Did Jesus Exist?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Yeah, thank god for jesus! Otherwise we would have had 2,000+ years of wars, oppressions, genocides, religious pogroms, murders, rapes, tortures, bigotry, slavery ...

Oh, wait.

Atleast he have brought peace to his own people and his place of birth. I mean there is no real discord in the Middle East and it have been smooth sailing for the Jewish people in that period. 

Sometimes I don't know if I should laugh or cry at some of the arguments that are presented here.  .... so I usually ends up like this. 

[Mr Walker]

On 12/6/2019 at 8:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

Our history, languages, holidays and even the way we measure time itself, revolves around him.
As a person who cares a lot about facts, I find it interesting to dig into them, and investigate how much of it is real, and what is false (or highly unlikely).

As the investigation in the article shows, it seems our history and culture are primarily based on ancient lies and made up stories. And that is interesting!

No academic reputable historian would agree that christ was not a real itinerant jewish preacher for a liberal Judaic school (probably the Hillel) who was baptised by  john and crucified by the romans because his theology threatened the conservative jewish hierarchy of the time ( The y also had a lot of other liberal preachers and followers killed)  

Indeed, in general, "christ deniers"  (ie those who deny that such a man actually existed or argue  that his life was a later construct) are looked a t with disdain by academics precisely   because they have to deny Christ by denying the academic  evidences that such a man did exist.

His divinity/miraculous nature is NOT a thing studied by historians.

It cannot be proven/ disproven with evidences, and must be a matter of faith or belief 

quote

The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few (read "almost no")  tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.^{[4][5][6][q 2]} It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies,^[7] and deviates from the mainstream historical view.

very basically

quote

 

These critical methods have led to a demythologization of Jesus. The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the Christ of faith, presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine.[39][40][17][41][note 1] Yet, that there was a historical Jesus is not in doubt. New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman states that Jesus "certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[43][44]

Following the criteria of authenticity-approach, scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[45] but the baptism and the crucifixion are two events in the life of Jesus which are subject to "almost universal assent".[note 2] According to historian Alanna Nobbs,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Edited December 25, 2019 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

Now who was that Nobel laureate who said Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts?

I'll bet you can Google it to find something in Wikipedia about it.

[+Hammerclaw]

34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Now who was that Nobel laureate who said Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts?

I'll bet you can Google it to find something in Wikipedia about it.

That would be Richard Feynman. Won the prize in '65. Handsome  sonuvagun. Looked like a sixties sitcom star.

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

Now who was that Nobel laureate who said Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts?

I'll bet you can Google it to find something in Wikipedia about it.

It is interesting.

The standards of proof/evidence in subjects like history or geography are not as high as in science or maths, simply because the y cannot be.

. However they are high, and kept high, by academic practice and review.

Christ deniers simply do not use the evidences and practices of academic history to reach a conclusion. Indeed they often reject the accepted evidences, and construct alternative conspiracy theories to try and discredit those evidences.   The y  often  begin with an unfounded premise. usually grounded in  a bias  This makes it highly unlikely. or even impossible. that the y can/will reach an accurate conclusion. 

Ps I like Feynman's style.

It came to me second hand.

i am a great fan of Brian Cox and have seen almost every science programme he has presented.  He, in turn, is a great fan of Feynmans. 

How many times have you  heard me say that all true knowledge comes from experience 

This was, perhaps, Feynman's most fundamental lesson.

However he goes onto say that it is not enough to observe, and thus know, something.  That is just he beginning Then a person must come to an understanding of what the y observed, which is much more difficult, and where true science comes into,it's own.  

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

The standards of proof/evidence in subjects like history or geography are not as high as in science or maths, simply because the y cannot be.

You see, Mr W. normative management of uncertainty is itself a scholarly subject. And the chief premise of that field is that the best standards of uncertainty management should be domain independent, fancy talk for the same for everybody, human or machine, professor or student, who assesses confidence, entertains preferences and chooses their actions.

Mathematics is a special case, because it establishes its findings with certainty (strict demonstration). However in practice, mathematicians develop conjectures and choose among questions to work on, and to that extent, they are in the same boat as anybody else, whether other scholars or just plain folks who must get on in the world despite uncertainties.

Note the subjective mood, should be domain independent - this is not a description of fielded practices, but rather prescriptions for the most effective behavior possible. Probably nobody, neither scientists, historians, nor even uncertainty management scholars,  behaves optimally. Nevertheless, a great deal of actually observed behavior can be understood as approximations to the normative ideal.

