No. I make no claims of certainty, that is what you are doing.
Why are you so certain?
You still haven't answered.
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed
- Thread starter Kapyong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david fitzgerald
- Status
No. I make no claims of certainty, that is what you are doing.
Why are you so certain?
You still haven't answered.
dejudge said:
Your claim is openly and blatantly fallacious. Even though other people can see what I posted your still persist in your mis-representation.
I posted nothing about certainty. I showed you the Recovered NT manuscripts with evidence of the BELIEFS of Christians of antiquity.
Christians of antiquity BELIEVED and PROPAGATED that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.
Why can't you even repeat what I write when you accuse people of being dishonest?
Now, remember this.
I have NO REASONABLE DOUBT that the Jesus character was a MYTH based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.
Last edited:
What evidence? You list a lot of names and sometimes you provide quotes of them saying stuff.
You then proceed to argue that what they said is true. You have no evidence for that.
You then say you have no "reasonable" doubt (it used to be 100% certainty, why did you change that?) that Jesus didn't exist.
You have no reason what so ever to have that level of confidence in your conclusion.
Now you can yell all you want, it is still not a convincing way to argue anything here.
What Evidence you ask?? Where did you get your EVIDENCE that your HJ was a Nazarite preacher? How do you know if it is true?
You have no evidence for your unknown dead Nazarite preacher.
You have no reason whatsoever to claim your Jesus was a Nazarite preacher without even having a source.
Your argument has been exposed as highly illogical.
You use your imagination in the 21st century as evidence for your Nazarite preacher but ridicule others who present SOURCES of antiquity, Recovered Dated manuscripts and Codices, which claimed Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.
It was expected---the HJ argument was always baseless from the very start.
David Mo
Philosopher
Evidence in Ancient History is vulnerable. You can raise the level of exigency and you will be left without Ancient History. This happens when you demand a concept of evidence similar to the science of nature or to a court of law (IanS in this forum).
An evident example is the fact that almost the entire sequencing of the Ancient World before the classical period depends of Manetho's list of Pharaohs. This allowed Peter James to propose a drastic cut in the chronology of the Ancient World. Two or three -IIRC- centuries went to the basket (the Dark Ages). The proposal was not well accepted by historians but was coherent and showed what fragile is the chronology. (The radiocarbon and other scientific archaeological methods help in some cases but are too much restricted to special cases. And not always they can be precise).
So I repeat my song: I don't find very profitable discussing if Paul was a real person or not. With the fragile standard of evidence in Ancient History we can accept his existence and pass to discuss the authenticity of his writings and their content. Both things are not evident.
In any case I would ask those who think that Paul did not exist and was invented by Marcion or someone similar, to tell us what specific reasons they have for denying that he existed around the half or first Century. The absolute disqualification of all Christian texts by virtue of being written by the Christians seems 'a little' maximalist. We mustn’t accept Early Christians' writings as historical, but we mustn't refuse your exam and critical analysis for the same reason than we exam the Pharaonic or the Mayan steles without any problem.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that this is an effective argument. It isn't.
Anyone who has studied anything about history knows that this argument is useless and stupid.
You can keep using it if you like.
David Mo
Philosopher
What? Do you have a multiple witness firsthand of the battle of Thermopylae and you can examine one by one the witnesses to assess their reliability and their circumstances? You can't apply these criteria even to the Gallic Wars, one of the few events we have a personal document about it.
If you applied to Ancient History the truth criteria of a court there will not be Ancient History. Ancient History is frequently only based in some texts that only allow textual interpretation, not Perry Mason's deeds.
ADDEd: Do not get tired to ask us a degree of evidence (neither in red nor violet) as in the natural sciences or in court. We do not have, neither we need it. We're not talking about the same.
Last edited:
David - just because in the case of Jesus, we ask for reliable and credible evidence of his claimed human existence, does not at all mean that all of ancient history would have not be discarded by that sort of evidential requirement.
As I explained before (several times) when people here raised the example of Pythagoras and other ancient philosophers, and where they said that the history associated with those philosophers would all have to be discarded if we used that evidential standard to determine whether people like Pythagoras actually existed, that claim is entirely untrue - none of that history of that philosophy would have to be discarded.
