Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

I agree the "legal" argument is not valid.

For good reasons juries are prevented from hearing weak evidence. The duty a jury is charged with is making a beyond a reasonable doubt decision and evidence that is only weak is not substantially probative with regard to that kind of decision.

However, that is not the kind of issue here. The issue here is to determine roughly the likelihood and nature of an HJ. Even weak evidence can be evaluated for the possibility that it might suggest a possibility or that it might be stronger or weaker than it is generally assumed to be.

What weak evidence of Jesus of Nazareth in the NT are you talking about? Where is it? Is it in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger.....?

We have statements about characters in the NT like John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, King Herod, Tiberius the Emperor, Festus, Agrippa, Bernice, Caiaphas and these characters are found in non-apologetic sources.

There is no evidence at all for a character called Jesus of Nazareth by any contemporary non-apologetic writer of antiquity.

 

[Brainache]

What weak evidence of Jesus of Nazareth in the NT are you talking about? Where is it? Is it in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger.....?

We have statements about characters in the NT like John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, King Herod, Tiberius the Emperor, Festus, Agrippa, Bernice, Caiaphas and these characters are found in non-apologetic sources.

There is no evidence at all for a character called Jesus of Nazareth by any contemporary non-apologetic writer of antiquity.

So what?

 

[dejudge]

No one is being asked to prove anything "beyond reasonable doubt".

You have been asked for the supporting evidence for your HJ and there is no reasonable doubt that you do not have and cannot present any.

 

[IanS]

I agree the "legal" argument is not valid.

For good reasons juries are prevented from hearing weak evidence. The duty a jury is charged with is making a beyond a reasonable doubt decision and evidence that is only weak is not substantially probative with regard to that kind of decision.

However, that is not the kind of issue here. The issue here is to determine roughly the likelihood and nature of an HJ. Even weak evidence can be evaluated for the possibility that it might suggest a possibility or that it might be stronger or weaker than it is generally assumed to be.

I don't think that is actually true though Dave. Juries most certainly can, and very often do, hear extremely weak and highly dubious evidence. Often including quite absurd defences offered by the defendants themselves.

Eg, in the UK trial of the two Islamic extremists who hacked the off-duty soldier to death in Woolwich in London, a trial which ended only a few weeks ago (and a case which you may know, because it made headlines worldwide and was entirely caught on CCTV film), the defendants gave evidence of their own defence which was to claim that they were acting as soldiers of Allah in a religious war, and that they had prayed to Allah prior to choosing the victim, and were convinced that Allah approved of their actions. It did not take the jury long to reject that defence and find them guilty of murder.

But there was nothing to stop those two defendants & their lawyers giving that testimony to the jury in court. That was entirely admissible.

One reason it was admissible was that the defendants were not anonymous and they could be produced to give their testimony in court. And neither was it hearsay from unavailable others. On the contrary the two defendants knew their story of all the events in detail first hand.

A major part of the problem with the gospel evidence, however, is that the writers were all anonymous, and they could not be produced to confirm anything. Unlike the above defendants in court, the gospel authors did not themselves know Jesus at all, and merely had the stories from other entirely anonymous people none of whom were ever quoted or traced ... again entirely unlike the two defendants in court who most definitely did know their own story and the events first-hand.


So it's not true in this case for you to say that they jury are prevented from hearing merely weak evidence. And nor is it true for you to say that because the jury's decision must be made on the basis of being beyond reasonable doubt, that is the reason why they are not allowed to hear anonymous hearsay from witnesses who are unknown and who cannot appear in court to give any evidence at all ... that is not the reason. The reason that sort of evidence, ie anonymous hearsay from unavailable witnesses, is not allowed in court is that it is too unreliable to be considered by the court as credible testimony at all.

As I already said to CraigB in an earlier reply - the legal analogy does not prevent you from considering that unfit anonymous chain of hearsay anyway in the case of the gospels, if you really think that is acceptable to you as credible and reliable evidence. But what I am pointing out is that there is a very clear legal precedent on that sort of evidence showing why it should not be regarded as reliable or credible at all.

 

[Craig B]

As I already said to CraigB in an earlier reply - the legal analogy does not prevent you from considering that unfit anonymous chain of hearsay anyway in the case of the gospels, if you really think that is acceptable to you as credible and reliable evidence. But what I am pointing out is that there is a very clear legal precedent on that sort of evidence showing why it should not be regarded as reliable or credible at all.

What is it then? An analogy or a principle applicable to the critical analysis of the gospels? The two things are different. What in God's name do clear legal precedents have to do with it? The standard of evidence required to send someone to prison is not applicable in analysis of ancient literary sources. Nobody here is claiming the sort of certainty desirable in a court of law. What is being discussed is a probability of a hypothesis. In consideration of that, the Bible is valid evidence, or the NT contains useful information that may throw light in this question. Courts of law rightly don't work that way. They have the obligation as well as the luxury of throwing out an abundance of evidence simply because it doesn't meet these standards, while scholars of ancient religions carefully sift every item for the slightest clue. Detectives, not judges.