So, yes, Mr W, the standards for using evidence can be the same for everybody. Within that possiblility, there are choices. It does appear that there is a bias among academics (yes, even scientists, but self-consciously among historians) to seek out best explanations of the available evidence, rather than confine their preachments to those things which are acceptably plausible - or what is often the same or a similar thing, the best explanation which is prohibitively better than the second-best, if there is a unique best one that is really that well supported.

That last condition is often the case at the foundations of science, and so that's how scientists "get away with" mushing together what is very plausible and what is best, even though the two don't generally coincide. This concidence is not magical, but is the direct result of scientific subjects allowing scientists to gather evidence on demand and on industrial scale.

Obviously, there are other fields where the evidence is much poorer, and the scholars in the field have little opportunity to increase their endowment of evidence. It is in that sense that Biblical Studies, especially those specialists who concentrate on the "missing generation" at the very begiinings of Christianity, is different from, say, particle physics.

One normative response to dodgy evidence is to distinguish scrupulously between the pursuit of best available explanations and plausbly established ones. As your vomit of Wkiwoo establishes conclusively, many scholars in Biblical Studies don't maintain that distinction when they share their poorly informed (even if it is the best informed available) personal opinion about a historical Jesus.

So, fine. Nobody disputes that they say what they say or their right to say it, but there is no normative obligation for anybody else to take their word for something which they couldn't possibly know. Nor can anybody be fairly criticized for recognizing the difference between best available and really good.

Just as grade school children readily do. That chronologically adult Biblical Studies professionals can't or won't is itself a reason to discount their products.

Edited December 25, 2019 by eight bits

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is interesting.

The standards of proof/evidence in subjects like history or geography are not as high as in science or maths, simply because the y cannot be.

. However they are high, and kept high, by academic practice and review.

Christ deniers simply do not use the evidences and practices of academic history to reach a conclusion. Indeed they often reject the accepted evidences, and construct alternative conspiracy theories to try and discredit those evidences.   The y  often  begin with an unfounded premise. usually grounded in  a bias  This makes it highly unlikely. or even impossible. that the y can/will reach an accurate conclusion. 

Ps I like Feynman's style.

It came to me second hand.

i am a great fan of Brian Cox and have seen almost every science programme he has presented.  He, in turn, is a great fan of Feynmans. 

How many times have you  heard me say that all true knowledge comes from experience 

This was, perhaps, Feynman's most fundamental lesson.

However he goes onto say that it is not enough to observe, and thus know, something.  That is just he beginning Then a person must come to an understanding of what the y observed, which is much more difficult, and where true science comes into,it's own.  

What is the evidence for Christ, Walker? You have given your personal opinion you have not given an informed opinion. 

Big difference, I will let you google this, let’s see if you can marshall out the difference. 
 

Hint: 

“Christ deniers simply do not use the evidences and practices of academic history to reach a conclusion. Indeed they often reject the accepted evidences, and construct alternative conspiracy theories to try and discredit those evidences.   The y  often  begin with an unfounded premise. usually grounded in  a bias  This makes it highly unlikely. or even impossible. that the y can/will reach an accurate conclusion” ( Walker).

 

This is what you do excessively, you begin from your bias and reason from there.  There are mounds of your posts to support this. This criticism would help you more than anyone else. 

 

Edited December 25, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Link of Hyrule]

I have a question for the folk who question the historicity of Jesus. With Jesus being one of the better attested figures in what we think of as ancient history, how many figures do we study in high school ancient history class would we have to remove from the curriculum if we used the standards of historicity proposed for Jesus?

I just finished a podcast (two days ago) about Shakespeare and the conspiracy around who wrote his plays,  so we've already got people doubting his authorship (probably unwarranted doubt but still there) but how many others are out there that we'd dismiss from the pages of history???? 

 

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I have a question for the folk who question the historicity of Jesus. With Jesus being one of the better attested figures in what we think of as ancient history, how many figures do we study in high school ancient history class would we have to remove from the curriculum if we used the standards of historicity proposed for Jesus?

I just finished a podcast (two days ago) about Shakespeare and the conspiracy around who wrote his plays,  so we've already got people doubting his authorship (probably unwarranted doubt but still there) but how many others are out there that we'd dismiss from the pages of history???? 

 

People we studied like Pythagoras have information that is relevant today. Nothing about religion is. As the species marches on, religion becomes less relevant everyday. Personally I feel religion is several hundred years (at least) past it's used by date. We can use Pythagoras theorem today, but considering a created universe is a pointless exercise. The data just doesn't go there.

