An historian's view on Jesus

[Mr Walker]

Totally moving the goalposts and slipping it in like I wouldnt notice it

Typical !

You keep interpreting future technologies like this (As impossible jumps) Maybe because you don't understand how they evolve The things already done are precursors or primitive technical achievements which demonstrate how the transfer of consciousness will be achieved. First(and we can do this now ) we will be able to remotely read and record elements of consciousness like pictures and thoughts /words /sentences.

This will be refined and sophisticated as technology and knowledge builds, so that more data and information can be stored and transferred more accurately (and that is all human consciousness is you know, simply memory storage and the abilty to access and process the stored data, as we also add in and process newly arrived data.)

Finally, all memory/data storage or the essence of a human will be capable of being recorded. The easy bit is then transferring it into another organic host body or artificial intelligence.This has also been done already with artificial memories implanted into a chimps mind from an electronic chip. Once transferred the mind is rebooted and begins from the point where all the memories and data were last recorded and stored. i think it is well over a decade since we learned how to control devices via external electrodes and wired transmitters and now we can use implanted electronic chips and thoughts transmitted by wireless . There are already many humans with implanted neural chips to help with depression parkinsons disease and brain damage.

Animals are already implanted with chips to store and repair memory and work is progressing on human chips for the same purpose.

[Mr Walker]

I'm not trapped at all ... I was once a little boy with a vivId imagination that used to read sci-fi too ! I even used to be Hare Krishna once

What you may not realise is that much of the sceince fiction of your childhood is now reality and a lot of current science fiction comes from extending/ exploring, the implications of technologies already being developed by science

Travelling via extended or linked consciousness all around the galaxy and visiting some fascinating civilizations is NOT mystical, or restricted to eastern gurus I assume anyone can do it given time discipline and practice (moslty to be able to access and control your subconscious mind with your conscious mind). given that i began doing so as a child after developing a few basic mind skills.

However this is not the purview of human SCIENCE. It relies on alien technologies already in place, which you can access with your mind /consciousness and activate. .

In a century or less it will be replicated by our own technologies at least on a local level. Mind to mind wireless communication (or a technological form of telepathy) via implanted electrodes is really very close. and simple words and images have already been successfully transmitted under controlled laboratory conditions using a computer to translate the images and words . i think i will live long enough to be able to slip on a headset and communicate mentally with someone on the other side of the globe. i certainly (Barring bad luck) will live long enough to drive a car, remotely controlled by my thoughts, rather than mechanically steered etc. (there are already prosthetic devices for people which operate by thought alone, where the thought directs the servo motors to activate and respond to the users thoughts. ).

Edited January 2, 2016 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

PA

I'm glad you liked my Luther question. That's what I think you're seeing in the Talking Jesus survey: a secular intellectual environment (everywhere, not just on campuses) maturing to the point where it becomes possible to question religiously loaded "givens" even in the senior common room. Without new evidence, though, I predict the academic arm of the movement will stay at the polite questionning level, and "top out" at Tiggs-agnosticism among some or even many scholars.

Meanwhile, among the free-thinking public, doubt about the historical reality of the Christian Truth is an excellent personal reason for individuals to look elsewhere for satisfying their religious needs. Conversely, having satisfied those needs elsewhere makes it easier to question the Christian Truth (as the "coincidence of numbers" in the English poll strongly suggests is happening - unless there are self-identifying Christians or Muslims who also believe or don't rule out that Jesus is a fictional-mythical character).

That's the real question, isn't it? And why the question of ancient history is so interesting - what did Jesus actually do?

As long as it's concrete and actually says something, it doesn't have to be detailed to define your hypothesis. Active influence (Jesus took overt steps during his natural life that made it so afterwards) or passive (only other people did anything overt, and after he died)?

[+Hammerclaw]

Not quite, it was saying that as far as we know, no one has succeeded. And with the exception of a few scholars from the Sovient Union who are dead by decades now, no one has yet to fulfill that answer.

You're more likely right, my very own spell check says that you were right. It just felt wrong, I can't explain it, possibly one of those exceptions to English grammar where the rules don't apply in situation x/y/z

A very interesting question, to which I'm not sure I have a realistic answer.

