Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 226 of 560 (617625)
05-30-2011 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 11:40 PM


Re: Execution records
quote:
I have dealt with it. The most reasonable explanation for that phenomenon is that Christianity is the result of people passing around stories about a mythical Jesus. That's why Christianity doesn't seem to exist at the time that Jesus is supposed to have started Christianity - it didn't get started by Jesus, because he didn't exist to start it.
That's the most parsimonious conclusion.
Of course it doesn't deal with the point since we still have the fact that Christianity does appear to have been around at the time (Paul attests that it existed prior to his conversion) and so the absence of records seems better attributed to unimportance rather than non-existence. So you haven't dealt with the point. Nor have you made a case that it is more parsimonious to assume Jesus did not exist. Christianity still needs to have come into existence somehow, and it is only be comparing explanations that parsimony can be evaluated - and, of course, parsimony is not the only criterion we need to consider.
quote:
So then there's no basis at all for your statement "Under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea, a backwater part of the Roman Empire." As you now agree there's actually no evidence at all that there was a Christianity under Jesus that was "little more than a minor Jewish cult".
That doesn't follow. What DOES follow is that your assertion that I was begging the question is fallacious. Begging the question requires sneaking in the conclusion as a premise.
quote:
Then you stated something that was in error, because I've not argued that. I've argued that there was no Jesus, so there was no Christianity in his lifetime, thus there was nothing to be "little more than a Jewish cult restricted to Judaea", and therefore that's just one more thing you're asserting on the basis of no evidence. Which is the underlying basis of the "historical Jesus" position - nothing at all.
I guess you don't understand hypotheticals then. Because you certainly failed to understand them here.
quote:
Because reals are better than fakes! (Ask anybody at a biker bar.) The real Jesus would have owned things, produced things - he was a carpenter - written things. Which people would have wanted to keep. Because they did want those things so badly that even though he never existed to produce anything, people made up relics to pass around and meet that need.
Just to note that you're employing exactly the sort of reasoning you attacked in your previous paragraph. You talk about what (you think) Jesus would have done if he had lived, and try to conclude that he did not. However, we have no clear evidence that Jesus produced anything that would have been suitable as a relic or wrote anything down. Most of the relics that did exist would likely have been concentrated in the Jerusalem group - and lost with them. With the periodic persecutions of Christians it is certainly possible that anything else was also lost - and how many relics do we have of Peter (if you accept his existence) or Paul ?
quote:
But we're concerned only with the execution of Jesus, not of anybody else. And unless you're proposing some kind of execution-specific purge of Roman records - again, not terribly parsimonious - then the lack of execution records in general has nothing to do with the lack of execution records of Jesus. It's completely irrelevant - it's just a coincidence. And it provides absolutely no explanation for the lack of Jesus's execution records.
Why would I need to propose an execution-specific purge when YOU insist that the records did exist, and no such records from the place and time in question actually survive ?
And if ALL such records are lost it obviously is not a coincidence that there is no such record for Jesus. How could it be ? If all the records are lost then necessarily there cannot be any such record surviving.
If we are genuinely interested in the question of Jesus' existence than we would want to know if the absence of an official crucifixion record is a mere absence of evidence (i.e. the records are lost or so incomplete that we cannot tell if originally there was a record of Jesus or not) or if it is significant (the records are complete enough that if Jesus existed we should expect to find a record). And it is clear that it is the former case. To argue against it is to go against all reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 7:49 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 227 of 560 (617626)
05-30-2011 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 11:46 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
quote:
Ok, but Lord of the Rings presents a story, presented as true, of the doings of four Hobbits of the Shire. But you never answered my question about whether that's therefore a prima facie case for the existence of Hobbits.
If you ignore the many contextual facts that identify LotR as fiction you could do that. But why you would want to do that ? But that was only one part of my argument and LotR would still fail the rest.
quote:
Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.
The issue of names has already been dealt with, and shown to be ignorance on your part. Repeating it only makes it wilful ignorance.
Most historical Jesus proponents would assert that Jesus WAS executed by the Romans (something that the Gospel writers clearly were uncomfortable with, since they go out of their way to try to blame the Jews - so far as we can tell, falsely - and exonerate the Romans).
The rest is pretty much covered already. But I'll add that it was quite normal for ancient historians to invent speeches for the people they were writing about, so we can't say that failing to deliver the Sermon on the Mount as written is much of a blow against a historical Jesus either.
quote:
It's the utter implausibility of the "historical Jesus" starting Christianity that leads me to believe that there was no historic Jesus, no more than there was a historic John Frum or a historic James Bond or a historic Jesus Malverde. The very simple fact is that once you discard as much of the Gospel accounts as "historical Jesus" proponents have to in order to arrive at a plausibly-existing human individual, you've denuded the "historical Jesus" of anything that would actually result in him being the focus of a major world religion.
Obviously being a carpenter isn't required for that. Nor making specific speeches. Nor real miracles. And of the points you listed above, those are the only ones that (might) stand as valid. So it seems that you don't have much of a case there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 228 of 560 (617638)
05-30-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 11:49 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
How about John Frum? ... (For the record, it's the basically-universal consensus that there was no such person as John Frum.)
Do you know the reason for that universal consensus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 2:44 PM Modulous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 229 of 560 (617711)
05-30-2011 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by PaulK
05-30-2011 3:33 AM


Re: Execution records
Of course it doesn't deal with the point since we still have the fact that Christianity does appear to have been around at the time (Paul attests that it existed prior to his conversion
The Pauline conversion is well after the supposed life of Jesus, so that doesn't substantiate a Christianity during the time of Jesus, only a Christianity after the life of Jesus. Saw, within a decade or so. Which is completely consistent with the geographic spread of other cults based on fictional saviors and no communications technologies.
so the absence of records seems better attributed to unimportance rather than non-existence.
Better how? Non-existence is always more parsimonious.
Nor have you made a case that it is more parsimonious to assume Jesus did not exist.
The case is the definition of parsimony - "do not needlessly multiply entities." A historical Jesus is a needless entity, and therefore most rationally discarded, if the existence of a historical Jesus is not needed to explain the characteristics and spread of the early church.
Again that's just the definition of parsimony.
Christianity still needs to have come into existence somehow
Sure, but again - even in the "historical Jesus" position being defended, here, the beliefs of the early Church are based on an enormous amount of things that didn't actually happen. No Sermon on the Mount. No resurrection. No Last Supper, and so on. If nearly every aspect of the earliest Christian church was just legend, invention, fabrication - why couldn't it be based on an invented figure, as well? Why does the existence of Jesus have to be the one thing the early Christian church didn't make up? I've asked you several times and you don't seem to have an answer.
That doesn't follow.