Getting the Jesus story right seems more important from an angle of historical antiquity to clear up modern misconceptions which divide the species. I do feel there's good reason to consider the stories greatly embellished and quite likely to be an amalgamation of the lives of many men as one legendary person. If he didn't exist, I think it's important to establish that too considering how wide that appeal to authority has stretched across the globe.

Wether people want to know such is another story altogether.

[+Link of Hyrule]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

People we studied like Pythagoras have information that is relevant today. Nothing about religion is.....

...Getting the Jesus story right seems more important from an angle of historical antiquity...

At no point in my post did I use the word "religion". Nor was I referring to religion or religious studies. My question was solely about the historicity of a man approximately 2000 years old. How many other figures are studied in history that, if we use the same historical criteria the mythicists are suggesting, would we have to dismiss as "probably never existed"? 

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I have a question for the folk who question the historicity of Jesus. With Jesus being one of the better attested figures in what we think of as ancient history, how many figures do we study in high school ancient history class would we have to remove from the curriculum if we used the standards of historicity proposed for Jesus?

Hi, PA. Hope you had a happy Christmas.

The answer to your question is none, including Jesus himself. There's a level of evidentiary support for each of the prominent figures of introductory-level ancient history, even somebody as poorly attested as Jesus. It is perfectly reasonable to structure an introductory course as orientation to the field and preparation for further study. Commentary on any of the figures the student is likely to encounter in such further study is a good use of class time.

@psyche101 mentioned Pythagoras. Great example. There's no reason that hypotheses about his life cannot be introduced with the acknowledgment that we simply can't distinguish, looking back, between things that may have been accomplished individually by a specific man or done instead collectively by a "school" of the admirers of a possibly fictive founder-hero. That ancient people often made up elaborate stories about fictive founder heroes and gods is itself a bona fide fact about ancient history that fits well into an introductory curriculum.

Also, ancient historians themselves sometimes acknowledged that different versions of various stories were circulating, or remark on the "boundary line" between events recent enough that the writers had good information sources and other events, usually older ones, where the "line" between fact and legend hopelessly blurs. That, too, is a bona fide fact about ancient history, and about many of our sources for that history. There's no reason to banish candor about this from introductory courses.

I've answered your question despite rejecting the premise of the question. Jesus isn't one of the better attested figures in ancient history. I answered as if the premise were "... more prominent characters in ancient writings." Yes, Jesus is surely competitive with Odysseus as a prominent character in ancient writing. But history? To name a trivial example, Pontius Pilate mops the floor with Jesus evidence-wise (all quasi-historical sources for Jesus implicate Pilate, but we also have non-Christian primary sources for Pilate and his deeds including a contemporaneous inscription). Nevertheless, Pilate is not especially prominent in ancient history. Everybody reading this would be going "Pontius who?" except that a functional character of the same name appears in the Gospels.

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I just finished a podcast (two days ago) about Shakespeare and the conspiracy around who wrote his plays,  so we've already got people doubting his authorship (probably unwarranted doubt but still there) but how many others are out there that we'd dismiss from the pages of history???? 

Yes, there are doubts about Shakespeare, and they'd make a good thread, if not here in S v. S. There isn't much doubt about Bill's existence, though, nor that he was a celebrated member of the theater world of his time. The controversy is whether he was a "front" for another writer who needed to remain anonymous for political survival (e.g. The Earl of Oxford).

That's a much narrower issue about Shakespeare than the topic question poses about Jesus in this thread. Also, a great deal of the evidentiary case bearing on the authorship questions consists of affirmative evidence for some of the alternative hypotheses (e.g. reasons to think that the Earl of Oxford, unquestionably a contemporary of Shakespeare, could and maybe would turn out drama and poetry of the required quality).

The problem with Jesus, in contrast, is the lack of much affirmative evidence for him or for alternative hypotheses. There is only a surface parallel between the two cases, IMO.

ETA, an erratum.

In my last post here, I wrote about the subjective mood of a verb. It is, of course, subjunctive. Freudian slip there, eh, Mr W?

Edited December 26, 2019 by eight bits

[psyche101]

37 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

At no point in my post did I use the word "religion". Nor was I referring to religion or religious studies.

However Jesus and religion are inextricably linked. That's what Jesus is remembered for. Not a mathematical theorem, not a great stride in technology. It's just an old religion story. 