But at eh end of the day, A being false does not therefore mean that B is also false. That's all I can really say about the matter.

That's the real question, isn't it? And why the question of ancient history is so interesting - what did Jesus actually do?

On the subject of Martin Luther, he had no intention of creating the schism which created Protestantism, he just wanted to reform the Catholic Church, period.

[Grandpa Greenman]

However this is not the purview of human SCIENCE. It relies on alien technologies already in place, which you can access with your mind /consciousness and activate. .

Have I missed something here?

[+Sherapy]

Have I missed something here?

No, same ole same ole...

[Davros of Skaro]

No, same ole same ole...

Yep... The resident Cliff Clavin's like the Energizer Bunny.

He keeps going going going........

[Tiggs]

Giving up hope of finding archaeological evidence to support Abraham is not a statement that Abraham didn't exist. It's simply admitting that we'll never have enough to know for certain whether there was a figure on whom the Abraham story is based. Maybe Abraham is a figure that represents some tribal migration of the early Hebrews (as suggested by the article you linked). Either way, I do agree that because there is so little evidence available that I do have to take Abraham's existence as a matter of faith. I can't make that concession for Jesus.

I can.

But then, I'm not as attached to Jesus as you are.

Predictions, you make a lot of (read that in Yoda's voice, it will make more grammatical sense). Basically you've just said that it is impossible to find a single Christ-myth proponent at any university around the world.

England's still not the world.

I'm predicting that you probably won't find one.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Consensus is not evidence, I agree. The dispute in our argument ultimately boils down to you thinking that the evidence for Jesus is about as non-existent as the evidence against.

No.

Quite honestly, I think that the case for a historical Jesus is in better shape than the case for a mythical Jesus.

But then, it should be. It's had a couple of thousand years to get it's act together.

The issue is that I don't find it anywhere near compelling enough to declare it the winner.

Which is obviously heresy.

This is not the opinion of those who study ancient history

Unless you've managed to quickly poll them while we've been posting - you have no actual idea of the opinion of those who study ancient history.

You have a pretty good idea about the opinion of those who take Biblical Studies.

You have a pretty good idea about my opinion of those who take Biblical Studies.

therefore I think the evidence for an historical Jesus is overwhelming, and if you disagree then you need to provide compelling evidence of your own or do as I do when I disagree with the consensus and say it's boiled down to a matter of faith.

No.

My position is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of having higher basic standards of evidence.

You're saying that there's enough evidence that you're absolutely certain that there's a Historical Jesus. As far as you're concerned - it's fact.

And for you - with your level of standards for evidence - that's absolutely true.

I'm saying that for me, there's not enough evidence for either. I have a minimum set bar for both historicity and mythicality.

I think that my bar for historicity is basic, yet elegant, and that other historians should adopt it as a minimum standard.

It's full name is the "Has any one we can trust ever actually seen this person?" bar.

I call it the Elvis-in-a-chip-shop bar, for short.

Because I think that's a pretty basic requirement for demonstrating that someone was actually there.

And by "any one we can trust" - I mean someone that doesn't have anything to gain by claiming that Elvis was there.

You don't get the Magician's assistant to check the box to prove the Magician is still in there. You ask a neutral member of the audience to confirm it.

Team Historical Jesus doesn't clear the bar. Heck - even your MVP for early recruitment hadn't met the guy.

Then why do I need to do anything either? You've challenged me to provide scholars who have written articles about Jesus, but if you (or another Christ-myther) don't need to provide scholars who believe the Christ-myth theory, I don't think I need to provide scholars who have written about Jesus.

As long as you're not going to claim that the majority of Ancient Historians support your position - and it's not as if you haven't tried that twice, already - then you don't have to do anything.

However - if you want to claim them for your team - then you're going to have to go out and prove it. I'm not just going to grant you a whole swathe of scholarship for your team without suitable evidence.

But before you do - you should also know that you're completely wasting your time in doing so.

Until you can drag the evidence for historical Jesus above the Elvis-in-a-chip-shop bar - I could care less about who's waving flags on your side of the bar, or any of "The dog ate my historical sources / homework" or "Friend of a friend" excuses that they're going to try.

