Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Foster Zygote]

We talk about Joe Smith getting the good word through the angel Moroni which is directly analogous to Paul getting the good word through the risen Christ. Why do people insist that because Joe Smith was a real person then Jesus was a real person too?

I am not analogizing Mormonism and Christianity generically. My intent is to point out that dejudge's simplistic objection that mythical elements in a religious narrative cannot be fabricated around real individuals.

Dejudge's argument boils down to this:

"The Christian narratives about Jesus contain supernatural claims, therefor Jesus never actually existed."

My counter argument is this:

"The Mormon narrative about Joseph Smith also contains supernatural claims, but we are certain that Joseph Smith actually existed. Therefor dejudge's argument is invalid.

I am not arguing that Joseph Smith existed, therefor Jesus existed. It's possible that Jesus was mythical, but even if he was, dejudge's above argument is a fallacious way of attempting to establish this mythical nature as fact.

When people look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions, maybe the method used is faulty. Maybe these differing conclusions means there is no consensus though the opposite is constantly stated with firm absolutism.

Yes, that's why I say that whatever the origin of Christianity was is open to debate. There simply isn't enough evidence to be able to say exactly what happened. The most I will say is that, based on the available evidence, it seems quite likely to me that there was a delusional religious figure known as Jeshua who was put to death by the Romans and mythologized by at least some of his followers so as to avoid admitting that their religious movement was false, and the mythologization snowballed from there.

Would you say that if a person said, "Jesus exists. Period." they are stating it with epistemological certainty?

I would ask, "How do you know that?", or I might ask to see his time machine, because there is just no way of knowing that right now, and probably never.

What would it take for you to invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus?

Some proof that an apocalyptic rabbi could not have been executed by the Romans and then mythologized and reinvented by subsequent generations of superstitious people.

When, approximately -- in your view -- did the superstitious members begin to participate in this spread of Christianity? Was it during the very beginning of Christianity as we know it or maybe at a later date?

If you mean the educated rhetoricians who could compose manuscripts in Koine Greek, then it was almost certainly years later. Maybe Jesus had associates within the broader religious movement who were scribes, and could have written down some of his teachings and/or sayings, such as the Q hypothesis. But Q is still only speculative. It seems almost certain that the author of Mark was adapting stories that had been handed down through decades of oral tradition. One thought that's occurred to me is that Paul, as an educated writer, may well have written about the Jesus movement prior to his conversion, and that any such writings would make for fascinating reading.

 

[Belz...]

First thing - "everyone" most certainly does not believe that the biblical stories of Jesus have a "historical core".

What he means is that there is a historical source for the religion, one way or another.

 

[maximara]

I am not analogizing Mormonism and Christianity generically. My intent is to point out that dejudge's simplistic objection that mythical elements in a religious narrative cannot be fabricated around real individuals.

Dejudge's argument boils down to this:

"The Christian narratives about Jesus contain supernatural claims, therefor Jesus never actually existed."

My counter argument is this:

"The Mormon narrative about Joseph Smith also contains supernatural claims, but we are certain that Joseph Smith actually existed. Therefor dejudge's argument is invalid.

I am not arguing that Joseph Smith existed, therefor Jesus existed. It's possible that Jesus was mythical, but even if he was, dejudge's above argument is a fallacious way of attempting to establish this mythical nature as fact.

As I said before for me the supernatural stuff has never been a deciding point and I have even gave the example of Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn as an example of a known historical person being used in a fantastical impossible story.

In fact I pointed out that my issues with the Jesus story are NOT on the supernatural stuff but on the nonsupernatural elements (If we are to reject Jesus as having any historical basis we must do NOT just on the merits of the fantastical things attributed to him. It is when the non mythical parts of the Jesus story don't fit with history as we know it that we can say that something here doesn't add up.):

1) Matthew describes Herod going on a child killing rampage about 2 years after Jesus parents have gone to Egypt while Luke expressly states they went to temple every year. No one else talks about Herod going on a child killing rampage.

2) The scope of Luke's census is anachronistic...the closest census of that scope was in 74 CE. The moving around of people of a census makes little sense from a logistic matter.

3) The Sanhedrin trial account is totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century.