37 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

My question was solely about the historicity of a man approximately 2000 years old. How many other figures are studied in history that, if we use the same historical criteria the mythicists are suggesting, would we have to dismiss as "probably never existed"? 

What should he be remembered for exactly though? Isn't that the question skeptcal inquiry is asking? We don't have reverence and great records from every person in antiquity, that would be overwhelming. So if Jesus actually turns out to be a complete myth, why should we be remembering that and even in many cases worshipping a cultural embellishment? It would be like pretending Paul Bunyan was an early American citizen wouldn't it?

I didn't say that we should ignore Jesus as a historical figure either, I said because the story has some historical impact, we should find out if there's anything actually worth remembering, or if the story is based on many people, they should be remembered for their part in history. That should determine if Jesus actually is actually a part of history or not.

Thing is, being the offspring of a deity is a rather tall claim to support, and I think most deep down know the idea is somewhat preposterous at best, and know a proper investigation is not likely to come back with proof of a god, let alone ones offspring. As such, I think most people simply don't want to know and are comfortable being wrapped up in a chosen belief system.

[Mr Walker]

On 12/25/2019 at 11:12 PM, eight bits said:

You see, Mr W. normative management of uncertainty is itself a scholarly subject. And the chief premise of that field is that the best standards of uncertainty management should be domain independent, fancy talk for the same for everybody, human or machine, professor or student, who assesses confidence, entertains preferences and chooses their actions.

Mathematics is a special case, because it establishes its findings with certainty (strict demonstration). However in practice, mathematicians develop conjectures and choose among questions to work on, and to that extent, they are in the same boat as anybody else, whether other scholars or just plain folks who must get on in the world despite uncertainties.

Note the subjective mood, should be domain independent - this is not a description of fielded practices, but rather prescriptions for the most effective behavior possible. Probably nobody, neither scientists, historians, nor even uncertainty management scholars,  behaves optimally. Nevertheless, a great deal of actually observed behavior can be understood as approximations to the normative ideal.

So, yes, Mr W, the standards for using evidence can be the same for everybody. Within that possiblility, there are choices. It does appear that there is a bias among academics (yes, even scientists, but self-consciously among historians) to seek out best explanations of the available evidence, rather than confine their preachments to those things which are acceptably plausible - or what is often the same or a similar thing, the best explanation which is prohibitively better than the second-best, if there is a unique best one that is really that well supported.

That last condition is often the case at the foundations of science, and so that's how scientists "get away with" mushing together what is very plausible and what is best, even though the two don't generally coincide. This concidence is not magical, but is the direct result of scientific subjects allowing scientists to gather evidence on demand and on industrial scale.

Obviously, there are other fields where the evidence is much poorer, and the scholars in the field have little opportunity to increase their endowment of evidence. It is in that sense that Biblical Studies, especially those specialists who concentrate on the "missing generation" at the very begiinings of Christianity, is different from, say, particle physics.

One normative response to dodgy evidence is to distinguish scrupulously between the pursuit of best available explanations and plausbly established ones. As your vomit of Wkiwoo establishes conclusively, many scholars in Biblical Studies don't maintain that distinction when they share their poorly informed (even if it is the best informed available) personal opinion about a historical Jesus.

So, fine. Nobody disputes that they say what they say or their right to say it, but there is no normative obligation for anybody else to take their word for something which they couldn't possibly know. Nor can anybody be fairly criticized for recognizing the difference between best available and really good.

Just as grade school children readily do. That chronologically adult Biblical Studies professionals can't or won't is itself a reason to discount their products.

sorry but big words dont help your argument  It is really very simple 

History (and parts of geography, along with other elements of the humanities do not require the same  levels of evidence and proof as maths and the science because those proofs do not exist and seeking them would make the subject a waste of time. Thus other means/ measurements must be used to satisfy academic certainty 

so for example, for many people recognised as historical figures there is not ONE contemporary  reference, or physical evidence for their existence yet we know the y existed end no historian would deny that they did.   