I don't care if there's not enough available evidence for your side to clear the bar. That's a feature, not a bug. There's obviously going to be a number of cases where there isn't enough evidence to clear the bar - and at that stage, we should collectively put on our big Historian pants and say, truthfully, that we don't have enough evidence to clearly determine historicity, instead of just having to guess.

Otherwise - people like yourself then begin thinking that the evidence for historicity is overwhelming - when the truth is that it can't even drag itself over the bare minimum of trust tests that you'd normally apply to someone claiming to have seen little green men, a Yeti - or Elvis in a chip shop.

Historicist or mythicist, Jesus or Socrates - you either clear the bar, or your position is dead to me.

[Mr Walker]

Have I missed something here?

As i point out, while i can verify some of this, in general it is based on personal experience and reading the work of others,

Basically i discovered at about the age of 11 or 12 the existence of a/the cosmic consciousness. (being an atheist then, i never thought of it in terms of god at the time) It is a galaxy (perhaps universe) spanning consciousness possibly artificial in nature. It serves two purposes i have discovered but may have more, First ir connects every individual consciousness in the galaxy, allowing communication, via it, between them. Second It allows direct access to its own knowledge/ data bases and stored information, In the last twenty years or so i have been developing the abilty to use it to access the stored memories of deceased and fr time travel based historical investigations. .

As a child/adolescent, apart from suddenly gaining a huge awareness/consciousness raising ( and some knowledge) of the nature of my self and the universe and how we are linked or connected, I used it to travel the galaxy first exploring our solar system and then visiting many planets with self aware species in various stages of technological development There is a network of artificial wormholes spanning the galaxy with one located on earth's elliptical plane just outside the last oort cloud, which allows instantaneous mental travel to most parts of the galaxy. Once you arrive at a destination you can link into the mind of any self aware species and hitch-hike in their mind or you can just watch as pure consciousness

I freely admit i interpret my experiences through my personal knowledges and prior understandings but you can read of hundreds if not thousands of humans with almost identical ones 40 years after encountering this entity and calling it the cosmic consciousness (because that is what it is) I first discovered on the net the book "the cosmic conciousness written almost a century ago, " which pretty well described my first awakening to this entity and its effect on me.

One can verify only the aspects which have been discovered by science Eg back in the late fifties/early sixties, i travelled around the solar system observing things which have only gradually been discovered by science The thinness of planetary rings The geysers on some of the planetary moons, the icy mountains of pluto and the oort clouds a t the edge of the solar system I landed on asteroids where the surface was identical to the images recently sent back by space craft .

I guess the true test will come when science discovers the gate in space just outside our system and works out how to use it.

In the meantime any human can log onto a galaxy wide communication device and send their consciousness through it, or link to its mainframe to access knowledge data etc This is limited by ones existing education knowledge and skills . If you enter the mind of a space ship navigator you can experience and see what it is seeing, but without transferable language or knowledge you cant really learn a lot of specifics from it like how to navigate a star ship But if you were a surgeon, and linked to a mind performing an operation on an alien being you would understand a lot more of the procedure than if you were a psychologist who had the same experience.. Still it is incredibly educational and a lot of fun.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Mr Walker

[back to earth]

You keep interpreting future technologies like this (As impossible jumps) Maybe because you don't understand how they evolve The things already done are precursors or primitive technical achievements which demonstrate how the transfer of consciousness will be achieved. First(and we can do this now ) we will be able to remotely read and record elements of consciousness like pictures and thoughts /words /sentences.

This will be refined and sophisticated as technology and knowledge builds, so that more data and information can be stored and transferred more accurately (and that is all human consciousness is you know, simply memory storage and the abilty to access and process the stored data, as we also add in and process newly arrived data.)

Finally, all memory/data storage or the essence of a human will be capable of being recorded. The easy bit is then transferring it into another organic host body or artificial intelligence.This has also been done already with artificial memories implanted into a chimps mind from an electronic chip. Once transferred the mind is rebooted and begins from the point where all the memories and data were last recorded and stored. i think it is well over a decade since we learned how to control devices via external electrodes and wired transmitters and now we can use implanted electronic chips and thoughts transmitted by wireless . There are already many humans with implanted neural chips to help with depression parkinsons disease and brain damage.