4) Pontius Pilate is totally out of character based on other accounts. Moreover it is never really explained in the Bible why if Jesus' only crime was blasphemy why Pilate would need to be involved. If Jesus crime has been sedition then there would be no reason for Pilate to involve Herod Antipas.

5) Jesus preaches in the open so there is no need for the whole Judus betrayal. Some one mentioned an account where Pilate sent soldiers into a group causing problems and on a prearraigned signal the soldiers started killing them until the group disbursed.

6) The crucified were left to rot as a warning to others unless there was intervention on the behalf of an important person per The Life Of Flavius Josephus (75)

7) Given Jesus short time on the cross and reports of him being out an about after word certainly the Roman might have wondered if they had been tricked yet there is nothing in the reports of the Romans acting in this matter. Carrier describe how the Romans would have handled the situation and it is totally at odds with the account in Acts.

8) the Roman Empire was the most literate in the ancient world ("no one, either free or slave, could afford to be illiterate" (Di Renzo, A (2000) “His master's voice: Tiro and the rise of the roman secretarial class,” Journal of technical writing and communication, vol. 30, (2) 155-168) and yet not one known contemporary of Jesus writes anything about him. In fact, no Churchman even mentioned anything regarding the actual account in the Gospels until c130 CE. Paul who supposedly met Jesus' brother give us no real details in the seven letters agreed to be his-rather they are the same vague broad outlines we see for John Frum who likely started out as an idea rather then a person.

No one of these points is a major deciding point but taken together they suggest that if Jesus did exist he was a short lived preacher who exploits were wildly exaggerated many decades latter. But if that is the case is there anything in the Gospel account we can trust as even remotely accurate?

 

[IanS]

Is there some reason why you didn't include the next sentence?

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote
What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty.


That makes it pretty clear that I am saying that Christianity obviously has an historical origin, or it wouldn't exist today, and that no one in this thread has, as implied by dejudge, stated that they believe without any reservation that the only possible origin lies with an historical Jesus. I could have attributed your response to poor reading comprehension had I only written what you quoted. But the next sentence makes so clear my intent that I can only surmise that you omitted it so that you could beat up on a strawman.

But the “strawman” here, as you put it, is that nobody has ever argued that Christianity never existed!

What you actually said (and I’ll quote it again for you below) is that everyone believes “the Jesus stories have a historical core”!

Here’s your quoted words -

Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot. .

The Jesus stories are not the part that must have any historical core in the sense of any existing Jesus, are they!

And it’s a complete strawman from you (not from me), for you in the next sentence to offer that claimed “historical core” in the stories of Jesus as the only implied explanation for “Christianity having to start somewhere”, as if Christianity could not possibly have ever begun unless there was indeed some "historical core" in the stories of Jesus!

The stories of Jesus most certainly do not have to have any such historical core, and that is not “believed by everyone”.

You may have a problem believing it could possibly be otherwise. But it certainly does not follow that just because a belief we now call Christianity sprang up, that there must be some historical core in the biblical stories of Jesus.

 

[eight bits]

tsig

I always thought the baptism was to show that Jesus had taken over the leadership of John's group. It was far from embarrassing Jesus it is honoring him.

I think that is within the range of interpretations of the event. It seems clear that in every version, including John's, which neither confirms nor denies the baptism specifically, Jesus' career includes an early incident of making a big impression on John or members of John's gorup.

Brainache

But Baptism was for the remission of sin ...

Christian baptism is, but Josephus (Antiquities XVIII 5.2) says John had a dual offer: remission and then afterwards, dunking to achieve bodiy purity. Mark 1 is light on specifics, either in what was done in general or in what was done specifically in Jesus' case. There is no scene where Jesus acknowledges his sins.

Moreover, what is reverently translated as "repentance" is metanoia, which could just as well be translated "change of consciousness." Bigger than hell, Jesus' consciousness (or perhaps John's, or both) changed when he emerged from his bath. And indeed, what distinguishes Jesus throughout Mark from other men and women is his expanded consciousness that the times, they are a changin'. It also explains how his students, and even just some guy who apparently heard about him or his name, are also able to perform the same "magical acts," because you need only come to awareness of what time it is, and align yourself with the winning side.

and the Baptiser has seniority over the Baptised.

