TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

Byron wrote:
Given the totality of the evidence, what'd you think makes a doubt in Jesus' existence reasonable?

Simply that there's so little evidence and what evidence there is is colored by the passage of time and the hands that it has passed through. There's lots of room for little nagging doubts and uncertainties.

But this goes for most all ancient history. What other aspects & facts do you think are merely probable?

Not that any of this is unusual or particularly damning for the case of a historical jesus. We couldn't really expect better or more evidence under the circumstances. But that's why I think the "a preponderance of the evidence" is a better analogy.

No analogy is exact, but the corroborative evidence, separate strands of tradition in Paul and the gospels, coupled with the criterion of embarrassment, would IMO drive just about any impartial jury towards a conviction. (Followed by, hmmmm, a few years at hard seminary for the mythers. )

Byron

Of course, playing devil's advocate, you can argue that the rifts themselves weren't invented, that people were genuinely arguing about various aspects of the story, and about whether it fitted with Judaism or not, but that none of them had ever meet a real Jesus, but had simply heard stories about him, and believed them. And in Paul's case, had a vision of him.

But am I right that in the mythicist case, the idea of Jesus as human comes in later? So at first, he is pure spirit in the 'air', but then later, he is said to have actually existed? Now, who brought this into the story and why? This means there is a Jesus-spirit movement, and then a Jesus-human movement? Gulp. (Of course, normally it is taken the other way round!) This is like a football balanced on a fork balanced on the back of a chair.

Byron wrote:

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

Byron wrote:
Given the totality of the evidence, what'd you think makes a doubt in Jesus' existence reasonable?

Simply that there's so little evidence and what evidence there is is colored by the passage of time and the hands that it has passed through. There's lots of room for little nagging doubts and uncertainties.

But this goes for most all ancient history. What other aspects & facts do you think are merely probable?

Well, I agree with you on that point which is why I think "a preponderance of the evidence" is the better analogy for a standard of evidence on anything to do with ancient history. I don't think of it as a criticism of the study of ancient history - just a recognition of the fact that we can't expect the same level of certainty when dealing with it as compared to contemporary events where concrete evidence is much more plentiful.

nunnington wrote:Byron

Of course, playing devil's advocate, you can argue that the rifts themselves weren't invented, that people were genuinely arguing about various aspects of the story, and about whether it fitted with Judaism or not, but that none of them had ever meet a real Jesus, but had simply heard stories about him, and believed them. And in Paul's case, had a vision of him.

Thanks, Kevin Lomax.

This possibility would have to explain not only how the movement got going, but why Paul felt sufficient confident to name a specific individual in a specific location. It's all near-enough to events that people could expect to be able to ask around about "that crazy Nazarene who flipped out in the Temple and got himself bumped by Rome's hired hand". The myth would have to be invented within around a decade of its claimed events, in the region it refers to. This is unlike any other myth I can think of, and the chances of its success would be fearsomely unlikely. Which is putting it mildly. Less "myth" than fraud. Whoever pulled it off must be the greatest con-artist in history.

Comparisons with actual myths, which the Gospels contain, are one of the strongest arguments against this ingenious deception.

But am I right that in the mythicist case, the idea of Jesus as human comes in later? So at first, he is pure spirit in the 'air', but then later, he is said to have actually existed? Now, who brought this into the story and why? This means there is a Jesus-spirit movement, and then a Jesus-human movement? Gulp. (Of course, normally it is taken the other way round!) This is like a football balanced on a fork balanced on the back of a chair.

I've seen various mythist cases, from Mark inventing an earthly Jesus, to Paul inventing him, to some other party unknown -- our worldbeating conman -- hoodwinking everyone. What I've yet to see is anything approaching credibility. Gulp. Mucho gulp.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:Well, I agree with you on that point which is why I think "a preponderance of the evidence" is the better analogy for a standard of evidence on anything to do with ancient history. I don't think of it as a criticism of the study of ancient history - just a recognition of the fact that we can't expect the same level of certainty when dealing with it as compared to contemporary events where concrete evidence is much more plentiful.

