your claim, so you back it up.