Yes, John seems to be older than Jesus. Later, Jesus supposedly survived the Dunker. Who cares who's senior then?

 

[Foster Zygote]

But the “strawman” here, as you put it, is that nobody has ever argued that Christianity never existed!

I'm sorry that you don't get that I was having fun with dejudge's poor choice of words in stating that Christianity "has no historical core".

What you actually said (and I’ll quote it again for you below) is that everyone believes “the Jesus stories have a historical core”!

Here’s your quoted words -

"Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing it today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot."

Once again, you edit out the sentence immediately following that statement, which reads:

"What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty."

Why do you keep leaving that part out?

The Jesus stories are not the part that must have any historical core in the sense of any existing Jesus, are they!

And it’s a complete strawman from you (not from me), for you in the next sentence to offer that claimed “historical core” in the stories of Jesus as the only implied explanation for “Christianity having to start somewhere”, as if Christianity could not possibly have ever begun unless there was indeed some "historical core" in the stories of Jesus!

The stories of Jesus most certainly do not have to have any such historical core, and that is not “believed by everyone”.

You may have a problem believing it could possibly be otherwise. But it certainly does not follow that just because a belief we now call Christianity sprang up, that there must be some historical core in the biblical stories of Jesus.

It's too bad that you didn't notice, or ignored, the fact that I never actually proclaimed what that historical core is, or that I specifically stated that there are multiple possibilities for said origin. Either through poor reading comprehension or obstreperousness, you are arguing against points that I have never made. Given the fact that you have twice omitted the part of my statement that clearly articulates that I am not claiming that the historical origins of Christianity are known, I am leaning toward the latter. At any rate, I'm moving on.

 

[Belz...]

Why do you keep leaving that part out?

Ooh, ooh ! Can I play ?

 

[IanS]

I'm sorry that you don't get that I was having fun with dejudge's poor choice of words in stating that Christianity "has no historical core".


Once again, you edit out the sentence immediately following that statement, which reads:

"What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty."

Why do you keep leaving that part out?




It's too bad that you didn't notice, or ignored, the fact that I never actually proclaimed what that historical core is, or that I specifically stated that there are multiple possibilities for said origin. Either through poor reading comprehension or obstreperousness, you are arguing against points that I have never made. Given the fact that you have twice omitted the part of my statement that clearly articulates that I am not claiming that the historical origins of Christianity are known, I am leaning toward the latter. At any rate, I'm moving on.

Look again at the highlight in what you said -

Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot. What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty. You are flailing at strawmen because you can't actually invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus. I know because I've asked you to do just that a number of times. .

You are talking about a “historical core” in the stories of Jesus, are you not? That means a factual basis, does it not? And you said "everyone believes that", about the stories of Jesus.

You cannot be merely saying there is a “historical core” in the existence of Christianity as a religion, as if the argument here was about whether or not Christianity ever existed! We are talking about the existence of Jesus, not about the existence of Christianity.

You may not have meant to imply that there is a historical core, ie a factual basis, in the biblical stories of Jesus, but that is what your own words do quite clearly say. I'll just quote it again so that there can be no doubt about it "Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core."
Perhaps the sentence was a Freudian slip on your part, i.e. inadvertently revealing the fact that you are automatically assuming that there must have been some sort real factual figure on whom this Jesus story was based?

But whatever the reason, it makes no difference to that sentence, and does not change it merely for you to say in the next sentence “What that historical core was is open to debate”, because the “historical core” that your own words referred to is, as you said, “the Jesus stories have an historical core” … i.e., we are talking in this thread, and you are talking about in that quoted sentence, Jesus …not about Christianity. You were clearly saying, and thinking, that the biblical stories of Jesus must indeed have, as you put it “a historical core”.

OK, I don’t want to labour this point any further, because I think that probably is unfair, and it‘s not necessary anyway. But lets be clear that the biblical stories of Jesus most certainly do not require any such “historical core” in the sense of there needing to be any real person at all who was ever the basis of the Jesus stories in the bible.