Animals are already implanted with chips to store and repair memory and work is progressing on human chips for the same purpose.

no... missed the point totally again ... ho-hum ...

now I think its got to the stage where you yourself are not even aware you moved the goal posts ... or its just an excuse to go on and on and on about something that was irrelevant to the point being discussed.

You seem to have some problem following the lineal thread in a conversation.

[back to earth]

Have I missed something here?

No ... Walker just moved the goal posts out of solar system this time

[back to earth]

Yep... The resident Cliff Clavin's like the Energizer Bunny.

He keeps going going going........

Dont do that ... he will go on about how he could break bricks with his karate skills

no more tidbits .... it sends him off

[back to earth]

Now, with a stargate , you can shift the goal posts, or the golf hole , right across the universe !

and now .... a song !

Edited January 3, 2016 by back to earth

[Mr Walker]

no... missed the point totally again ... ho-hum ...

now I think its got to the stage where you yourself are not even aware you moved the goal posts ... or its just an excuse to go on and on and on about something that was irrelevant to the point being discussed.

You seem to have some problem following the lineal thread in a conversation.

i admit my mind makes quantum leaps in thought, but it really isn't THAT difficult to follow, and it isn't moving the goal posts (or at least you have to explain why you feel it is)

All of the commentary is about the same progressive evolution of human technology but you don't seem aware of what is being done in science right now or else you don't understand how one discovery and invention makes inevitable a branching tree of future discoveries and inventions.

Discussions are not just linear, they are also branching, as associated and connected ideas are involved or arise. I think you can ONLY think in a strictly linear way and have trouble synthesisng and making connections between different bits of information, ideas and concepts . .

When i see a current invention i also see all the consequent inventions evolving from that technology, including linear and peripheral ones and the potential social and economic effects of these.

When i was at high school around 1966 I had an English teacher who thought the space race was a waste of time and money. I disagreed quite strongly so she challenged me to show how it could benefit mankind I was about 15. I wrote an essay of several thousand words showing how the inventions would be used as common domestic and industrial goods in the future. For example the use of teflon as a non stick surface could be used in cooking but also to reduce friction in industrial uses. And so it happened.

One of the products developed for space industries was super glue, accidentally discovered some time earlier but not really used much. I predicted its use in surgical operations in that essay in 1966. Almost half a century later my life was saved by the use of super glue in my triple by pass, to glue the arteries back together after the by pass.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Now, with a stargate , you can shift the goal posts, or the golf hole , right across the universe !

Of course, it then can be explained (off course goal change ) that something wrong with the time stream!

and now .... a song !

Well, maybe my little vid could also explains things.

Maybe, Mr. Spock can explain more on the history look of Jesus.

"There are always possibilities"

Well, to kind of get back on track, that's how I feel.

[Davros of Skaro]

Dont do that ... he will go on about how he could break bricks with his karate skills

no more tidbits .... it sends him off

Ha! You should talk.

I think he likes you?

[Mr Walker]

Dont do that ... he will go on about how he could break bricks with his karate skills

no more tidbits .... it sends him off

Yea A quick demonstration always improved discipline in a class.

[Mr Walker]

Ha! You should talk.

I think he likes you?

You are both growing on me, which is a worry, and suggests it is time for my next psych evaluation.

[Mr Walker]

Just to remind you guys this is a forum for UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES , right. No unexplained mysteries means no forum, and life suddenly gets a lot less interesting. i get paid big money to keep this place jumping. I mean what other possible motivation could i have, for sticking with it for 12 years?

[Grandpa Greenman]

Well, maybe you need to take a look at the forum rules, Walker.

3j. Thread derailment: Do not derail or 'hijack' threads with posts that are either off-topic or designed to draw attention away from what is being discussed.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Well, maybe you need to take a look at the forum rules, Walker.

3j. Thread derailment: Do not derail or 'hijack' threads with posts that are either off-topic or designed to draw attention away from what is being discussed.