 

[dejudge]

What is it then? An analogy or a principle applicable to the critical analysis of the gospels? The two things are different. What in God's name do clear legal precedents have to do with it? The standard of evidence required to send someone to prison is not applicable in analysis of ancient literary sources. Nobody here is claiming the sort of certainty desirable in a court of law. What is being discussed is a probability of a hypothesis. In consideration of that, the Bible is valid evidence, or the NT contains useful information that may throw light in this question. Courts of law rightly don't work that way. They have the obligation as well as the luxury of throwing out an abundance of evidence simply because it doesn't meet these standards, while scholars of ancient religions carefully sift every item for the slightest clue. Detectives, not judges.

What is discussed here is the evidence to support the arguments.

These are the two fundamental opposing arguments.

1. Jesus of Nazareth was most likely a figure of mythology.

2. Jesus of Nazareth was most likely a figure of history.

Now, it is time to PRESENT the EVIDENCE from antiquity to support the arguments.

So far those who argue for HJ can only say PLENTY PEOPLE believe there was an HJ--THAT is their evidence.

HJers seem not to understand what evidence from antiquity means.

The very Christian and Apologetics sources of antiquity, the very evidence from ancient writers admit that Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator without a human father.

How in the world can it be argued that Jesus was human without a shred of evidence from any source?

If this matter was attempted to be brought to trial the HJ argument would be dismissed immediately.

 

[JaysonR]

Yes, I do appreciate your further clarification on that. In your late opinion where do you believe that BT would fit properly?

In quantative comparisons.
For example, examining efficient use of where to dig next in archaeology based on previous digs and geographical types indicative of the type of site you are looking for, similar to the use by artillery.
Or in textual comparison to see if sample A text is by the same identity as text set B, such as was employed in verifying the Federalist Papers (also useful when handwriting itself is not able tobe compared for varying reasons).

One could also compare like events, such as the possibility that X happened given like events of substantial number; does X appear to be like other known events?

What I do not think it is helpful in is in spitting out a probability for event X when X is so unique as to be nearly the only event of its kind, or of which other events like it, while inferred from second hand in passing as existent, are not on equal quantative data as to influence usefully in the comparison as verifiable data to check against.

And certainly not for open ended comparison, not against like data, but data against logical assumptions or propositions, or just against itself.

 

[Craig B]

... If this matter was attempted to be brought to trial the HJ argument would be dismissed immediately.

Yes indeedy. That's what I more of less meant when I stated that people studying this sort of question are detectives, not judges. The practices of courts of law are not appropriate here. Are they? Surely you're not saying they are!

 

[Brainache]

Yes indeedy. That's what I more of less meant when I stated that people studying this sort of question are detectives, not judges. The practices of courts of law are not appropriate here. Are they? Surely you're not saying they are!

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed breach of rule 0/rule 12; name calling is never civil/polite nor does it address the argument.

 

[Belz...]

The standard of evidence required to send someone to prison is not applicable in analysis of ancient literary sources. Nobody here is claiming the sort of certainty desirable in a court of law.

Well said.

 

[The Norseman]

In quantative comparisons.
For example, examining efficient use of where to dig next in archaeology based on previous digs and geographical types indicative of the type of site you are looking for, similar to the use by artillery.
Or in textual comparison to see if sample A text is by the same identity as text set B, such as was employed in verifying the Federalist Papers (also useful when handwriting itself is not able tobe compared for varying reasons).

One could also compare like events, such as the possibility that X happened given like events of substantial number; does X appear to be like other known events?

What I do not think it is helpful in is in spitting out a probability for event X when X is so unique as to be nearly the only event of its kind, or of which other events like it, while inferred from second hand in passing as existent, are not on equal quantative data as to influence usefully in the comparison as verifiable data to check against.

And certainly not for open ended comparison, not against like data, but data against logical assumptions or propositions, or just against itself.

I understood BT to do exactly that as you said at the last. I wish I had more time to read! I fear I am outgunned at the moment, so I'm afraid I'll have to try and pick this up later.

 

[JaysonR]

It is and is not, Noresman.
Bayes' thought experiment was his back to a table.
His assistant tosses a ball on the table.
He then tosses another.
If the second ball is to the left of the first, then the possibility that the first is on the right side of the table somewhat increases.
If anither ball is thrown and is to the left of the first, then the liklihood of the first being on the right side of the table is now increased more....etc...etc...

What it can't do is tell you the accurate possibility of a ball being on the right side with just one ball.

If it could do that, then Turing would need only one pass and one bit of data; clearly that was not enough.