Well, ok, so then what's the evidence that there's a "historical Jesus" under whom Christianity was a "minor Jewish cult" and not simply something that didn't exist at all? I asked you and you didn't have an answer.
What DOES follow is that your assertion that I was begging the question is fallacious.
But it is begging the question, as I've shown. You're using the lack of any evidence for a Christian church contemporary with Jesus Christ as evidence that "under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea." But that can only be true if Jesus existed and was the leader or central figure in a minor Jewish cult.
What is the evidence for that view? I've asked you several times now, and you've replied with various things - the Pauline conversion, the lack of any evidence for a Christianity under Jesus - but none of them are actually evidence for that view.
If I told you that there's a race of Martians with invisible space ships, and you asked me for evidence of that view, it would be utter nonsense of the first degree for me to reply that the fact that nobody's ever seen a Martian space ship is proof that they're invisible. That's begging the question because I've not established the existence of Martians or their space ships; I've simply presented an ad hoc explanation for the lack of any evidence for them.
That's clearly nonsense but it's exactly what you're doing with this "minor Jewish cult under Jesus" nonsense. Why should I believe that a Jesus existed who was the leader of a minor Jewish cult? What evidence exists for this position? Please be specific.
You talk about what (you think) Jesus would have done if he had lived, and try to conclude that he did not.
Right, because that's how we test hypotheses - we examine their necessary consequences, and then inspect to see if those consequences are counterfactual. And that's exactly what happens with every necessary consequence of the historical Jesus view that isn't also a consequence of the mythical Jesus view - we find that every consequence is necessarily something that doesn't seem to have happened.
With the periodic persecutions of Christians it is certainly possible that anything else was also lost - and how many relics do we have of Peter (if you accept his existence) or Paul ?
Well, we have a bunch of Paul's letters, don't we? Copies, I mean. We have Paul's correspondence to the early Church passed down as part of the Bible. I assume the Pauline authorship is genuine - that's the consensus view, correct? - though I'm not aware of any of the evidence for that view so I can't defend it. But we don't have any of Jesus's correspondence? The early church saved Paul's stuff but not Jesus? Makes no sense.
And if ALL such records are lost it obviously is not a coincidence that there is no such record for Jesus. How could it be ?
Well, we do have Judean records, if not execution records. And you deny that there was any execution-specific purge of Roman records.
So perforce the loss of Jesus's execution records must be a coincidence, just as its a coincidence when you flip a fair coin five times and its heads each time. If you flip it a sixth time and it comes up heads again, that's a coincidence too unless you have some reason to believe the coin is heads-specific, which would mean it was an unfair coin.
So, again, unless there was some execution-specific purge of Roman records then the lack of Roman execution records in general is no explanation at all for the lack of Jesus execution records. It can't be, unless you have some reason to believe that there's some shared reason for the lack of execution records. But if there's no connection, the loss of records not related to Jesus can't explain the loss of records related to Jesus, just as five flips of a fair coin coming up heads doesn't have anything to do with whether it'll come up heads on the sixth.
And it is clear that it is the former case.
Only if you propose an execution-specific purge of Roman records. And why would someone do that? If there was no purge then there's no connection between the lack of Jesus's execution records and a lack of execution records in general, and the latter cannot explain the former. It's just a coincidence that both kind of records happen to be missing. That's obviously true by the definition of "coincidence." Do you see, now?
If you ignore the many contextual facts that identify LotR as fiction you could do that
What "contextual facts identify LotR as fiction"? The fact that it's sold as fiction?
That's nothing more than a reflection of the popular consensus that LotR is fiction, but that's nothing more than the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. If I moved all the copies of the Bible in my local bookstore over to the fiction section, would that be a prima facie case against the existence of a historical Jesus, by virtue of "contextual facts"?
No, of course not. So as you can see there's no support for or against the truth of a work by the kind of "contextual facts" to which you refer.
The issue of names has already been dealt with, and shown to be ignorance on your part.
What was shown is that everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wouldn't be called "Jesus Christ", because that's a combination of a Greek translation of a Hebrew name, plus a title. You've said that, Mod said that, a couple people have popped in here to tell me it again. Everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wasn't called "Jesus Christ."
I've never asserted otherwise and I'm not "ignorant" of anything. When I characterize the "historic Jesus Christ" as someone who wasn't named Jesus Christ, that's a completely accurate way to portray the "historic Jesus Christ" position.
Most historical Jesus proponents would assert that Jesus WAS executed by the Romans (something that the Gospel writers clearly were uncomfortable with, since they go out of their way to try to blame the Jews - so far as we can tell, falsely - and exonerate the Romans).
Well, ok. Would a proponent of the historical Jesus care to present evidence for that view? Would you like to, PaulK?
If there's no evidence, then why should I believe that claim? That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected on the same basis.
But I'll add that it was quite normal for ancient historians to invent speeches for the people they were writing about, so we can't say that failing to deliver the Sermon on the Mount as written is much of a blow against a historical Jesus either.
Well, it's one more aspect of the Biblical Jesus that turns out to be mythical, and every part of the Jesus biography that turns out to be mythical lends probability to the correctness of the mythical Jesus position. If 99% of the supposed characteristics and biography of Jesus are myths, why isn't it reasonable to extend that to his existence, as well? It's a natural progression.
Obviously being a carpenter isn't required for that. Nor making specific speeches. Nor real miracles.
What are the minimal requirements that a person would have to exhibit to be considered the "historical Jesus"? If the answer is none, then how is Lou from New Jersey not Santa Claus?
So it seems that you don't have much of a case there.
I have the same case I've always had: there's no evidence that supports the existence of a "historical Jesus." If I'm wrong about that, then by all means present the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2011 3:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 2:43 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 232 by caffeine, posted 05-31-2011 8:54 AM crashfrog has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 560 (617737)
05-31-2011 1:37 AM


Consequentially Jesus
Sorry about my silence. I couldn't get to a computer this weekend. It seems others have done a fine job addressing the Myther 'arguments', but I still want to comment on a few of the main points from the various posts that have built up during my absence:
quote:
Crash in Message 202:
Indeed. And that's why the "mythical Jesus" position is so reasonable - the environment was perfect for the injection of a completely mythical savior...
This fails to address the point that Jesus didn't save anything or anyone. Jesus didn't free the Jews from Roman rule. Jesus didn't restore the temple. Jesus didn't put a davidic king on the throne. And so on.
He just got executed. No saving there.
quote:
Mod in Message 206:
That it wouldn't have been extraordinary for Jesus to have existed, which explains the consillience of the information about what he is said to have done and/or said. Some of the things he is said to have said and done are thought to be contrary to the kind of thing people would make up in their situation (that is, they could have made them up, but if they had the opportunity to make something up - we'd expect something different).