I agree that it isn't certain -- but cases proved beyond reasonable doubt aren't certain, either. (As convictions based on circumstantial evidence testify.) BARD is useful shorthand for "certain as I can be about non-repeatable events I haven't witnessed, given human limitations and available evidence".

Byron wrote:

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:Well, I agree with you on that point which is why I think "a preponderance of the evidence" is the better analogy for a standard of evidence on anything to do with ancient history. I don't think of it as a criticism of the study of ancient history - just a recognition of the fact that we can't expect the same level of certainty when dealing with it as compared to contemporary events where concrete evidence is much more plentiful.

I agree that it isn't certain -- but cases proved beyond reasonable doubt aren't certain, either. (As convictions based on circumstantial evidence testify.) BARD is useful shorthand for "certain as I can be about non-repeatable events I haven't witnessed, given human limitations and available evidence".

A lot of that depends upon just how good your lawyer is Just think of the OJ case. The glove didn't fit so he was acquit(ted) But he lost the civil case against him...

And, really, there's a reason that cases go cold after time passes and it's extremely difficult to obtain a conviction years after the crime has been committed. Eyewitness testimony becomes less reliable, evidence becomes "tainted" and everything generally gets less certain.

Byron

It's very strange to compare these ideas with the enthusiasts for the Q document, some of whom end up with Q followers, and then a Q community, who seem to consist of wandering radicals, who refuse to carry food and drink, and are very like Cynics.

This is also built on layers of supposition, it seems, but the strange thing is that it reverses mythicism, for here we have a completely human and non-divine Jesus, (hence no virgin birth, and no resurrection), and we have Jesus followers who are not Christian! That is, they have no Christology.

But then from Q we proceed to the mythologization and divinization of Jesus, and the eventual luxuriant growth of Christology, Marian devotion, and so forth.

So this is the exact reverse of mythicism, isn't it? Gordon Bennett.

Well, I guess we should thank Mr Doherty for bringing life to an old corpse - I mean this thread.

nunnington wrote:Byron

It's very strange to compare these ideas with the enthusiasts for the Q document, some of whom end up with Q followers, and then a Q community, who seem to consist of wandering radicals, who refuse to carry food and drink, and are very like Cynics.

This is also built on layers of supposition, it seems, but the strange thing is that it reverses mythicism, for here we have a completely human and non-divine Jesus, (hence no virgin birth, and no resurrection), and we have Jesus followers who are not Christian! That is, they have no Christology.

But then from Q we proceed to the mythologization and divinization of Jesus, and the eventual luxuriant growth of Christology, Marian devotion, and so forth.

So this is the exact reverse of mythicism, isn't it? Gordon Bennett.

Well, I guess we should thank Mr Doherty for bringing life to an old corpse - I mean this thread.

Am wondering if the length of this thread is unique on the entire Internet. It's practically become a forum within a forum.

Stein

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:A lot of that depends upon just how good your lawyer is Just think of the OJ case. The glove didn't fit so he was acquit(ted) But he lost the civil case against him...

Ah yes, "If I throw enough shit, you must acquit". A sharper prosecution/better jury and we could've had a different result. Ah well, milestone in trial by TV, a learning curve. (As the California courts did when they sensibly booted cameras out of the Michael Jackson trial.)

And, really, there's a reason that cases go cold after time passes and it's extremely difficult to obtain a conviction years after the crime has been committed. Eyewitness testimony becomes less reliable, evidence becomes "tainted" and everything generally gets less certain.

This is true, although cold cases can, and do, lead to convictions. Age is just one factor, that can be overcome if the quality of evidence is sufficient to go to a jury.

The New Testament, the king of all cold cases!

nunnington wrote:Byron

It's very strange to compare these ideas with the enthusiasts for the Q document, some of whom end up with Q followers, and then a Q community, who seem to consist of wandering radicals, who refuse to carry food and drink, and are very like Cynics.

This is also built on layers of supposition, it seems, but the strange thing is that it reverses mythicism, for here we have a completely human and non-divine Jesus, (hence no virgin birth, and no resurrection), and we have Jesus followers who are not Christian! That is, they have no Christology.

But then from Q we proceed to the mythologization and divinization of Jesus, and the eventual luxuriant growth of Christology, Marian devotion, and so forth.