Thus christ mythers tried to argue that Christ did not exist because there was no contemporary  proof for his existence The problem with that was that ,if similar standards were applied to all figures,  most of early history would be unprovable,  and that christ has more references to his existence than many known historical figures. There is also a lot of  contemporary evidence of the spread of Christianity in the years and decades of the first century,  stretching back so far that it is "almost" contemporary with the period of Christs life 

 

If oyu wish to argue that almost every historian including the atheists and agnostics are WRONG to accept that christ was a real preacher /teacher then do do But you have to ask why you would be right and they would all be wrong. Who has the greater knowledge base on the subject? It almost sounds as if you are so biased that you see academic historians who study the life of christ and the period of his life, as flawed and biased from the start   Maybe you know something i dont, which suggests that  historians who study this area are less qualified or less academic or less unbiased than others.  However i doubt this. Your own bias is evident in the quite emotive way you  describe them 

One normative response to dodgy evidence is to distinguish scrupulously between the pursuit of best available explanations and plausbly established ones. As your vomit of Wkiwoo establishes conclusively, many scholars in Biblical Studies don't maintain that distinction when they share their poorly informed (even if it is the best informed available) personal opinion about a historical Jesus.

This is quite insulting ill informed and biased 

You dont find an historical non mystical Jesus to be plausible However an unbiased person would find it entirely plausible.

The re were dozens of similar itinerant preachers at the time  Christs teachings are very similar to the liberal teachings of the Hillel school and indeed his words are often almost identical to other teachers from  that school. The existence of an historical jesus IS  plausibly established (The best and vast majority of academic historians attest to this . ) 

There opinions are no more personal than anyone's (indeed again even atheist and agnostic historians accept  the existence of jesus the man)  The y are based on the best historical information and chronological context available,  Including paul and the evolution of Christianity from a jewish to gentile form between the death of Christ and the end of the first century 

if you take christ out of the equation, you (generic)  have to put into it how Christianity began, and provide some evidences that your theory could a t least be plausible  No one has been able to do this, and all attempts not only lack evidences, but look like conspiracy theories .  

The wiki article explained WHY almost no academic historian is a "christ myth-er."

Again you response is telling.  Emotion, not reason. 

if your bias is against wiki, try some of the sources included here 

 

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

The following is one example 

Michael Grant

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

 

or this

https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

sorry but big words dont help your argument  It is really very simple 

You're not sorry, Mr Walker. False words impede discussion more than big ones.

What big words don't you understand? Historian is 4 syllables. Can't really discuss what historians do if I can't use the word, now can I?

Let's see. What words did I use that are longer than four syllables? Math-e-ma-tics? Nope that's still four. Ah! Ap-prox-i-ma-tions. Five  syllables! Holy crap. And I know, chronologically is six. I knew I was reaching at the time, but I had so hoped you'd be able to sound it out.

I suppose turn-about is fair play and all, but what of your use of contemporary? Do my fingers deceive me, or is that not five syllables? Christianity would have been five, too, but somehow you managed to spread Christine instead. I hope she recovered. Oh wait, yes, she's back together in the last paragraph.

And chronological - you sounded it out after all, and by using the adjectival form, you weigh in at a trim five syllables. Bravo.

Bottom line: you and I are both educated native speakers of the common tongue of this forum. It shows. So what?

On the merits of your post (you've already said most of it already; I didn't buy it the first time, repetition won't help):

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

If oyu wish to argue that almost every historian including the atheists and agnostics are WRONG to accept that christ was a real preacher /teacher them do do But you have to ask why you would be right and the y would all be wrong.

I didn't say historians are wrong to accept Christ (surely you meant Jesus, not Christ, and if they accept that Jesus was Christ, then they are making a religious statement, not a historical one). I object to the absurd level of confidence expressed, far beyond what is warranted by the evidence.

If they hold their opinion with such confidence, then it must be substantially based on a priori considerations, not primarily on evidence. And, as I wrote elsewhere recently, Ehrman reported that he hadn't even thought about the evidentiary question until far into his career. That would explain an anomalous level of confidence all by itself.

44 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Maybe you know something i dont

What are the odds of that?

45 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

which suggests that  hstorians awho study this area are less qualfied or less academic or less unbised than others.

The field itself distinguishes between pastoral training and other religious studies. That the former subtends such a large portion of academic Jesus professionals has nothing to do with me. For my part, I have no objection to anybody's pursuit of best explanations, but I'm not going to pretend that what's best in one field is of the same plausibility as what's best in another.

51 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

However an unbiased person would find it entirely plausible.

That there might be somebody like that isn't in dispute. I mentioned recently that Thomas Paine didn't have any problem with the secular historicist hypothesis. Of course, he didn't express certainty that it was true, and didn't call people who doubted it rude names.