This is the essence of what Crash is so far missing. The existence of an historical Jesus isn't a conclusion: it's a premise. It is the least-assumptive, most-explanatory premise that can be inserted for an argument explaining the rise of a Messianic movement with messianic views that are almost 100% contrary to every messianic view that ever existed before the movement and every other one (outside the movement) that has ever existed since.
Crash wants us to drop that premise, but has given us nothing better to replace it with. He has given us no premises that require fewer assumptions; he has given us no premises that provide better explanations. He's given us nothing. So why should we remove our good premise in exchange for his nothing?
Obvious answer: We shouldn't.
quote:
Jazzns in Message 210:
So is our conclusion simply that ONE of these COULD have been the historical Jesus? I mean, that is fine with me, but I don't think that is what the people who are making a case for the historical Jesus are claiming.
With a character who was so unimportant in his day, it is really difficult to say much more about him other than to say that he was just another apocalyptic Jewish preacher whose followers believed to be the Messiah and who was then executed by the Romans.
In the sense that such folk were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine, you are absolutely right in thinking that Jesus was hardly unique at all.
quote:
Jazzns in Message 210:
Even in the bible there is the story of Sampson. Is it your position that the evidence for a historical Sampson is roughly the same as it is for a historical Jesus?
The biggest part of the Jesus movement is that he is always regarded as the Messiah. Even if a small group of Jews had invented the story wholesale about a suffering savior, the chances of them giving him the title 'Messiah' are close to zero. Very close.
quote:
ramoss in Message 220:
The characteristics that I would think would be required for a 'historical Jesus' is
1) A figure that inspired people and lead them.
2) Was named Jesus.
3) Was executed by Pilate.
Amazingly enough, there is one person that matches 2 of those characteristics , but the third characteristic is an unknown.
IN the proper time frame, there was the Samaritan uprising, who was lead by a person whose name is not known, that was excuted by Pilate.
I'm fairly certain that we will never find any contemporaneous accounts clearly mentioning Jesus. From what can be reconstructed of him, he was absolutely unimportant in his day. He doesn't become important until well after the time he would have been executed, and only then because of the grown importance of the movement he (or rather his followers) started.
Jesus was at the head of a movement. The movement became important; Jesus never did. The movement is what is important today; Jesus still isn't. Outside of the movement, no one even cares about Jesus.
Given his eternal lack of importance, I cannot imagine any reasonable person expecting much mention of Jesus apart from the movement he started; and the movement he started didn't start till after his death. This pretty much rules out contemporaneous mention of him anywhere.
quote:
Crash in Message 222:
That's why Christianity doesn't seem to exist at the time that Jesus is supposed to have started Christianity - it didn't get started by Jesus, because he didn't exist to start it.
Christianity didn't exist at the time Jesus lived for the most obvious reason that Jesus was a Jew preaching Judaism. Even after Jesus died there was still no such thing as Christianity.
This is just one of your many ridiculous blunders that make it difficult to take your arguments seriously.
quote:
Crash in Message 223:
Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ...
Well, Crash, this has already been addressed. 'Christ' is a title; it would never have been a name for someone like Jesus while he was alive.
quote:
Crash in Message 223:
didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.
Aside from the execution, none of these things are defining characteristics of an historical Jesus. Again, you've already been told this.
quote:
Crash in Message 223:
It's the utter implausibility of the "historical Jesus" starting Christianity that leads me to believe that there was no historic Jesus...
You have not shown how it is implausible for there to have been an historical Jesus. You have not even demonstrated understanding what 'historical Jesus' means. You have also not yet offered up a better explanation for the evidence that is more plausible than the existence an historical Jesus.
quote:
Crash in Message 223:
Ergo, even "historical Jesus" proponents deny the existence of an actual historical Jesus.
No. They don't. You simply don't understand what 'historical Jesus' meansdespite repeated definitions given by others and myself.
quote:
Crash in Message 229:
Better how? Non-existence is always more parsimonious.
Parsimony only matters when our propositions actually have some explanatory power. Since you've offered no alternative explanations yet, the Historical Jesus hypothesis stands uncontested, and so there can be no matters of parsimony that would cause us to reject an historical Jesus.
quote:
Crash in Message 229:
A historical Jesus is a needless entity, and therefore most rationally discarded, if the existence of a historical Jesus is not needed to explain the characteristics and spread of the early church.
But it is needed! As I've already mentioned (along with others here), the Jesus movement's messianic beliefs are almost 100% counter to any messianic beliefs before or since.
There needs to be something to explain this revolution in thinking, and the Historical Jesus hypothesis is the only explanation that has so far been offered in this thread. Without a competing explanation, there is no reason to reject the existence of an historical Jesus; such a character is reasonable enough for the time period that there is no sense to reject his existence if it provides the best and least-assumptive explanation for certain peculiar beliefs and practices of the Jewish sect that later developed into Christianity.
If you cannot offer even the most ridiculous or minor of alternative explanations for this messianic redefinition, then the Historical Jesus hypothesis stands uncontested: there is absolutely no reason to accept another in light of the fact that another has not yet been presented.
I suggest you bother attempting to provide such an alternative; if you don't, you have nothing.
Jon

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2011 11:37 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 11:45 AM Jon has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 231 of 560 (617744)
05-31-2011 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
05-30-2011 7:49 PM


Re: Execution records
quote:
The Pauline conversion is well after the supposed life of Jesus, so that doesn't substantiate a Christianity during the time of Jesus, only a Christianity after the life of Jesus. Saw, within a decade or so. Which is completely consistent with the geographic spread of other cults based on fictional saviors and no communications technologies.
Pauls's conversion is apparently dated to within a few years of the supposed life of Jesus (the dates of 31-36 AD given by Wikipedia look on the early side to me but 33-36 seems viable, depending on the date assigned to Jesus' death). And don't forget that the Gospels assign a maximum of 3 years to Jesus' ministry.
quote:
Better how? Non-existence is always more parsimonious.
Because we have evidence of existence. What official records do we have for the existence of Christianity in the years that Paul was persecuting Christians ? Or in the years immediately following his conversion ?
quote:
The case is the definition of parsimony - "do not needlessly multiply entities." A historical Jesus is a needless entity, and therefore most rationally discarded, if the existence of a historical Jesus is not needed to explain the characteristics and spread of the early church.
Again that's just the definition of parsimony.
As I said, you have not made the case. You need to show that Jesus really is a "needless entity" (i.e. an unnecessary assumption) AND that you can explain the evidence without making MORE unnecessary assumptions. You have yet to make any serious attempt to do that.
quote:
Sure, but again - even in the "historical Jesus" position being defended, here, the beliefs of the early Church are based on an enormous amount of things that didn't actually happen. No Sermon on the Mount. No resurrection. No Last Supper, and so on. If nearly every aspect of the earliest Christian church was just legend, invention, fabrication - why couldn't it be based on an invented figure, as well? Why does the existence of Jesus have to be the one thing the early Christian church didn't make up? I've asked you several times and you don't seem to have an answer.