So this is the exact reverse of mythicism, isn't it? Gordon Bennett.

Well, I guess we should thank Mr Doherty for bringing life to an old corpse - I mean this thread.

Q is fine when Occam's Razor slashes it down to shorthand for passages Matthew and Luke have in common with each other, but not Mark. (Although far from a fact, and not, IMO, more compelling than alternative multi-source explanations.) As with any theory, it can escape its bounds and run wild if due caution isn't applied.

The idea of two alternative Christianities -- Judaic & Jacobite, and Christological & Pauline -- is intriguing, although given Acts & Paul's letters (and the letters attributed to him) there would've been much interface between the two, if they existed. I'm more on the side of a single movement in which the Gentile strand won-out with the AD 60s-70s Jewish rebellion & destruction of the Temple.

The exact view of Jesus' divinity, or lack thereof, would doubtless vary within the movement; although going back to its source, as an (apparently) observant Jew, the idea of being a man-god would be blasphemy to the man from Nazareth. The lack of self-claims about being a man-god in the Gospels seem to indicate later mythologization on this point. The notion of an alternative Cynic-brand of Christians who didn't develop Christology -- the original "great moral teacher" folks! -- is inventive, but SFAIK, devoid of evidence. If they existed, I'd love to know what happened to 'em.

Stein wrote:Am wondering if the length of this thread is unique on the entire Internet. It's practically become a forum within a forum.

Stein

Report back if (when? ) it hits the 1,000 page mark.

Byron

It staggers me, how much knowledge some of the atheists here have about Biblical scholarship, Judaism, early Christianity. How on earth have they acquired this? I suppose some are ex-Christians, and some are grizzled old anti-Christians, who have resolved to know their enemy.

But I know that GDon and Grahbudd are Christians. I am Anglican, which is vaguely Christian.

I am very impressed, and resolve to try harder. It's only that I am so lazy.

Byron

I believe the Cynics all wandered off into the desert, where they were tormented by visions of buxom bar-maids, until they finally fell into a fit, and starved to death. Sic transit gloria mundi.

virphen wrote:No it is not. There are only two sources really worth considering, but the veracity of those sources is not in fact in dispute, except in the main from people who have an interest in regarding them as untrustworthy.

You mean there is ONLY ONE source that mentioned the name Jesus, Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus.

ANTIQUITIES XVIII.3.3 is NOT credible and is considered a forgery and still Jesus was described as some kind of MYTHICAL creature when he was seen ALIVE three days AFTER he was supposed to have been dead.

ANTIQUITIES XX.9.1 is also considered a forgery and even a Church writer, Jerome in "De Viris Illustribus" 2, mentioned the very ANTIQUITIES XX and did NOT ever claim that James was a brother Jesus, in fact, BEFORE making reference to ANTIQUITIES XX Jerome made certain to show that James the apostle could not have been the brother of Jesus called Christ.

A supposed contemporary of Jesus, "Paul" ONLY SAW JESUS as a resurrected MYTH identical to ANTIQUITIESXVIII.3.3.

virphen wrote:...But regardless of that, as has been explained time and time again, the fact that the new testament are not works of history is not particularly important in this question, because they are not treated as if they were narrative history by historians. Instead they are treated as evidence of what the Christian communities of the mid first century to the early 2nd century believed. And it is by analysing those beliefs that the most likely basis for the formation of those beliefs can be properly assessed.

The historical Jesus is NOT a question of belief of existence.
Some BELIEVED Jesus was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost and the Creator.
Marcion BELIEVED the son of God EXISTED as a Phantom.

The historical Jesus must be based on EXTERNAL historical evidence that Bible Jesus was really just a mere man.

The historical Jesus is BASED ON forgeries, myths and information rejected by the Church.

virphen wrote:This is entirely proper and consistent with what happens with the study of ancient history. Because of the paucity of primary sources, and the equally patchy survival of narrative history, non historical texts are scoured for every hint, clue or reasonable piece they can add to the puzzle. To deny us the opportunity to do this is simply irresponsible, and it is nothing less than history denialism.

How can any one deny people the right to present what they BELIEVE is evidence for the historical Jesus?

The evidence for the historical Jesus has JUST been found to be UNDENIABLY EXTREMELY weak.