If you meant that "unbiased" people generally or typically would find HJ nearly certain, then I'd like to see your evidence for that.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

if you take christ out of the equation, you (generic)  have to put into it how Christianity began, and provide some evidences that your theory could a t least be plausible 

If you is generic, then why not start with Earl Doherty's idea of a celestial Jesus? There are plenty of other evidence-based origins theories as well, some of which I like better, but that's a popular one these days, and very similar to Richard Carrier's as discussed with much approval by Raphael Lataster in a recent high-profile book. It's easy to find relevant discussions of it on the web.

 

 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Your own bias is evident in the quite emotive way you  describe them

As is yours, by your continued studious avoidance of discussing any of the evidence relevant to the question.  Instead you keep appealing to what the people whom you find to be experts say about it, you talk around the question at hand and keep engaging in arguments from authority, fallacious ones from my perspective.  Nobody ever has been shown to be wrong simply because they disagreed with 'experts'; the end.

Yes, there is definitely some expertise needed to evaluate this question but it is much more amenable to 'layman' analysis than most scientific topics. Especially since in this case the evidence is so minimal; I remember being shocked by one of the similar threads here when someone (eight and PA maybe) essentially listed the evidence/writings we have and it was a ridiculously small list.  Lots of mentions of Christians but so much nothing for Jesus himself.

Lastly I didn't find it encouraging when you were arguing that eight was not separating the supernatural Jesus from the historical one, it just seemed to indicate confusion about something that should be clear.  He has engaged in detail in many threads here concerning the question of a historical Jesus, you have even engaged and responded to him in those threads, but I've never seen him say anything that references the mystical/divine aspect of Jesus except to clarify that obviously that is a separate question.  If you recall...

From your point of view, what is the most compelling piece of evidence for a historical Jesus?  Not opinions, expert or not, on what people think the evidence shows, but instead what evidence those opinions are actually based on.

And Happy Holidays!

[spartan max2]

Just hopping in.

Make historians do say Jesus was a real historic person.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Festina]

On 12/11/2019 at 5:36 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

No, it doesn't actually explain anything. Why are the Torah/Bible stories considered true, while all other mythologies about gods and creation considered false?

It was a “win” for the patriarchy  — “believe or else” —  death by the sword and other tortures.  Seems they had much help from inter-dimensional forces as well. 

The Bible is the most depressing work I have ever read.  They make  good fire starters for the wood-stove, and burn well.  They can be had for fifty cents at thrift stores.  An act of Righteous indignation on my part. 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Festina Lente

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Make historians do say Jesus was a real historic person.

That's not in dispute. And if it were, what rational person would agree to arbiration by Wikipedia?

But that there is a consensus isn't in dispute. What the consensus teaches isn't in dispute. In fact, it isn't in dispute that anybody who wants to base their own beliefs on a bald appeal to authority may do so. Whatever floats your boat.

What is in dispute is whether it is rationally obligatory to suspend critical thinking whenever somebody claiming to be my better demands that I do so.

In no other academic field have I encountered a scholar who recommended that I suspend critical thinking, not ever.

And you know what? That critical thinking thing is a scholarly consensus, too.

So, I'm stuck. I can't avoid signing on to a consensus position. I can only choose which one.

Guess which one I've chosen.

 

[Debra F. II]

On 12/23/2019 at 8:56 AM, psyche101 said:

A rough life yeah?

A desperate people will grab the closest straw right? Hope, something to cling to? A good way for religious beliefs to take hold.

Not so great for everyone

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

Yet he allegedlysaid and I quote:

 Matthew 5:17 

New International Version:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

what's that mean to you?

Perhaps Moses invoked an almighty to inspire people and organise them?

Why didn't he abolish slavery and stop persecution of minority groups? As I printed out above he said he is here to uphold the law, and didn't say ' hey, all that stuff about slaves and treating gay people like abominations, forget that stuff'. He is silent on those issues is he not? Man had to correct those wrongs, so hasn't man taught God morals there?

Original sin?

Even the Catholic church recognises evolution as valid. Adrian didn't exist. So who committed original sin?

Where on earth are you getting this nonsense from? What on earth makes you think religion has saved mankind from self destruction? It had its place in our development, I'll admit that, but you know there are secular charities and plenty of atheists who aren't going around causing such mayhem don't you? A great deal of the bad stuff is religious orientated. Many a cannonball and sword blades has carried the Lord's name. Gods are even attributed to taking sides in war. 

All very good questions that I do not have answers for, I just know what I know, do what I do in which is right for me.