Well I DON'T hold it to be the "one thing" that Christianity didn't make up. Pilate existed. And Herod and his children. And John the Baptist. The Gospels aren't pure fiction like LotR. It's pretty unlikely that the Gospel writers made up the crucifixion since they have to make up stuff to try to absolve the Romans and blame the Jews.
quote:
Well, ok, so then what's the evidence that there's a "historical Jesus" under whom Christianity was a "minor Jewish cult" and not simply something that didn't exist at all? I asked you and you didn't have an answer.
The main reason I haven't been answering in THIS sub-thread is because THIS sub-thread is about the quality of your arguments.
quote:
But it is begging the question, as I've shown. You're using the lack of any evidence for a Christian church contemporary with Jesus Christ as evidence that "under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea." But that can only be true if Jesus existed and was the leader or central figure in a minor Jewish cult.
What you mean is that you can't produce any reason to suppose that there would be surviving records and therefore you are desperately trying to evade that real issue. Jesus' existence isn't the point.
quote:
What is the evidence for that view? I've asked you several times now, and you've replied with various things - the Pauline conversion, the lack of any evidence for a Christianity under Jesus - but none of them are actually evidence for that view.
In fact the circumstances of the Pauline conversion ARE evidence for such a view. We know that there was a Christian cult, too small to leave a trace in official records - yet large enough to attract the attention of an amateur zealot out to persecute them - within a few years of the supposed date of Jesus' death. And remember the real issue is YOUR claim that Christianity did NOT exist at that time (which is where you are going with the official records argument). You are going to have to show that a cult which left no official records couldn't have formed a few years earlier than is convenient for your argument. What evidence do YOU have ?
quote:
If I told you that there's a race of Martians with invisible space ships, and you asked me for evidence of that view, it would be utter nonsense of the first degree for me to reply that the fact that nobody's ever seen a Martian space ship is proof that they're invisible. That's begging the question because I've not established the existence of Martians or their space ships; I've simply presented an ad hoc explanation for the lack of any evidence for them.
That's clearly nonsense but it's exactly what you're doing with this "minor Jewish cult under Jesus" nonsense. Why should I believe that a Jesus existed who was the leader of a minor Jewish cult? What evidence exists for this position? Please be specific.
OK so you think that ordinary humans are equivalent to "invisible martians". I'm not asking you to accept anything implausible at all, so that comparison is obvious nonsense.
Secondly that argument is not about accepting the existence of Jesus at all. I've told you that often enough. But I suppose you have to cling desperately to your red herring because without it, what have you got ?
So all it comes down to is the question of whether we should expect there to be records or not. We've got reason to think that Christianity likely existed at that time. We have reason to think that if it did it would not be likely to leave official records. Therefore the lack of official records cannot be a valid argument against the existence of Christianity circa 30 AD.
quote:
Right, because that's how we test hypotheses - we examine their necessary consequences, and then inspect to see if those consequences are counterfactual.
But when I presented an argument that did exactly that, you claimed that it was wrong. If it's right, why object ?
quote:
And that's exactly what happens with every necessary consequence of the historical Jesus view that isn't also a consequence of the mythical Jesus view - we find that every consequence is necessarily something that doesn't seem to have happened.
Please support this assertion. So far it looks like you are concentrating on things which are NOT necessary consequences of the existence of a historical Jesus. For instance we should expect that we would NOT have an official record of the crucifixion of Jesus whether Jesus existed or not, because we don't have any such records from the right time and place.
quote:
Well, we have a bunch of Paul's letters, don't we? Copies, I mean. We have Paul's correspondence to the early Church passed down as part of the Bible. I assume the Pauline authorship is genuine - that's the consensus view, correct? - though I'm not aware of any of the evidence for that view so I can't defend it. But we don't have any of Jesus's correspondence? The early church saved Paul's stuff but not Jesus? Makes no sense.
Of course there is an obvious explanation that Jesus didn't write letters. As I mention above, according to the Gospels Jesus didn't last very long. Paul's letters are to distant churches which he was trying to keep in hand. It's very unlikely that Christianity had that organised a structure in the first few years of existence, no matter when you date it or who founded it. Even Paul's letters date well after his conversion. So you haven't given any reason to suppose that Jesus would have written any letters worth preserving for doctrinal use as Pauls' were.
quote:
Well, we do have Judean records, if not execution records. And you deny that there was any execution-specific purge of Roman records.
What proportion do we have ? And what is it with your supposed "purge of execution-specific records" anyway ? If we had a lot of other records but were only missing the records of executions that would be an obvious conclusion - but never something anybody would need to assume.
quote:
So perforce the loss of Jesus's execution records must be a coincidence, just as its a coincidence when you flip a fair coin five times and its heads each time. If you flip it a sixth time and it comes up heads again, that's a coincidence too unless you have some reason to believe the coin is heads-specific, which would mean it was an unfair coin.
You're not making a lot of sense here. Are you arguing FOR a purge of execution-specific records ? Are you arguing that there is a 50-50 chance of an execution record for Jesus surviving when none of the others did ? There's no need to invoke coincidence if all the execution records are lost as I have already pointed out.
quote:
So, again, unless there was some execution-specific purge of Roman records then the lack of Roman execution records in general is no explanation at all for the lack of Jesus execution records. It can't be, unless you have some reason to believe that there's some shared reason for the lack of execution records. But if there's no connection, the loss of records not related to Jesus can't explain the loss of records related to Jesus, just as five flips of a fair coin coming up heads doesn't have anything to do with whether it'll come up heads on the sixth.
You really are talking nonsense here Crash. If you think that a purge is needed to explain why ALL such records have been lost then YOU must propose a purge, because they HAVE been lost. If it isn't necessary then neither of us has to propose one. And it would be a MASSIVE coincidence if the execution record for Jesus was the ONLY one surviving. Enough of one that I would immediately suspect a forgery if any such document was produced.
quote:
What "contextual facts identify LotR as fiction"? The fact that it's sold as fiction?
That's nothing more than a reflection of the popular consensus that LotR is fiction, but that's nothing more than the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. If I moved all the copies of the Bible in my local bookstore over to the fiction section, would that be a prima facie case against the existence of a historical Jesus, by virtue of "contextual facts"?
The fact that it is published as fiction is an obvious one (and not one you can change by simply reshelving books). All the books on the writing of LotR and the development of Tolkien's Middle Earth would constitute more evidence. Then there is the clearly fantastic setting which doesn't fit into known history at all. Really Crash, do you think of such things ?
quote:
What was shown is that everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wouldn't be called "Jesus Christ", because that's a combination of a Greek translation of a Hebrew name, plus a title. You've said that, Mod said that, a couple people have popped in here to tell me it again. Everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wasn't called "Jesus Christ."