What is historically important about ancient philosophers like Pythagoras, is the legacy of philosophical ideas that were established in their name … regardless of whether a person named “Pythagoras” ever existed or not. That is - there is vast reliable evidence showing that the philosophical theories of the group called the “Pythagoreans” existed from a fairly early date. That history of the existence of that Pythagorean philosophy is not in dispute, precisely because it’s existence IS shown by reliable indisputable evidence of it’s existence at that early date.
But in the case of Jesus, it’s the existence of the person himself which is crucial. Nobody is doubting that there is abundant reliable evidence to show that Christianity as a religion existed from an early date. And nobody is doubting that the Christian gospels and letters of Paul were indeed written by someone at a fairly early date, because all of that IS known from abundant reliable evidence. Hence - the religion and it’s holy gospels and letters are accepted as fact by everyone, precisely because the evidence does indeed certainly exist. But the existence of those gospels, letters and Christian people, is not in itself any kind of evidence to show that their belief in the messiah Jesus was true of a real human person from before their own time.
There is no actual evidence of Jesus in any of that. Only evidence of religious belief in an earlier messiah named Jesus, that none of those believers had ever known in any way at all. There is no evidence of Jesus. None at all. And what matters here (unlike the philosophers) is that evidence for the existence of the person “Jesus” is the crucial factor.
And finally on that point of the standard of evidence - nobody has asked for the same standard of evidence that we require in science. That has never been suggested by anyone here.
In science the standard of actually reliable, credible, confirmed and verified evidence, is enormously high. Such that in all of core science, that claimed scientific evidence invariably has to be supported not only by indisputable multiple experimental results that have been cross-checked independently all across the world by thousands of different researches using every different modern technique possible, but also invariably by mathematically precise theory which must fit exactly with all other known mathematical theory and with every other theory in physics, chemistry and biology … otherwise, it will not be accepted as a scientific “Theory” even though you may have absolutely mountains of seemingly convincing evidence.
So any suggestion that it’s like asking for scientific standards, merely to ask here for reliable and credible evidence of the existence of Jesus, is entirely bogus. Nobody is asking for a standard anything like as high as that.
The standard of evidence required in a law court (jury trial) is, however, only that what is offered as “evidence”, should not be merely unsupported hearsay, and certainly cannot be any anonymous claim of hearsay from unknown anonymous sources who cannot be traced. And that most definitely IS the same standard that we MUST adopt as the very minimum in any historical case, including the case of Jesus.
For all the exact same reasons that such testimony (i.e. claims offered as “evidence”) are ruled inadmissible as claimed evidence in legal cases, testimony which is only anonymously written hearsay said to come from other anonymous persons who are unknown and entirely unavailable, is never acceptable as reliable evidence of anything, whether that is in a court of law, or in any academic subject whatsoever (including the historicity of Jesus) …
… it is most certainly not reliable or credible to claim that evidence of Jesus, is that which anonymous religious fanatics wrote as gospel preaching in the 1st century, and where the writers of that preaching never knew Jesus in any way at all, but instead simply told tales of earlier anonymous unknown people who were said to have known other people who were thought by legend to have once known Jesus, but where not a single one of those anonymous writers or informants was ever known to anyone! …
… that is not merely inadmissible as testimony in any democratic jury trial, it is wholly and completely 100% inadmissible as reliable evidence of anything at all in any subject or investigation.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Craig B
By hypothesis, we are discussing propaganda in the quote above. It is not testimony, it is simply a fact claim, and its existence isn't evidence about what the text asserts. It is evidence, however, about the prevalence of an uncertainty upon which the statement bears. Regardless of the truth of the fact claim it asserts, somebody took the trouble to assert it, unbidden. It is evidence about the possible answers to the question "Why did they say that?"
Example closer to topic Matthew reports that dead people roamed the streets of Jerusalem. The report is not evidence about the dead people (for lack of an uncertainty upon which to bear). The report is evidence, however, of counterapologetics in the author's time. The author knew of alternative possible explanations of the "empty tomb" story. This, even though the empty tomb is not even mentioned in the roaming dead report.
So, we can learn a lot from the Soviet statement. If we didn't already know it, then we would learn that the Soviet Union was fighting the Germans at the time, and probably on Soviet soil. The more specific the inferences we draw, however, the more our analysis depends on the particulars of a model of why the speaker said one thing rather than another thing.