It's not nonsense! I share my thoughts and ideas and like to try to answers questions when I can from the view points as I see them. Wrong I may be I am not perfect, right i may be i am not perfect.... it doesnt matter! At least I know I never will be perfect and that I am not supposed to understand certain things and I accept that.

I also know that I have immense power that is greater than myself when I am weak or headed in the wrong direction and I also know that I am loved and that we live in a supernatural world that most reject or refuse to see or believe. And yes religion is behind a lot of wars and mayhem but not all of them. It's not my place to question why it is that way. 

 Matthew 5:17 ~ what that meas to me is... just what it says...

Accept what happens, like it or not becasue it is for greater good, trust!

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed ...

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

So, I'm stuck. I can't avoid signing on to a consensus position.

 You mean you have "chosen" to be a "critical thinker" ? Is that a choice that can be switched in or out of ? I'd have thought not, if people lapse out of critical thinking, it is only because something very powerful has come to the forefront of the mind, that was simmering in the background previously. People do "go ape" over things that stimulate them sufficiently. Like falling in love with people who are clearly(to others at the time, and to the besotted, some time later) unsuitable. Critical thinking is more or less standard equipment, and the default mode. People really can lapse out of critical thinking, but elect to start being a critical thinker ? I think not. They just revert to normal transmissions. If you have signed on to a no-historical-Jesus ticket, it isn't because of critical thinking, but because you want it to be the case, and you have virtually admitted as much on these boards. I certainly am not invested either way, but if the majority of investigators that are general-purpose historians, not religious zealots or atheist zealots, acknowledge an historical Jesus, and only in the mundane aspects, then I'd have to accept it as being the case.

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

You're not sorry, Mr Walker. False words impede discussion more than big ones.

What big words don't you understand? Historian is 4 syllables. Can't really discuss what historians do if I can't use the word, now can I?

Let's see. What words did I use that are longer than four syllables? Math-e-ma-tics? Nope that's still four. Ah! Ap-prox-i-ma-tions. Five  syllables! Holy crap. And I know, chronologically is six. I knew I was reaching at the time, but I had so hoped you'd be able to sound it out.

I suppose turn-about is fair play and all, but what of your use of contemporary? Do my fingers deceive me, or is that not five syllables? Christianity would have been five, too, but somehow you managed to spread Christine instead. I hope she recovered. Oh wait, yes, she's back together in the last paragraph.

And chronological - you sounded it out after all, and by using the adjectival form, you weigh in at a trim five syllables. Bravo.

Bottom line: you and I are both educated native speakers of the common tongue of this forum. It shows. So what?

On the merits of your post (you've already said most of it already; I didn't buy it the first time, repetition won't help):

I didn't say historians are wrong to accept Christ (surely you meant Jesus, not Christ, and if they accept that Jesus was Christ, then they are making a religious statement, not a historical one). I object to the absurd level of confidence expressed, far beyond what is warranted by the evidence.

If they hold their opinion with such confidence, then it must be substantially based on a priori considerations, not primarily on evidence. And, as I wrote elsewhere recently, Ehrman reported that he hadn't even thought about the evidentiary question until far into his career. That would explain an anomalous level of confidence all by itself.

What are the odds of that?

The field itself distinguishes between pastoral training and other religious studies. That the former subtends such a large portion of academic Jesus professionals has nothing to do with me. For my part, I have no objection to anybody's pursuit of best explanations, but I'm not going to pretend that what's best in one field is of the same plausibility as what's best in another.

That there might be somebody like that isn't in dispute. I mentioned recently that Thomas Paine didn't have any problem with the secular historicist hypothesis. Of course, he didn't express certainty that it was true, and didn't call people who doubted it rude names.

If you meant that "unbiased" people generally or typically would find HJ nearly certain, then I'd like to see your evidence for that.

If you is generic, then why not start with Earl Doherty's idea of a celestial Jesus? There are plenty of other evidence-based origins theories as well, some of which I like better, but that's a popular one these days, and very similar to Richard Carrier's as discussed with much approval by Raphael Lataster in a recent high-profile book. It's easy to find relevant discussions of it on the web.

 

 

 

Actually  i was sorry to see you try to use big words to fill in argument when it is very simple  I believe it was a deliberate choice of words designed to impress 

I had no trouble understanding what you  meant and I replied to your points, but your words were all style and no substance.