By which you mean that he was called "Jesus Christ" except in a narrow literalistic meaning of the phrase. But I am sorry for calling you ignorant since it is clear that you know that your argument is bogus.
quote:
Well, ok. Would a proponent of the historical Jesus care to present evidence for that view? Would you like to, PaulK?
Since you actually quoted some of it, perhaps you would like to answer that which has already been provided. Which IS a common argument that the crucifixion was a historical event.
quote:
Well, it's one more aspect of the Biblical Jesus that turns out to be mythical, and every part of the Jesus biography that turns out to be mythical lends probability to the correctness of the mythical Jesus position. If 99% of the supposed characteristics and biography of Jesus are myths, why isn't it reasonable to extend that to his existence, as well? It's a natural progression.
But it isn't true that 99% is mythical, nor is it valid to use ordinary characteristics of ancient history to argue that the subject of an ancient document did not exist. Remember you can't use things that we would expect to be true EVEN IF there were a historical Jesus as an argument against a historical Jesus,. Although you keep trying.
quote:
What are the minimal requirements that a person would have to exhibit to be considered the "historical Jesus"? If the answer is none, then how is Lou from New Jersey not Santa Claus?
There would be no specific set list, although founding Christianity would be very important (and hard to do without). But let's say that there was a preacher, named Yeshua, from Galilee who followed roughly the path described in the Gospels (minus genuine miracles and supernatural events), had parents named Mary and Joseph (or rather the Hebrew equivalents) founded Christianity and was executed by the Romans - why wouldn't we call him the historical Jesus ?
quote:
I have the same case I've always had: there's no evidence that supports the existence of a "historical Jesus." If I'm wrong about that, then by all means present the evidence.
In other words your case was founded on a false assumption from the start. The Gospels ARE evidence of a historical Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 7:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 12:33 PM PaulK has replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 232 of 560 (617768)
05-31-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
05-30-2011 7:49 PM


Names and Roman Records
What was shown is that everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wouldn't be called "Jesus Christ", because that's a combination of a Greek translation of a Hebrew name, plus a title. You've said that, Mod said that, a couple people have popped in here to tell me it again. Everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wasn't called "Jesus Christ."
I've never asserted otherwise and I'm not "ignorant" of anything. When I characterize the "historic Jesus Christ" as someone who wasn't named Jesus Christ, that's a completely accurate way to portray the "historic Jesus Christ" position.
But it would also be accurate to say that Confucius wasn't called Confucius, Mencius wasn't called Mencius, Ghengis Khan wasn't called Ghengis Khan, Charles IV wasn't called Charles IV, Charlemagne wasn't called Charlemagne, Zoroaster wasn't called Zoroaster, Tamerlane wasn't called Tamerlane etc. etc. etc. All these facts are true, but aren't in any way relevant to a discussion of the historicity of these people.
crashfrog writes:
Well, we do have Judean records, if not execution records. And you deny that there was any execution-specific purge of Roman records.
Are you sure about the records? I've been doing my best to find anything about surviving administrative records of Roman Judaea, and have come up with nothing. Our source information at the time is primarily the gospels, Josephus, Philo and the writings of a few Roman authors. And this is a good deal of surviving information, when compared to the Empire as a whole.
When people write lists of Roman governers or recount the history of some events in the early Empire, they draw on the writings of ancient historians and other writers that have been copied down through the years, not on some sort of offical government documentation. These sorts of records simply don't exist, as far as I can tell. Show me where I should be looking, if I'm wrong.
Edited by caffeine, : Accidentally included a lot of extra text from the quoted post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 7:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 11:57 AM caffeine has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 560 (617776)
05-31-2011 10:07 AM


On Records
Much has been made over the existence of official execution records and what can be said about Jesus based on them (or on the lack of them). Here, I believe, is a fairly simple and straightforward breakdown of how official records can fit in to the debate on an historical Jesus:
  1. If we possessed all records of Roman executions from about the first half of the first century in Palestine, then:
    If there was an historical Jesus (who by definition was executed), we will have a record of it.
    We don't have a record of it.
    There was no historical Jesus.
    or...
    If there was an historical Jesus (who by definition was executed), we will have a record of it.
    We do have a record of it.
    Nothing can be said about the historical Jesus on the basis of execution records (unless we knew all such records to be genuine).
  2. If we possessed no records of Roman executions from about the first half of the first century in Palestine, then:
    If there was an historical Jesus (who by definition was executed), we won't have a record of it.
    We don't have a record of it.
    Nothing can be said about the historical Jesus on the basis of execution records.
  3. If we possessed some records of Roman executions from about the first half of the first century in Palestine, then:
    If there was an historical Jesus (who by definition was executed), we might or might not have a record of it.
    We don't have a record of it.
    Nothing can be said about the historical Jesus on the basis of execution records.
    or...
    If there was an historical Jesus (who by definition was executed), we might or might not have a record of it.
    We do have a record of it.
    Nothing can be said about the historical Jesus on the basis of execution records.
I think we all can agree that we are sitting most likely in scenario #2 when it comes to records, or maybe scenario #3. In either case, it should be clear that due to the damaging passage of time, scenario #1 is impossible.
Thus, the absence of an official execution record cannot be used to disprove the existence of an historical Jesus. So long as we reside in scenario 2 or 3 (which are the only reasonable scenarios in which to reside), then such an argument must by definition be illogical. If we want to argue that we reside in scenario 1, then I'd say such an argument would clearly be unreasonable. I don't see that point being argued here, though.
In either event, there is no reason to accept the lack of and execution record for Jesus as evidence against the existence of an historical Jesus. None.
Jon

Love your enemies!

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 234 of 560 (617783)
05-31-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by PaulK
05-28-2011 5:49 AM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
We have evidence that must be explained. That explanation may or may not involve a historical Jesus. We choose the best explanation. As I have stated, the Gospels are prima facie evidence for a historical Jesus, so it is up to proponents of a mythical Jesus to present a better explanation. I have not seen one, and all this argument about defaults amounts to no more than an insistence that we should pretend that the evidence does not exist.
I most certainly not saying that we should pretend that the evidence does not exist.
Let me try this another way. Absent any evidence do you believe that the null hypothesis should be that there was no historical Jesus?
Do you then believe that the gospels are enough evidence to invalidate that hypothesis?
If so why? Where do our standards of evidence come from that says that prima facie evidence is enough to push us into a new paradigm?
These are honest questions. I am in fact trying to learn from you.
Thanks
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2011 5:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 1:51 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 235 of 560 (617788)
05-31-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Modulous
05-27-2011 6:36 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
That's not the consensus view of scholars, but it might be true.