So, no, I don't know that the Germans had, by the time of the statement, gotten as far as Smolensk, because I don't know for sure that the propangandists didn't invent the fact of German presence in the area. I don't know that, because I don't know what the statement was intended to accomplish. Untruthfully placing the Germans in Smolensk could serve any number of purposes, and whatever the cost of crediting the enemy with having ever made that much of an advance, that cost is now largely offset by the benefit of claiming a victory in the field.
On a question arising:
Belz
A difficulty on the webz is that it is so often unclear whether the speaker even knows the difference between formal reaosning and heuristic reasoning. "Proof" is used in one sentence, while "fallacy" is decried in the next, even though the "fallacy" is a useful heuristic. So, is formal reasoning being discussed or not? Does the speaker even know the difference?
It's bad enough just with defining plain vanilla evidence. One of our colleagues doesn't require that the evidence actually be observed in order to bear (just something not known to be false), while another seeks advice about heuristic reasoning from a general-purpose dictionary of the English language (when he isn't treating us to reruns of Rumpole of the Bailey). So, thank God we don't have to hash out different standards of "proof" on top of that.
There seems to be a prevalent idea that textual evidence is to be treated as if it were testimony, In the special case that the text is testimony (its significance is entirely determined by the speaker's personal knowledge, and her willingness and ability to communicate that), such treatment is fine, but testimonies are exceptional texts.
By hypothesis, we are discussing propaganda in the quote above. It is not testimony, it is simply a fact claim, and its existence isn't evidence about what the text asserts. It is evidence, however, about the prevalence of an uncertainty upon which the statement bears. Regardless of the truth of the fact claim it asserts, somebody took the trouble to assert it, unbidden. It is evidence about the possible answers to the question "Why did they say that?"
Example closer to topic Matthew reports that dead people roamed the streets of Jerusalem. The report is not evidence about the dead people (for lack of an uncertainty upon which to bear). The report is evidence, however, of counterapologetics in the author's time. The author knew of alternative possible explanations of the "empty tomb" story. This, even though the empty tomb is not even mentioned in the roaming dead report.
So, we can learn a lot from the Soviet statement. If we didn't already know it, then we would learn that the Soviet Union was fighting the Germans at the time, and probably on Soviet soil. The more specific the inferences we draw, however, the more our analysis depends on the particulars of a model of why the speaker said one thing rather than another thing.
So, no, I don't know that the Germans had, by the time of the statement, gotten as far as Smolensk, because I don't know for sure that the propangandists didn't invent the fact of German presence in the area. I don't know that, because I don't know what the statement was intended to accomplish. Untruthfully placing the Germans in Smolensk could serve any number of purposes, and whatever the cost of crediting the enemy with having ever made that much of an advance, that cost is now largely offset by the benefit of claiming a victory in the field.
On a question arising:
The presence of datable people and incidents in a realistic story is compelling evidence that the author wrote afterwards. Gone with the Wind was almost certainly not written any earlier than the end of the American Civil War, for example. How much afterwards, however, is trickier from internal evidence. Once the cat is out of the bag, it usually doesn't wander back in.
Belz
It actually is, IRL. So long as it is clear that the context isn't mathematics or other formal reaoning by truth-preserving steps, then "proof" can indeed be readily understood as "persuasive evidence."
A difficulty on the webz is that it is so often unclear whether the speaker even knows the difference between formal reaosning and heuristic reasoning. "Proof" is used in one sentence, while "fallacy" is decried in the next, even though the "fallacy" is a useful heuristic. So, is formal reasoning being discussed or not? Does the speaker even know the difference?
It's bad enough just with defining plain vanilla evidence. One of our colleagues doesn't require that the evidence actually be observed in order to bear (just something not known to be false), while another seeks advice about heuristic reasoning from a general-purpose dictionary of the English language (when he isn't treating us to reruns of Rumpole of the Bailey). So, thank God we don't have to hash out different standards of "proof" on top of that.
Belz...
Fiend God
Ooh, you went from 100% to 90% to reasonable doubt. A little while longer and we'll make an HJ fundie of you yet.
Belz...
Fiend God
Not to mention awesome...
Actually yes, yes it does, unless you claim that we have better evidence for most historical figures than we have for Jesus.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Craig B, it's evidence the document in question was written after the events mentioned, nothing more.
It ISN'T evidence anything else in the document is true, is it?