In fact, if you want a very well known and provable “historical core” as the source of where the biblical stories of Jesus came from, then it’s quite clear that all the biblical writers were taking their stories of belief in Jesus from what they thought had been written long before in the ancient Old Testament. That OT was a “historical core” for the biblical writers in the sense that they were scouring that OT for messiah prophecies which they could interpret as applying to a long awaited messiah or Christ (ie a saviour anointed by God) who they later named “Yehoshua” (ie Jesus), and where that word “Yehoshua” (which is the word they would have spoken and written, and not the word "Jesus" which is afaik 10th century English) is actually a verbal/spoken religious “theophoric” utterance appealing to God as the peoples divine saviour.

 

[dejudge]

"What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty."

Your argument for an HJ is therefore virtually dead because you don't know what the historical core is and you are not certain of an HJ.

Your HJ is just a product of your own imagination.

It was expected those who argued for an HJ would have come already prepared with the supporting evidence from antiquity but it is now exposed that they are on a "fishing expedition" as is evident with the multiple versions of HJ.

Yesterday, their HJ was an Apocalyptic, a Cynic, a Rabbi, a little known itinerant man.........

Today, HJ was a Zealot.......

Tomorrow--- Only God knows who their HJ will be.

God does not exist and neither does his Son called Jesus of Nazareth.

How will HJers ever find their historical Jesus WITHOUT evidence?

God knows!!!

The futile Quest for an HJ continues!!

It was expected that HJers would NOT know who their HJ was. It was successfully predicted because it was already known they never had any evidence from the very start.

 

[dejudge]

tsig


I think that is within the range of interpretations of the event. It seems clear that in every version, including John's, which neither confirms nor denies the baptism specifically, Jesus' career includes an early incident of making a big impression on John or members of John's gorup.

Brainache


Christian baptism is, but Josephus (Antiquities XVIII 5.2) says John had a dual offer: remission and then afterwards, dunking to achieve bodiy purity. Mark 1 is light on specifics, either in what was done in general or in what was done specifically in Jesus' case. There is no scene where Jesus acknowledges his sins.

Moreover, what is reverently translated as "repentance" is metanoia, which could just as well be translated "change of consciousness." Bigger than hell, Jesus' consciousness (or perhaps John's, or both) changed when he emerged from his bath. And indeed, what distinguishes Jesus throughout Mark from other men and women is his expanded consciousness that the times, they are a changin'. It also explains how his students, and even just some guy who apparently heard about him or his name, are also able to perform the same "magical acts," because you need only come to awareness of what time it is, and align yourself with the winning side.


Yes, John seems to be older than Jesus. Later, Jesus supposedly survived the Dunker. Who cares who's senior then?

What happened to the preaching of Jesus? If it is argued that Jesus did live and argued that the Pauline Corpus predated gMark then we should be looking at the Pauline Corpus instead.

Scholars have already deduced that gMark is a FORGERY and NOT an eyewitness account.

gMark is essentially CHINESE Whispers, Rumors, legendary fables, fiction, implausibility as is evident in the book itself.

Bart Ehrman has already written in "Did Jesus Exist?" page 181-182 that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT write any Gospel.

The Gospels are not history. They were written to DECEIVE.

HJers keep forgetting that supposed authentic/inauthentic Paul wrote virtually nothing of the life of Jesus.

If gMark was written AFTER authentic/inauthentic Paul where did he get histories from?

It was not from authentic/inauthentic Paul.

Maybe the author of gMark made up the story of the Life of Jesus because it is either total fiction or implausible.

All we know about Jesus from authentic/inauthentic Paul are the parents of his Jesus--God and a Woman.

We now know from authentic/inauthentic Paul that his Jesus was made a Spirit--the Last Adam.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The Gospels are admitted forgeries ON UNKNOWN authorship and date of authorship and their stories of the life of Jesus are obvious monstrous fables.

All we know about Jesus is from authentic/inauthentic Paul a supposed contemporary of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

Authentic/inauthentic Paul claimed Jesus was a Spirit--No wonder authentic/inauthentic Paul wrote NO biography of Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus had NO real biography--no real life--no real history.

 

[Brainache]

What happened to the preaching of Jesus? If it is argued that Jesus did live and argued that the Pauline Corpus predated gMark then we should be looking at the Pauline Corpus instead.