Well, maybe we should be more specific. I mainly consider the gospels to be the books that are relevant to this discussion. It was my understanding that scholars believe that Mark was first, Matthew and Luke derived from Mark + Q and perhaps a document of parables. I can't recall of the top of my head what I remember about John but I do remember some discussion about it also being derived.
What do you mean when you said, "not the consensus view of scholars"? Are you talking about other books of the NT? If so, how are those relevant to the historicity of Jesus? Paul doesn't give hardly a whit of detail of Jesus' life and it only gets more and more removed from there on.
Paul's main advantage is that he was in the area very shortly after the purported events, quite likely as a skeptic. He doesn't tell us much in the way of biography. He was a contemporary of Jesus, though he obviously never met him. Luke and he state that Paul met someone(s) that he was persuaded had met Jesus. Hardly a nugget of historical gold, but there you go.
Hardly a nugget is right. Should we not be skeptical of someone who outright admits never to have met a historical Jesus? I sense that I very well could be missing something here but I don't see how Paul is a very good source for a historical Jesus at all.
the contents of which are occasionally counter to the anticipated agenda of the authors
I am curious about this part. What sources are those? Who contemporary to Jesus writes about him counter to his agenda?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 05-27-2011 6:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 3:53 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 236 of 560 (617789)
05-31-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Jon
05-31-2011 1:37 AM


Re: Consequentially Jesus
With a character who was so unimportant in his day, it is really difficult to say much more about him other than to say that he was just another apocalyptic Jewish preacher whose followers believed to be the Messiah and who was then executed by the Romans.
In the sense that such folk were a dime a dozen in first century Palestine, you are absolutely right in thinking that Jesus was hardly unique at all.
I have no problem if you want to say that it is likely that Jesus derives from some roaming Jewish Cynic. I only question that, if that is true, that we should call that unknown person the "Historical Jesus".
The biggest part of the Jesus movement is that he is always regarded as the Messiah. Even if a small group of Jews had invented the story wholesale about a suffering savior, the chances of them giving him the title 'Messiah' are close to zero. Very close.
Why? And how did you come up with the chances being close to zero?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 1:37 AM Jon has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 237 of 560 (617793)
05-31-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Jon
05-31-2011 1:37 AM


Re: Consequentially Jesus
This fails to address the point that Jesus didn't save anything or anyone.
I fail to see how it fails to address that point. By definition a mythical savior would not have saved anything or anybody. The "mythical Jesus" position is just as consistent with the lack of a genuine Jewish messiah as the "historical Jesus", in fact, much more so.
In fact it's an as-yet unaddressed failure of the "historical Jesus" perspective to explain how a "real Jesus", denuded of any and all characteristics as described in the gospels, could possibly have become the center of a major world religion in the first place.
He just got executed.
What's your evidence that he was executed?
The existence of an historical Jesus isn't a conclusion: it's a premise.
Well, no. It's a position which you are attempting to defend, and which I am continually asking for the evidence for. It's not a premise because it can't simply be assumed.
Crash wants us to drop that premise, but has given us nothing better to replace it with.
Sure I have. I've given you the mythical Jesus position, which better explains both the evidence and the lack of evidence, as I've explained.
You've rejected it on the sole basis that it's not a position that assumes the historicity of Jesus, but as I've explained - that's rather the point.
it is really difficult to say much more about him other than to say that he was just another apocalyptic Jewish preacher whose followers believed to be the Messiah and who was then executed by the Romans.
You say "just another" like there's a double handful of apocalyptic Jewish preachers who were viewed as Messiah - although just above you asserted that the historical Jesus wasn't ever viewed as a messiah, so now I'm confused - who were then executed by the Romans.
But I'm not aware of even a single other such figure. John the Baptist, maybe, for whom there is also no evidence? Who were all these other "apocalyptic Jewish preachers" who were executed by the Romans, and what is the evidence that they existed, were apocalyptic, and were executed by the Romans?
From what can be reconstructed of him, he was absolutely unimportant in his day.
What is the basis for these "reconstructions", then, if there's absolutely no evidence of his existence? What is the difference between your "reconstructions" and mere post-hoc explanations for the lack of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus?
Please be specific.
Even after Jesus died there was still no such thing as Christianity.
Yes, you're right. Which is exactly what I said - there's no evidence for the existence of a Christian church until a decade or two after Jesus is supposed to have lived. That's most consistent with the life story of Jesus being a complete fabrication.
Well, Crash, this has already been addressed.
You're right again. The way it was addressed was that every single "historical Jesus" proponent fell all over themselves to agree with me that the historical Jesus Christ wasn't actually named Jesus Christ, which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time.
I don't understand why everyone is so convinced that I've been totally schooled about this. Literally nobody here is suggesting that the "historical Jesus Christ" was actually named "Jesus Christ", but you all seem to think it's some kind of deception when I describe the historical Jesus Christ as "not named Jesus Christ." Which is exactly what you're telling me is true.
it would never have been a name for someone like Jesus while he was alive.
Yes, again you are correct, because you're saying something that literally everybody including myself already knew. Additionally, "Jesus" is the Greek translation of a Hebrew name. Which I already knew, but had I not, I would have learned it from the three individuals who were so kind as to remind me.
Thus it's completely accurate for me to describe the historic Jesus Christ as "not named Jesus Christ", since one of those isn't even a name and the other is the Greek translation of the name of someone who, we assume, would have spoken Hebrew.
Aside from the execution, none of these things are defining characteristics of an historical Jesus.
So what are the "defining characteristics" of a "historical Jesus" who wasn't named Jesus, and how do we know that a person existed who had those characteristics? What's the evidence?
Because there's now a Christianity? If that's your "evidence" it's better explained by a fictional Jesus.
Since you've offered no alternative explanations yet, the Historical Jesus hypothesis stands uncontested, and so there can be no matters of parsimony that would cause us to reject an historical Jesus.
This is a falsehood, since I've contested it with the position of a mythical Jesus.
As I've already mentioned (along with others here), the Jesus movement's messianic beliefs are almost 100% counter to any messianic beliefs before or since.
And that contradicts the existence of a historical Jesus, as I've repeatedly explained. How could a Jesus who wasn't the messiah, who everybody knew wasn't the messiah, who was in fact not special in any way, possibly form the basis of a major world religion? Since you've stripped the "historical Jesus" of literally everything about him that would be attractive as a focus of religious devotion then how could he possibly become the focus of religious devotion?