1. Only ONE source mentioned Jesus, ANTIQUITIES and the Passages are considered forgeries, not even used or rejected by Church writers.

Can you EXTRACT the biography of Romulus from Plutarch's Romulus?

virphen wrote:....Note though that this is a very slanted view that junjan reports, and the reason I would totally deny it "cuts to the heart of the matter". Anyone wishing to claim that a Jesus myth is more likely has to deal with EXACTLY THE SAME SOURCES. The tactic of just scrapping all the sources as unreliable, is both wrong and gets us nowhere towards making a case for a mythical Jesus, it would, if we all lost our minds and accepted it as a valid historical position, leave us in the position of 100% agnosticism towards the question.

It is HJers who MUST claim or PRESUME that the Bible is unreliable or fully embellished since they have ASSUMED that they know of the ACTUAL history of Jesus.

MJers claim that the NT Bible is about and described a MYTH that was ONLY BELIEVED to have existed as a God/man but was most likely to be an invented fable using events as the Fall of the Temple, Hebrew Scripture and possible events and geographical locations found in the writings of Josephus..

virphen wrote:What is needed for both claims is a full analysis of the sources. The historical position does this, and presents it's case according to the evidence. Doherty approaches things in the same way, at least he makes a positive claim and attempts to back it up with evidence. But mythers like junjan just wave their hands and say "nothing can be trusted" and then make the ridiculous claim that as a result we must consider it to all be myth!

That is just risible.

How many times must "Antquities" XVIII.3.3 and XX.9.1 be analyzed?

The supposed external evidence for the historical Jesus has ALREADY been analyzed. It is worthless for the historical Jesus.

Jesus was said to RESURRECT in ANTIQUITIES XVIII.3.3, this is evidence for A MYTH.

And James the Apostles according to the Church writers, Papias and Jerome, could NOT have the supposed Jesus the Lord and Saviour as a blood brother. The supposed Jesus in the Bible was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin Mary and James was supposed to be the son of Alpheaus, or Joseph a sister of the Virgin.

By the way in the NT, Jesus could not even have been born so it is pointless even attempting to use Galatians 1.19 when the mother of Jesus was STILL a VIRGIN after Jesus was born.


The weakness of the historical Jesus has been FINALLY EXPOSED.

Unlike fundies who Believe the Bible is fundamentally an historical biography of Jesus , HJers believe the biography of Jesus is FULLY embellished and MYTHOLOGISED yet BELIEVE they know the actual of Jesus by using the very embellished source and forgeries found in Josephus' ANTIQUITIES.

HJers may be attempting to do what the authors of gJohn or gLuke did, that is, to INVENT a more PLAUSIBLE Jesus to their audience.

Byron wrote:

The exact view of Jesus' divinity, or lack thereof, would doubtless vary within the movement; although going back to its source, as an (apparently) observant Jew, the idea of being a man-god would be blasphemy to the man from Nazareth. The lack of self-claims about being a man-god in the Gospels seem to indicate later mythologization on this point.

At the bottom of page 50 of this thread (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 9-980.html), I start off a possibly instructive exchange on just this question, showing, surprisingly, that modern scholarship now traces _some_ of the man-god imagery for Jesus directly to Jesus himself. While he nowhere says or implies that he is a god or God, the earliest apparent textual strata do multiply attest that he does speak of himself -- occasionally -- as being a son of God, whom he references as "my Father", and a son who is, in some unspecified way, specially able to reveal God to others.

All this is quite different, of course, from claiming himself to be a man-god. But it does show the germ of the mythologizing that further developed after his execution.

Anyone who's interested in the ins and outs of these intangible sayings relating to this question can refer back to the bottom of page 50 for the sayings in question, and then to the top of page 52 (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... -1020.html) for a more in-depth exchange involving VeryRarelyStable and some other posters here.

Stein

Stein

Although I think that 'son of God', 'son of Man' and 'messiah' in Judaism do not denote divinity. So Jesus may have been called these, and referred to himself as these, without any sense of Christology, which presumably develops later, as in John.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
A lot of that depends upon just how good your lawyer is Just think of the OJ case. The glove didn't fit so he was acquit(ted) But he lost the civil case against him...