Scholars have already deduced that gMark is a FORGERY and NOT an eyewitness account.

gMark is essentially CHINESE Whispers, Rumors, legendary fables, fiction, implausibility as is evident in the book itself.

Bart Ehrman has already written in "Did Jesus Exist?" page 181-182 that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT write any Gospel.

The Gospels are not history. They were written to DECEIVE.

HJers keep forgetting that supposed authentic/inauthentic Paul wrote virtually nothing of the life of Jesus.

If gMark was written AFTER authentic/inauthentic Paul where did he get histories from?

It was not from authentic/inauthentic Paul.

Maybe the author of gMark made up the story of the Life of Jesus because it is either total fiction or implausible.

All we know about Jesus from authentic/inauthentic Paul are the parents of his Jesus--God and a Woman.

We now know from authentic/inauthentic Paul that his Jesus was made a Spirit--the Last Adam.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

The Gospels are admitted forgeries ON UNKNOWN authorship and date of authorship and their stories of the life of Jesus are obvious monstrous fables.

All we know about Jesus is from authentic/inauthentic Paul a supposed contemporary of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

Authentic/inauthentic Paul claimed Jesus was a Spirit--No wonder authentic/inauthentic Paul wrote NO biography of Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus had NO real biography--no real life--no real history.

And yet again I remain unconvinced.

I wonder why?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Look again at the highlight in what you said -

If I might paraphrase, what you are actually saying is, "Look at this section of text that I am deliberately taking out of context in order to give the impression that you've claimed something that you actually haven't".

It's called "quote mining", and it's a dishonest form of misrepresentation. In other words, a lie. For example, let's say a professor wrote a book on the Holocaust containing the text, "As monstrously inhuman as it seems to us today, many Nazis truly believed that the Jews were sub-human vermin who had to be exterminated". Then let's say someone wants to make that professor look bad, so he quotes his work. But he leaves out part of the quote, so that it is only presented as, "The Jews were sub-human vermin who had to be exterminated". While technically those are the professor's words, they have been lifted out of context to make it appear that he has said something he has not.

You are lifting my words out of context in order to make it appear as though I am saying something that I am not, specifically, that anyone who does not affirm the certainty of an historical Jesus is an idiot. And I can see how someone might infer that based on only what you have presented. However, the immediately following sentence makes clear that the preceding sentence was not intended to imply any such thing. It makes clear, to anyone with reasonable proficiency in reading comprehension, that I was saying that something happened to get Christianity started, and whatever that something was, we can only speculate about what seems plausible and likely based on what we know.

I can grant the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility that your first response was made without having read beyond the text that you quoted. But after the rest of my statement has been pointed out to you multiple times, I can only assume that you are engaging in intellectual laziness by choosing to engage a position easily countered, but never taken by me, rather than engage what I actually said.

 

[pakeha]

..."How come Jesus felt he needed to be dunked?' is the kind of question Richard Dawkins would think of, and having thought of it, would think that it poses some crisis for the faithful. Dawkins is not a prime prospect for this sort of thing.

You might enjoy the thinly veiled reference to RD in this short clip of Brother Sam Singleton, AtheistEvangelist

It' not a good catch. It's entirely irrelevant! ...

I can see your point, IanS. Even so, I've found it most instructive to read the posts of Mormons coping with facts and think that Christians must go through a similar process when confronted with the ever-dwindling check-list of what can be considered truthful* in the NT.


*NOT plausible

 

[IanS]

If I might paraphrase, what you are actually saying is, "Look at this section of text that I am deliberately taking out of context in order to give the impression that you've claimed something that you actually haven't".

It's called "quote mining", and it's a dishonest form of misrepresentation. In other words, a lie. For example, let's say a professor wrote a book on the Holocaust containing the text, "As monstrously inhuman as it seems to us today, many Nazis truly believed that the Jews were sub-human vermin who had to be exterminated". Then let's say someone wants to make that professor look bad, so he quotes his work. But he leaves out part of the quote, so that it is only presented as, "The Jews were sub-human vermin who had to be exterminated". While technically those are the professor's words, they have been lifted out of context to make it appear that he has said something he has not.