For the record, I tried to get it back on track, from my sedgeway of scifi greats vids, to the topic that this thread is titled.

Did it work? *looks shifty*

[Grandpa Greenman]

For the record, I tried to get it back on track, from my sedgeway of scifi greats vids, to the topic that this thread is titled.

Did it work? *looks shifty*

We all do it on occasion, but Walker is playing cricket in a soccer match. We could start another thread rather than derail this one.

[+Paranoid Android]

No, it brings up the question of what the real historians are doing which makes their interpretation more "valid " than someone else's. Every facet of your argument throughout the entire threads is vague. What experts? What is the nature of their expertise? How does that relate to the question of historicity of Jesus? Which aspects of Jesus life is there actually consensus on? Why is it respectful to dismiss entirely expert consensus by calling your position "faith based" but disrespectful to challenge someone's expertise otherwise?

Their expertise is wide and varied, but there are literally thousands of scholars around the planet that fit the description of being employed by an accredited university and working in either the field of ancient history or classics (or biblical studies, but let's ignore them because we don't like them very much). Literally thousands of scholars. If the Christ-myth theory had ANY validity at all, we'd find some evidence for it in the writings of scholars in academia. We do not see such, therefore, as much as I know everyone likes to say that consensus isn't evidence, the fact is that we'd have such writings available.

Then argue the evidence, not the mere fact of consensus.

There's no point, the Christ-mythers have a rebuttal for every piece of evidence, even though the historians don't find those rebuttals valid.

You can use whatever you like to go against the expert consensus. It doesn't stop it being a double standard though just because you label your disagreement with consensus in a different way to those you seek to criticise for doing the same thing as you. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy however you choose to dress it up. Those who doubt the historicity of Christ (unlike when you go against the consensus )outline their reasons for doing so. By what possible tortured definition is that an example of a faith based definition?

Out of interest though does a faith based position mean that you hold a view, such as that of Quirinius's earlier governorship, knowing it to be wrong? Or do you still maintain the experts are wrong on that because it contradicts your faith?

The part in bold, I have never said I don't outline my reasons. I've shared my reasons in this very thread (eg, it is possible, though unlikely, that a second governorship of Quirinius did happen, is that not a reason)? And I do not believe my view to be wrong, but I don't think the experts are "wrong" either, they are more than likely right, but the situation allows for an unlikely possibility that I am right, and that is how I believe it.

I don't understand what you mean in the first paragraph above.

Simple, I'm not sure why you can't understand it. 20% of the British public hold to a Christ-myth theory of some kind. 0% of scholars employed at university hold to a Christ-myth theory. Or at the least, 0% of such historians are unwilling to publicly state that they hold to such theory. Asking why the disparity exists between trained historians and the general public is a valid one to make. The excuse, "oh historians simply don't care about the question and therefore don't study it" is a cop out. The general population of England care enough to make a statement on it, but not a single one of the (aforementioned, thousands of) scholars is prepared to do the same. Or if they are, no one has yet to show any (only 3-4 historians who have been dead for decades).

In the second, you are saying that the only expertise the experts are bringing to the analysis is that they say Paul's testimony is interesting he is biased but they do not reject it out of hand whereas lay persons say he is a believer therefore he is untrustworthy? That is the main thing you see the experts bringing to the table? You don't think you may have grossly mischaracterised both groups there?

Slightly mischaracterised, but not grossly so, it's a fair point. No historian on the planet says "Josephus was a Jew, therefore everything he writes about Jews or Judaism is suspect and untrustworthy, so let's just throw it out". Yet that is exactly the argument that is raised over and again about the topic of Jesus and Christianity - Paul was a believer, the gospel writers were believers, therefore they can't be trusted to write about Christianity. If you don't believe me I can find you dozens of posts by non-Christians saying just that, and that's just in this forum, not even considered the thousands of reddit users or Yahoo! Answers folk throw that idea out there. I agree, not every non-Christian argues that way, but enough of them do as to make it a validly broad generalisation.