And we have seen the Chewbacca defence several times in this thread. Several times per page it seems sometimes.

EarlDoherty wrote:Well, I congratulate Tim for finally getting his act together--to some extent. However, he has seasoned what he obviously considers an effective counter-article to myself with so much insult and poisonous comment that it is very difficult to separate out the actual counter-arguments to what I've offered in defense of mythicism. When the speaker is foaming at the mouth, it's rather difficult to accept what is being spoken as something reasoned.

This, from the person who compared his delay in posting to someone suffering from impotence.

What rank hypocrisy.

EarlDoherty wrote:Well, I congratulate Tim for finally getting his act together--to some extent. However, he has seasoned what he obviously considers an effective counter-article to myself with so much insult and poisonous comment that it is very difficult to separate out the actual counter-arguments to what I've offered in defense of mythicism. When the speaker is foaming at the mouth, it's rather difficult to accept what is being spoken as something reasoned. That kind of tone and attitude virtually discredits what is being said because it spells a manic hostility which is highly disturbing and suspicious in itself. However, I will do my best, in pieces over a few days.

It's quite obvious that he has not read any of my books, since many of the points he brings up have been counter-answered in both The Jesus Puzzle and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, as well as on my website. Much of his counter-argument consists of claiming that I am unconvincing, etc. In the absence of any dealing in any depth (if at all) with the actual points I make in aiming to be convincing (and many do find it so), or explaining why it is unconvincing, we are simply being presented with the well-known Argument from Personal Incredulity, to which we might add the dimension of Argument from Personal Hostility so characteristic of people like Tim.

Anyway, I'll try to get out the first installment of my response tonight or tomorrow.

Earl Doherty

I just wanted to say thanks for posting the titles of your books. I just ordered:

The Jesus Puzzle : did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?
Challenging the verdict : a cross-examination of Lee Strobel's The case for Christ

from our library, they both look like excellent reads. Unfortunately they didn’t have:

Jesus: Neither God Nor Man

Once I’ve read the 2 books from the library, I may purchase the 3rd book from Amazon. I checked and it’s available.

virphen wrote:

EarlDoherty wrote:Well, I congratulate Tim for finally getting his act together--to some extent. However, he has seasoned what he obviously considers an effective counter-article to myself with so much insult and poisonous comment that it is very difficult to separate out the actual counter-arguments to what I've offered in defense of mythicism. When the speaker is foaming at the mouth, it's rather difficult to accept what is being spoken as something reasoned.

This, from the person who compared his delay in posting to someone suffering from impotence.
What rank hypocrisy.

No no,
when Earl abused Tim as a limp dick, he did it with 'scholarship and integrity' !

Byron wrote:I'd say that Jesus' mere existence has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The Christian evidence is strong. Bias is one factor, not the decider: near-all written sources contain bias of some kind or other. Paul's writings (and even the fakes, if they're dated early enough) establish that there was a complex movement centered around a Jewish holy man, within two decades of the man's death. It was sufficient to involve Gamaliel, a top-man in the Sanhedrin. We have accounts of the movement's internal rifts. Further, we have gospel accounts that try to explain away preexisting traditions so strong that their authors feel unable to remove or refute them. Those traditions are heavy on biographical and geographical detail.

Then there's the Tacitian and Josephian evidence already covered in depth as corroboration. There are also Jewish sources, although these are much in dispute.

Countered by ... what? What alternative hypothesis is so compelling that it better fits the facts? I've yet to see it, much less see a convincing methodology used to reach it.

If I may do a comment on this. I disagree . Gospels have not a "normal" bias, they are biased in one clear direction, to make the reader a believer, and that makes a huge difference. As I said before, I do not doubt that all this literature originated from something, a group, a man, we do not know. The gospels biographical and geographical details are as accurate as the biographical and geographical data that can be seen in many mythologies, so what? Tacitus account is suspected to be hearsay and moreover Tacitus method's are less than perfect, and Josephus account has been probed to contain interpolations from later scribes.

Countered by nothing, there's nothing to oppose, there's no alternate hypothesis: there are some novels which refer to a mythical character from whom we do not know the origin, as many myths.