Its not the vocabulary but the style of your writing in this post which is discernibly different to others you often post,  which are clear and simple 

Disappointing . And your response again is one of ridicule, rather than debate.  Always a sign of a weak argument  

I would suggest you read the second article i psted which debunks each of the arguments of christ mythers

ps Jesus christ is the name by which this man is now known it is like Mr Walker.  One may be an honorary title but we still use it 

Indeed. I agree with you.  An historian should go with the evidences. There is compelling evidence for an historical christ, around whom early Christianity under Paul evolved from a jewish faith to a christian/non Jewish one,  and NONE for any of the other theories.

   As this source points out, most of the alternative theories promoted are not constructed or followed by professional historians and some are not really even good amateur ones.  Doherty's  theory is one which i mentioned.

It is not universally accepted among Christ mythers, and while he does have historical qualifications his premise is rejected by mainstream academics because there is no evidence for it.

  Besides it conflates and confuses the issue.

It argues christ was not a man but a "god"  and that Paul's encounters were based on his experience with that god.

That is a strange argument to dispute the "mystical Christ's" existence  Plus he is wrong of course in arguing tha the myth was created in the second century. Rroman records show Christianity going back to ealry in the first century, with new tax laws designed to tax non Jewish Christians differently to Jewish Christians brought in around AD 70.Paul lived and wrote about, and influenced, Christianity in the middle of the first century. 

Thats what i mean by chronological   context. 

Edited December 27, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Jodie.Lynne]

37 minutes ago, Debra F. II said:

and that I am not supposed to understand certain things and I accept that.

Why? Were you told by someone that there are things you aren't supposed to understand? Who told you that, and why do you believe them?

I mean, yes there are things that I will never understand completely, but I can grasp the concepts and rough workings of, like the workings of an IC engine, or football. just don't go all technical on me, because I won't get the intricate details. But I do not agree that there are things that we aren't meant to understand.

And the concept that the "god" idea isn't meant to be understood, or can't be understood, sounds like bushwa to me. Kind of like the character 'Ash' in "Evil Dead":

Quote

Ash:
Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand things with alloys and compositions and things with... molecular structures. 

People who believe in a deity always fall back on the tropes of "god works in mysterious ways", "God is incomprehensible", etc., etc., but they don't seem to realize that ALL religions, from the dawn of time onwards, have been claiming that god IS 'comprehensible" and completely understandable. Basically, God wants whatever a particular religion, or sect, wants him/her/it to want.

 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

but they don't seem to realize that ALL religions, from the dawn of time onwards, have been claiming that god IS 'comprehensible" and completely understandable. Basically, God wants whatever a particular religion, or sect, wants him/her/it to want.

Not your best work, I don't know of any religion that argues that "God" is knowable, rationally, in fact the only reason people dally with the idea of "God", is because it is a kind of substitute "rationalization" stemming from the fact that rational "knowing" hits a brick wall and can go no further. "God" fills the hole, with varying degrees of success ranging from zero, to completely, depending on the person.

[Dejarma]

11 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

People who believe in a deity always fall back on the tropes of "god works in mysterious ways", "God is incomprehensible", etc., etc.,

yep, funny innit- well, it makes me laugh & i like like laughing

[eight bits]

49 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually  i was sorry to see you try to use big words to fill in argument when it is very simple  I believe it was a deliberate choice of words designed to impress 

Are you really so dense as to miss the irony of you accusing anybody else of trying to impress with empty verbiage?

49 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I had no trouble understanding what you  meant

And what more than that do I owe you, in your view?

49 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

As this source points out, most of the alternative theories promoted are not constructed or followed by professional historians and some are not really even good amateur ones.

Why are we talking about "most" of the theories? In a previous post, you imposed on me the requirement to present a specific MJ theory of Christian origins. I chose Doherty's. If you have some criticism of that theory, the one you demanded and that I provided, then let 'er rip.

Please attend to this reminder that I chose that one not because I advocate it above all others of its kind, but because Google will find many discussions of it for you (including Carrier and Lataster material), so you can participate in the discussion here.

 

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

If you have signed on to a no-historical-Jesus ticket, it isn't because of critical thinking,

Actually, I've signed onto an uncertain historical Jesus ticket. I don't know whether or not that clears up the rest of your questions.

I don't think I chose my attitude toward either critical thinking or finding HJ-MJ something interesting to think critically about. I doubt that those attitudes could be switched on or off (if I understand your terminology). But action or inaction, following though on the attitudes or not, those seem to me to be choices, like any choices, subject to the constraints of what's possible for me to do or to avoid doing. (= this isn't going to become another "free will" debate, is it?)

Edited December 27, 2019 by eight bits