With Josephus, the historians who study him take into account the fact he is Jewish, and therefore has a specific angle he wants to get at when writing his history. They then take that bias into account, and work around it to find what the history of what he is writing about. Historians treat the texts of the Bible the same way. They take into account the pro-Christian bias of the authors, and then work around to find what the history of their writings convey.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Paranoid Android

[+Paranoid Android]

I'm predicting that you probably won't find one.

I'm predicting you're right, even though there are literally thousands to choose from. One would think if the Christ-myth theory had a leg to stand on I'd be able to find even one or two, though.

Quite honestly, I think that the case for a historical Jesus is in better shape than the case for a mythical Jesus.

But then, it should be. It's had a couple of thousand years to get it's act together.

The case for a mythical Jesus has been around for three hundred years, it seems to waddle along in the exact same shape today as it was when it was first discussed.

My position is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of having higher basic standards of evidence.

You're saying that there's enough evidence that you're absolutely certain that there's a Historical Jesus. As far as you're concerned - it's fact.

And for you - with your level of standards for evidence - that's absolutely true.

I'm saying that for me, there's not enough evidence for either. I have a minimum set bar for both historicity and mythicality.

I think that my bar for historicity is basic, yet elegant, and that other historians should adopt it as a minimum standard.

It's full name is the "Has any one we can trust ever actually seen this person?" bar.

I call it the Elvis-in-a-chip-shop bar, for short.

Because I think that's a pretty basic requirement for demonstrating that someone was actually there.

And by "any one we can trust" - I mean someone that doesn't have anything to gain by claiming that Elvis was there.

You don't get the Magician's assistant to check the box to prove the Magician is still in there. You ask a neutral member of the audience to confirm it.

Team Historical Jesus doesn't clear the bar. Heck - even your MVP for early recruitment hadn't met the guy.

Neutral members? Do you trust what Josephus writes about Jews and Judaism, even though he himself is a Jew? I'm betting you take at least some of what he writes at face value.

But before you do - you should also know that you're completely wasting your time in doing so.

Which is exactly why I have no desire to do such emailing. It would be nice for the mythicist movement to have at least one person batting for them who has some credibility (okay, Richard Carrier might, but he's about the only one (and doesn't meet the criteria of being employed at a university) - I'm starting to wonder about Robert Price, considering I've just found out he recommended Acharya S as an eminent scholar in the Christ-myth field, it doesn't fill me with confidence in his own objectivity, even Carrier rejected her research as hopelessly flawed).

[+Paranoid Android]

Well, maybe you need to take a look at the forum rules, Walker.

3j. Thread derailment: Do not derail or 'hijack' threads with posts that are either off-topic or designed to draw attention away from what is being discussed.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice:

5i. Rule quoting: Do not quote the site rules to other members, if you believe the rules have been broken please hit the 'report' button.

That said, Thread derailment is a tough rule to police. Where is the line between thread derailment and thread evolution? With this particular situation, is the derailment purely a Walker thing, or is constantly bringing up things like three-breasted space amazons by you guys (admittedly that was a poor story for Walker to share, it's led to months [at least that long, I can't recall how long back the story was first aired]) forcing Walker to repeat discussions that should rightly be left long in the past and thus further derail the thread, not because of his comments but because of the personality clash with pretty much everyone on the forum? If Walker shares a fantastic story and the reply by one of you is "Oh look, Superman Walker's at it again, just like the time he fought off a shark barehanded and broke the land speed record" (neither event happened) then it's bound to cause a response where Walker retells his speedboat escapade on water skis while being chased by a shark (which he says did happen). Which then prompts groans of Walker constantly boasting, which then prompts Walker to say "I'm just responding to the allegation". Who really derailed the discussion? Or was it just a clash of personalities that led to the evolution of the thread into something else?

Granted, it happens more often with Walker than with most members of the forum. But it's also fair to say that people respond to Walker a fair bit different than most people on this forum also (there's a fair bit of snide belittling and dismissive comments whenever Walker says anything you guys don't approve of - does this classify as "3k: Forum Warfare", or "5a: Personal Attacks")? Whatever the case, if you feel the need to Report Mr Walker, the moderators will take a look at it further.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Paranoid Android