You are lifting my words out of context in order to make it appear as though I am saying something that I am not, specifically, that anyone who does not affirm the certainty of an historical Jesus is an idiot. And I can see how someone might infer that based on only what you have presented. However, the immediately following sentence makes clear that the preceding sentence was not intended to imply any such thing. It makes clear, to anyone with reasonable proficiency in reading comprehension, that I was saying that something happened to get Christianity started, and whatever that something was, we can only speculate about what seems plausible and likely based on what we know.

I can grant the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility that your first response was made without having read beyond the text that you quoted. But after the rest of my statement has been pointed out to you multiple times, I can only assume that you are engaging in intellectual laziness by choosing to engage a position easily countered, but never taken by me, rather than engage what I actually said.

Nope. My reply above quoted your exact words and explained in detail why it is not a defence for your subsequent sentence to say “What that historical core was is open to debate”, because you had already specifically said you were talking about a “historical core” in the stories of Jesus as the reason why quote “ Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot”.


Here is that complete passage -

Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot. What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty. You are flailing at strawmen because you can't actually invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus. I know because I've asked you to do just that a number of times.

And here, to repeat, is what I explained before about why that is wrong -

You are talking about a “historical core” in the stories of Jesus, are you not? That means a factual basis, does it not? And you said "everyone believes that", about the stories of Jesus.

You cannot be merely saying there is a “historical core” in the existence of Christianity as a religion, as if the argument here was about whether or not Christianity ever existed! We are talking about the existence of Jesus, not about the existence of Christianity.

You may not have meant to imply that there is a historical core, ie a factual basis, in the biblical stories of Jesus, but that is what your own words do quite clearly say. I'll just quote it again so that there can be no doubt about it "Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core."
Perhaps the sentence was a Freudian slip on your part, i.e. inadvertently revealing the fact that you are automatically assuming that there must have been some sort real factual figure on whom this Jesus story was based?

But whatever the reason, it makes no difference to that sentence, and does not change it merely for you to say in the next sentence “What that historical core was is open to debate”, because the “historical core” that your own words referred to is, as you said, “the Jesus stories have an historical core” … i.e., we are talking in this thread, and you are talking about in that quoted sentence, Jesus …not about Christianity. You were clearly saying, and thinking, that the biblical stories of Jesus must indeed have, as you put it “a historical core”.
.

 

[maximara]

Ian simply claimed that "most" of those characters are known from better evidence than Jesus. Most, really ?

The ones the apologists generally keep pointing to? Yes the evidence they existed is better. Part of the issue is these arguments go for name recondition which is how you get such insane comparisons of Jesus to Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.

 

[Stone]

Who died to make you thread queen, Stone?
I'm checking and rechecking my sources, so I think phrases like 'unbridled stupidity', 'bogus assertions' and 'myther faithheads' are ...inadequate.

Excuse me: At --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9740768&postcount=2881

-- you make the large assertion that --

"Tacitus can be seen as a transmitter of second or fifth hand information, since there were no records from the 30s available to a writer in the second century"

-- and you have no evidence to back up that ridiculously categorical assertion about available data from the '30s in the early second century. All you have cited, when challenged, is fringe speculation on this at RatSkep with no ancient source to back it all up, either in connection with Tacitus in particular or with early second-century chroniclers in general.

As it stands, this is a categorical assertion of yours with nothing other than pure speculation by amateurs at RatSkep behind it. There is no ancient cite shewing just what Tacitus and other second-century chroniclers had at hand from the '30s of the first century, c.e. It is past time that you either concede that your ludicrous assertion is based on fringe speculation only, or that you withdraw the assertion altogether.

There is extant evidence relating to Tacitus's chronicling methods, BTW. Tacitus himself specifies that he bends over backwards always to make a distinction between hearsay and personal accounts -- and he does not reference hearsay in his account of the fate of the despised founder of Christianity during the Tiberius years.

Stone

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your argument for an HJ is therefore virtually dead because you don't know what the historical core is and you are not certain of an HJ.

So anything unknown is therefor to be concluded to not exist, and therefor to be ignored? What a truly mindless methodology that is. First of all, if that is the case, then your argument that something other than an historical Jesus started the spread of Christianity is just as dead. After all, you can't prove any of the alternatives any more than the historical Jesus hypothesis, so you can't know either. But even more fundamentally, if people curious about the past, present and future of the universe in which we live can't engage in rational speculation about its nature, then we can't really learn much of anything at all, can we?