No - much more reasonable that Jesus never existed. Much more reasonable that Jesus is a legend into which the early Christian church simply poured its own hopes and needs. Much more reasonable that Jesus Christ is a cypher who was created to serve a specific religious need - not the need of Jews but the needs of Christians, hence Jesus being the messiah of Christians and not of Jews, as you continually remind us he is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 1:37 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 1:35 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 238 of 560 (617796)
05-31-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by caffeine
05-31-2011 8:54 AM


Re: Names and Roman Records
But it would also be accurate to say that Confucius wasn't called Confucius, Mencius wasn't called Mencius, Ghengis Khan wasn't called Ghengis Khan, Charles IV wasn't called Charles IV, Charlemagne wasn't called Charlemagne, Zoroaster wasn't called Zoroaster, Tamerlane wasn't called Tamerlane etc. etc. etc.
Well, no, none of this is accurate. Confucious was called Confucious, that just wasn't his name. Ghengis Khan was called Ghengis Khan. Charles IV was called Charles IV and when he became king that was his name. (Just like Prince William's name actually is "Prince William", and when he goes by "William Wales" or "William Mountbatten-Windsor to sound like a normal person, that's actually an alias.)
All of those people were called by those names either during their lives or in the period immediately following their deaths, so it's 100% inaccurate to say that they were not. But the proponents of the "historical Jesus" propose an individual who was not referred to as Jesus Christ until many centuries after his supposed existence.
Again it's amazing to me that we're still on about the historical Jesus Christ not being called "Jesus Christ" since every single response challenging that has been somebody falling all over themselves to agree that the historical Jesus Christ was certainly not called "Jesus Christ" and therefore that my statement that he was not is 100% accurate.
If you don't believe that's relevant then consider it an empty rhetorical flourish; partly I like saying it because it's 100% true and apparently drives you guys up the wall. But it's not necessary for everybody to constantly interrupt me to tell me how right I am when I say that the "historical Jesus Christ" wasn't actually called Jesus Christ.
These sorts of records simply don't exist, as far as I can tell.
So then there's even less evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ than I thought!
How can you guys not be getting this? A lack of evidence lends support to my position, not to yours. If the only way there's "evidence" for the existence of Jesus is to turn the normal rules of evidence on their heads, then there's no evidence for Jesus Christ. After all, by that basis there's the same amount of evidence that "Life of Brian" was a documentary. Who says there can't have been a Jewish Cynic who was executed by the Romans after he was briefly captured by aliens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by caffeine, posted 05-31-2011 8:54 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 2:08 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 244 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 2:12 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 276 by caffeine, posted 06-01-2011 6:42 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 560 (617803)
05-31-2011 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by PaulK
05-31-2011 2:43 AM


Re: Execution records
Pauls's conversion is apparently dated to within a few years of the supposed life of Jesus (the dates of 31-36 AD given by Wikipedia look on the early side to me but 33-36 seems viable, depending on the date assigned to Jesus' death).
Ok, well, now you're directly contradicting Jon who insists that there was no early Christian church until decades after Jesus's supposed death. (If the crucifixion was supposedly in 33AD, which is what I thought everybody accepted, then there's no way Paul could have converted to a religion that wouldn't have existed for two years in 31AD, or have persecuted any Christians beforehand.)
Do you think you "historical Jesus" proponents could gather amongst yourselves and produce an agreed-upon timeline of the history of the early Church, so that I don't get whiplash? Thanks.
Because we have evidence of existence.
So you keep saying, but I can't get you to show me any of it!
What is this evidence for the existence of Jesus? Please be specific.
What official records do we have for the existence of Christianity in the years that Paul was persecuting Christians ? Or in the years immediately following his conversion ?
How the hell should I know? You tell me. What evidence do we have for those things that leads us to believe that Paul really was persecuting Christians and really did convert?
You need to show that Jesus really is a "needless entity" (i.e. an unnecessary assumption)
Well, I have. I've demonstrated that the mythical Jesus explains all of the available evidence of the existence of Jesus - to wit, that people in the first century were telling each other stories about a guy we would later call "Jesus". All of that can be explained by a mythical Jesus, just as all the John Frum stories can be explained by a mythical John Frum and the mythical Jesus Malverde stories can be explained by a mythical Jesus Malverde. And those are only two examples that happened in the 20th century.
Well I DON'T hold it to be the "one thing" that Christianity didn't make up. Pilate existed. And Herod and his children.
Does the existence of Great Britain prove that Casino Royale is a documentary? Surely not. Even Shakespeare knew to set his fiction in real places. I've been to Verona, Italy but that hardly lends historical veracity to Romeo and Juliet.
The significance of real people and places appearing in fiction isn't evidence of anything but a skilled storyteller, who knows to pepper his stories with authenticity to increase their impact to he audience.
It's pretty unlikely that the Gospel writers made up the crucifixion since they have to make up stuff to try to absolve the Romans and blame the Jews.
I don't see how this follows, you'll have to elaborate. I don't see how making up stuff to blame Jews somehow establishes the veracity of the Gospels in this regard. Isn't it just more likely that the Gospels are fiction that just happens to attack Jews? It wouldn't be the first time people have made things up to attack Jews.
I'm not asking you to accept anything implausible at all, so that comparison is obvious nonsense.
Well, but you are - you're asking me to accept the existence of a historical Jesus, which I've demonstrated is implausible to say the least.
Absolutely the existence of a historical Jesus Christ is every bit as implausible as the existence of Martians in invisible space ships.
If it's right, why object ?
It's not right.
Are you arguing FOR a purge of execution-specific records ?
Not at all. You are, by implication.
If there was no execution-specific or Judea-specific purge of Roman records, then all the records were lost coincidentally. And if it's all just a coincidence that all the records are gone, then there's no reason that the lack of execution records or records from Judea should imply that there may have been a Jesus execution record that also was lost - just as five heads in a row on a coin specified as "fair" doesn't imply anything about the result of a sixth toss, making a sixth heads result a complete coincidence.
Are you arguing that there is a 50-50 chance of an execution record for Jesus surviving when none of the others did ?
No. I'm arguing that the odds of the loss of a Jesus-specific execution record are unrelated to the number of documents that survive in total, once you've stipulated that there was no purposeful purge of execution-related or Judea-related (or any other characteristic-related) documents.
That it's just a coincidence that both Jesus-specific and Jesus-nonspecific documents are missing, once you've stipulated that there was no effort made to purge those types of documents.
By definition that's true, PaulK. The only way that the lack of documents in general would lend support to the lack of documents specific to Jesus is if the two are somehow related - by a specific purge. But you keep insisting that there was no purge. You keep insisting that it's a coincidence.
Thus, the lack of documents from the era is no explanation at all for the lack of documents related to Jesus. No more than a sixth heads is related to the first five on the toss of a fair coin. That's what "fair" means. By definition these things are true.
The fact that it is published as fiction is an obvious one (and not one you can change by simply reshelving books).
But again, the fact that it is published as fiction is nothing but a reflection of the popular consensus - the argumentum ad populum - that the work is fiction. Similarly that a book is published as non-fiction reflects nothing but the popular consensus that the work is non-fiction.