 

[The Norseman]

It is and is not, Noresman.
Bayes' thought experiment was his back to a table.
His assistant tosses a ball on the table.
He then tosses another.
If the second ball is to the left of the first, then the possibility that the first is on the right side of the table somewhat increases.
If anither ball is thrown and is to the left of the first, then the liklihood of the first being on the right side of the table is now increased more....etc...etc...

What it can't do is tell you the accurate possibility of a ball being on the right side with just one ball.

If it could do that, then Turing would need only one pass and one bit of data; clearly that was not enough.

Thank you again. Looks like I have much more internetting to do regarding BT.

 

[JaysonR]

You might learn more about the function of BT by looking up criticism of BT.
It could be a faster means of understanding the functional boundaries of BT; not sure, but worth a shot.

 

[maximara]

Well I have answered that objection several times before. We can’t keep going around in the same circles. But claimed evidence like that is ruled out entirely in courts, because it’s too unreliable for use by any Jury.

And it’s too unreliable for serious consideration here too, for all the same well established reasons that have been so carefully decided in law.

As I said before Josh McDowell 's idea of using a trial to try and show Jesus existed was one of the dumber things that the HJ supporters have come up with.

The further you get from the introduction of the printing press the more "indirect witnesses" and oral tradition (which as hearsay would get laughed out of most courts) have to be used.

Take the Vinland sagas written some 200 years after the events they describe for example. They are our only written source regarding the Norse colonization of the Americas so the historian is stuck using them.

The Historia Augusta is another example.

Suetonius Twelve Caesars is not only based on imperial archives but also gossip. In fact, Suetonius lost access to the imperial archives shortly after starting writing the work so it is not clear where much of the information on the rulers is coming from. But it is the god to work for most of the information we have on these rulers.

 

[JaysonR]

There us no sense in comparing History to Law as a means of making since of History.
Law is not History, nor the way History is conducted.

It is rather like using a hydron collider to evaluate paleological DNA.

 

[dejudge]

I have asked elsewhere, and I will take this opportunity to ask again. Do you agree with dejudge's view that the entire NT is a fictional fabrication concocted by miscreants for unstated purposes centuries later than the dates of the events it relates? If you don't agree with this, what do you propose as a hypothesis regarding its origin?

Please, please, please!!! I have not authorized you to make such erroneous claims about my position.

You very well know that Scholars who study the NT claim the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and are NOT eyewitness accounts.

You should first read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? page 181-182.

Bart Ehrman admitted that the NT is riddled with forgeries or falsely attributed writings.

In fact, based on Ehrman, there are forged or falsely attributed writings under the names of all the authors in the NT.

The authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude have never ever been found in the history of mankind outside Apologetics.

It would appear they instantly vanished from the face of the earth immediately after they wrote.

 

[dejudge]

There us no sense in comparing History to Law as a means of making since of History.
Law is not History, nor the way History is conducted.

It is rather like using a hydron collider to evaluate paleological DNA.

You seem not to understand what a court trial is.

In a court trial one is really doing "History".

People present evidence of past events.

People present physical evidence of past events.

People visit the location where the events occurred.

People make statements about what they saw and heard about those past events.

The Jurors attempt to reconstruct the Past using the very evidence that was presented in the court trial.

Historians do the very same thing.

Historians use physical evidence, artifacts, archaeological findings , written statements in manuscripts, visit locations, interview people to make a determination about what PROBABLY happened in the PAST.

Bayes Theorem ONLY provides a NUMERICAL Value for Probability.

For example, if one claims Jesus probably existed then when we apply the data, or evidence to Bayes Theorem the probability may still exist but it may be less than 1%.

Bayes Theorem is not about certainty--it is about probability.

What is the probability that a character in the NT was human who was the Son of God, born of a Ghost, walked on the sea, instantly transfigured before he resurrected on the third day??

Let us put a figure to the probability of HJ.

Let us do the Math.

Do we have the Data for human beings whose father was a Holy Ghost?

Do we have the Data for human beings who Walked on the Sea?

Do we have the Data for human beings who instantly transfigured?

Do we have the Data for human beings who resurrected on the Third day?

The numerical value for the probability of HJ using Bayes Theorem is going to be extremely low perhaps less than 1%.

 

[pakeha]

You might learn more about the function of BT by looking up criticism of BT.
It could be a faster means of understanding the functional boundaries of BT; not sure, but worth a shot.

That's good advice for learning about anything on the Web-research the criticisms or debunking of the subject in question.

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge,

I am not going to engage in discourse with you, as such has served to be entirely unpleasant and fruitless, but I found your assessment of my familiarity with Law amusing since I grew up in a court house library thanks to my mother being a paralegal secretary.

Your character judgements are surely queer.
I will not address the rest of your post, perhaps someone else will.