Democritus of Abdera speculated about atoms some four centuries before Jesus was said to have been born. He had no way of proving the existence of atoms. It would be over two millennia before anyone would be able to do so under scientific conditions. Yet it turns out that Democritus' speculations were correct. Of course, he never said, "atoms undoubtedly exist and I will accept no other alternative". Other speculations turned out to be wrong, such as phlogiston. But without speculation, there can be no hypotheses. Without speculation, there can be no science.

The fact that you seem to think that intellectual endeavors can only deal in certainties only serves to demonstrate your own lack of knowledge. This ignorance, in itself, isn't what saddens me about your arguments on this forum. It's your demonstrated unwillingness to learn anything that doesn't support your preconceived notions.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Nope. My reply above quoted your exact words and explained in detail why it is not a defence for your subsequent sentence to say “What that historical core was is open to debate”, because you had already specifically said you were talking about a “historical core” in the stories of Jesus as the reason why quote “ Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot”.And here, to repeat, is what I explained before about why that is wrong -

Please think very carefully before answering this next question.

Did I say that the historical core of the Jesus stories has to have been an historical Jesus?

There is absolutely no doubt that there were stories about a character named Jesus that led to the development of Christianity (several Christianities, actually). That is history. The origin of that history is unknown, but there has to have been something that started Christianity. I have not claimed certainty regarding that cause.

And your objection that the second part of my statement is no "defence" [sic] for my previous sentence is absurd. It's like the character assassin in my illustration protesting that the text he omitted from the quotation is no defense for the part he quoted out of context. You are just confirming that you are being deliberately dishonest.

 

[Craig B]

Did I say that the historical core of the Jesus stories has to have been an historical Jesus?

There is absolutely no doubt that there were stories about a character named Jesus that led to the development of Christianity (several Christianities, actually). That is history. The origin of that history is unknown, but there has to have been something that started Christianity. I have not claimed certainty regarding that cause.

Yes, mythicists often rightly refer to the modern John Frum cargo cult as a religion whose alleged founder never existed, and they are right. But something did indeed start that cult - the appearance of US troops in the area during the Pacific War.

What then was the comparable event that started Christianity?

 

[IanS]

So anything unknown is therefor to be concluded to not exist, and therefor to be ignored? What a truly mindless methodology that is. First of all, if that is the case, then your argument that something other than an historical Jesus started the spread of Christianity is just as dead. After all, you can't prove any of the alternatives any more than the historical Jesus hypothesis, so you can't know either. But even more fundamentally, if people curious about the past, present and future of the universe in which we live can't engage in rational speculation about its nature, then we can't really learn much of anything at all, can we?

Democritus of Abdera speculated about atoms some four centuries before Jesus was said to have been born. He had no way of proving the existence of atoms. It would be over two millennia before anyone would be able to do so under scientific conditions. Yet it turns out that Democritus' speculations were correct. Of course, he never said, "atoms undoubtedly exist and I will accept no other alternative". Other speculations turned out to be wrong, such as phlogiston. But without speculation, there can be no hypotheses. Without speculation, there can be no science.

The fact that you seem to think that intellectual endeavors can only deal in certainties only serves to demonstrate your own lack of knowledge. This ignorance, in itself, isn't what saddens me about your arguments on this forum. It's your demonstrated unwillingness to learn anything that doesn't support your preconceived notions.

Of course we can indulge in speculation. And there is no problem speculating about the possible existence of Jesus. No more problem than anyone at the time of Democritus speculating that all materials were composed of small individual pieces that were called "atomos" (just the Greek word meaning indivisible).

But if the speculation is to have any value, then it must have some genuinely credible and reliable evidence to support it. And that is just not the case with the biblical stories of Jesus (where the biblical writing is neither reliable nor credible in what it says).




And by the way on the other issue of “historical core” - please not descend into the gutter with others here who call people liars etc. Because nobody here is lying. Your opponents are simply trying to explain why your beliefs about the evidence of Jesus appear to be untrue, that’s all.