But that consensus isn't evidence. For instance, John Frey's A Million Little Pieces, published as a non-fiction memoir, achieved wide notoriety when it was revealed that most of it was actually fabricated. The same thing is happening to Greg Mortensen's Three Cups of Tea.
So the classification of a book is not in any way a reliable guide to the truth or falsity of the claims made therein. Thus the fact that the Gospels claim that there was a real Jesus who existed is not a prima facie case for anything; it's only evidence that the claims have been made, not evidence that they are true.
Really Crash, do you think of such things ?
PaulK, don't be a total idiot. Obviously I don't think that LotR is anything but a work of fiction. Everybody knows it's a work of fiction despite the fact that the preface claims that the book is a true translation of the Red Book, which itself is the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo Baggins of the Shire. That's a well-known literary device (it's also at the beginning of The Scarlet Letter, for instance.)
What I've successfully demonstrated is that your prima facie case is logically invalid, by argumentum ad absurdum. The same argument that leads you to falsely conclude that the Gospels present a prima facie case for the existence of Jesus would also lead you to conclude that LotR is a work of non-fiction, which you know by other means cannot possibly be the case.
Thus we can dispense with the argument that the Gospels present a prima facie case for the existence of Jesus. In fact, they present only a prima facie case that someone thought Jesus existed which is easily explained by a combination of a mythical Jesus and credulous religious believers.
By which you mean that he was called "Jesus Christ" except in a narrow literalistic meaning of the phrase.
By which I mean, only, that when the individual under discussion was greeted in the street, nobody uttered the words "Jesus Christ, it's Jesus Christ!" when doing so.
It's not an argument, it's just a completely accurate description of the putative characteristics of the "historical Jesus Christ."
Since you actually quoted some of it, perhaps you would like to answer that which has already been provided.
Clearly I've not quoted any of it because none has been presented.
But it isn't true that 99% is mythical, nor is it valid to use ordinary characteristics of ancient history to argue that the subject of an ancient document did not exist.
Of course it's valid to point out that you're engaged in an argument from ignorance, arguing that because a lack of evidence doesn't eliminate the possibility of a historical Jesus, it lends support to the possibility of a historical Jesus.
But it doesn't. That's turning the ordinary rules of evidence on their heads. By the same basis I could argue that Monty Python's Life of Brian is an accidentally-accurate documentary. Hey, there's no Roman execution record for Brian, right? And the "historical Brian" certainly wouldn't be called "Brian" since that's a Celtic name.
There would be no specific set list, although founding Christianity would be very important (and hard to do without).
Again, maybe you could kindly let Jon know? Since he's adamant that the "historic Jesus" didn't actually found Christianity. It's a little difficult to keep up with the arguments for the "historic Jesus" when you can't seem to agree amongst yourself what they actually are.
The Gospels ARE evidence of a historical Jesus.
Already refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 2:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 2:03 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 2:55 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 274 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 7:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 560 (617826)
05-31-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by crashfrog
05-31-2011 11:45 AM


Re: Consequentially Jesus
Sure I have. I've given you the mythical Jesus position, which better explains both the evidence and the lack of evidence, as I've explained.
Your position explains nothing. If it did, you'd be able to demonstrate how it does. You refuse to do this; the best conclusion to draw from your failure is that your explanation is crap.
You say "just another" like there's a double handful of apocalyptic Jewish preachers who were viewed as Messiah - although just above you asserted that the historical Jesus wasn't ever viewed as a messiah, so now I'm confused - who were then executed by the Romans.
No. I never said Jesus wasn't viewed as the Messiah. Never. Once.
What I said was:
quote:
Jon in Message 230:
This fails to address the point that Jesus didn't save anything or anyone. Jesus didn't free the Jews from Roman rule. Jesus didn't restore the temple. Jesus didn't put a davidic king on the throne. And so on.
He just got executed. No saving there.
Do you ever tire of misrepresenting people?
What is the basis for these "reconstructions", then, if there's absolutely no evidence of his existence?
There is evidence. The evidence has been presented. It is high time you bother addressing it.
... there's no evidence for the existence of a Christian church until a decade or two after Jesus is supposed to have lived. That's most consistent with the life story of Jesus being a complete fabrication.
No. It isn't. Even if Jesus were a real person, the developmental time line for the Christian church would be what it was. Thus, you cannot use this as evidence against an historical Jesus, as you've been told many times.
You're right again. The way it was addressed was that every single "historical Jesus" proponent fell all over themselves to agree with me that the historical Jesus Christ wasn't actually named Jesus Christ, which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time.
And this proves nothing. Being named 'Christ' isn't a defining characteristic of an historical Jesus; which explains why historical Jesus proponents don't pay the matter any attention, and why you bringing it up is just a pointless diversion to distract folk from the fact that you have no argument whatsoever.
Thus it's completely accurate for me to describe the historic Jesus Christ as "not named Jesus Christ", since one of those isn't even a name and the other is the Greek translation of the name of someone who, we assume, would have spoken Hebrew.
Absolutely no proponents of the Historical Jesus hypothesis claim that the historical Jesus was named /ʤi.zəs kɹaɪst/ or any allophonic variation thereof. Thus, you are arguing against a position that doesn't exist. Try to stay on topic.
... but you all seem to think it's some kind of deception when I describe the historical Jesus Christ as "not named Jesus Christ."
It is a deception when you attempt to use this fact to argue against the existence of an historical Jesus.
Because there's now a Christianity? If that's your "evidence" it's better explained by a fictional Jesus.
That's not my evidence, and I never claimed it was. Please go and read my post. I'm tired of repeating myself.
This is a falsehood, since I've contested it with the position of a mythical Jesus.
The Mythical Jesus hypothesis explains nothing. And you have not yet shown how it does.
And that contradicts the existence of a historical Jesus, as I've repeatedly explained. How could a Jesus who wasn't the messiah, who everybody knew wasn't the messiah, who was in fact not special in any way, possibly form the basis of a major world religion?
I never said everybody knew Jesus wasn't the Messiah. And I never claimed that he was the basis of a major world religion.
Since you've stripped the "historical Jesus" of literally everything about him that would be attractive as a focus of religious devotion then how could he possibly become the focus of religious devotion?
By being viewed as the Messiah, of course.
No - much more reasonable that Jesus never existed. Much more reasonable that Jesus is a legend into which the early Christian church simply poured its own hopes and needs. Much more reasonable that Jesus Christ is a cypher who was created to serve a specific religious need - not the need of Jews but the needs of Christians, hence Jesus being the messiah of Christians and not of Jews, as you continually remind us he is.
What utter bullshit. Jeesh. I won't even waste my time replying to this nonsense.
Really, Crash, come up with something worthwhile.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 11:45 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 2:35 PM Jon has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024