It's also evidence linking a reported activity of Paul with a known date. I was told there was no internal evidence for Paul's dates. There is such evidence. Of course it may be forged. Anything may be forged. But it is evidence.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
" I was told there was no internal evidence for Paul's dates. There is such evidence. "
I see your point and of course you're right, Craig B.
But are they Paul's dates or Acts' dates?
Anyway, off to read more Acts and commentaries on Acts.
I see your point and of course you're right, Craig B.
But are they Paul's dates or Acts' dates?
Anyway, off to read more Acts and commentaries on Acts.
Paul and Acts agree that Paul had an association with Corinth. There is no good reason to think that the Gallio reference is a complete fabrication. If there is such a reason, please let me know what it is.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I must be expressing myself very poorly.
My issue is with the historicity of Acts, not that of Paul.
That the Proconsul of Achaea is correctly named in Acts is interesting, up to a point.
That doesn't constitute evidence of the historicity of Jesus, does it, or is there something I'm missing here?
ETA
Just for the amusement, here's one of the many things I've been sifting lately
http://www.parsagard.com/gallio&paul.htm
I thought
"Paul is brought to trial before Gallio at the time of Gallio’s Proconsulship in 52 AD. These are dramatic confirmations of Luke’s historical accuracy. A few scholars argue that someone writing Acts early in the second century could have discovered these dates in a secular source and then worked them into the text. But how likely is this?
First, the ancient world was simply not interested in historical research. Ancient writers would include historical details if those details were part of their immediate sources, but research in the modern sense was not done. "
was especially nice.
My issue is with the historicity of Acts, not that of Paul.
That the Proconsul of Achaea is correctly named in Acts is interesting, up to a point.
That doesn't constitute evidence of the historicity of Jesus, does it, or is there something I'm missing here?
ETA
Just for the amusement, here's one of the many things I've been sifting lately
http://www.parsagard.com/gallio&paul.htm
I thought
"Paul is brought to trial before Gallio at the time of Gallio’s Proconsulship in 52 AD. These are dramatic confirmations of Luke’s historical accuracy. A few scholars argue that someone writing Acts early in the second century could have discovered these dates in a secular source and then worked them into the text. But how likely is this?
First, the ancient world was simply not interested in historical research. Ancient writers would include historical details if those details were part of their immediate sources, but research in the modern sense was not done. "
was especially nice.
Last edited:
If the internal historical evidence in Paul and Acts is indicative of the dates of Paul's activity, then we know that Jesus was being preached about at an early date. There are people in these threads who deny that. It is at them that my observations are directed.
David Mo
Philosopher
[
I wonder which of these propositions you don't accept.
1. The level of evidence of the natural sciences is higher than that called for in court of law.
2. The level of evidence required for testimony in court is higher than the level of evidence that we require for texts of antiquity.
3. All ancient text must be analyzed critically before give it some degree of veracity.
If you agree with the above assumptions I do not quite understand why you demand for the case of a historical event J a similar degree of evidence than 2. It seems that your only reason is that J is a special case because it is important for many people. I find this a bit odd reason. Because then we would have to set levels of importance to statements and require a scale in order of importance, which would introduce a rather high degree of subjectivity. For example, the statement "Jesus really existed" (J) has a minimal importance for me, but you seem to assign it the utmost importance. You surely would agree with Pope Francisco in that for different reasons. I think all I can state is the sentence 'J is more likely than noJ'. And I do not see the importance that neither you nor Pope Francisco attribute to the subject. I can keep my statement "J is more likely than noJ" without losing one ounce of the atheism and materialism that I keep since I had reached the age of reason.
If the Pope Francisco asserted that J has the same level of evidence that we attribute to 1 or 2, I would discuss with pleasure or even with passion with him. And I will argue with those who, like you do, pretend that J requires the same level of evidence than 1 or 2. At least, nobody could accuse me of bias in my demands, because for me J is true or is not true with the same criteria that allow me to discuss the evidence of the battle of Alesia or the amazing life of Apollonius of Tyana. I think this is not your case.
PS: I managed not to mention Ehrman in the entire comment. Bravo, a success! For me Ehrman and his anti-miticist crusade is an accessory detail. Of course, I am not miticists despite my sympathies for the miticist gang. Yes. Crusaders even cause considerable racket.
ADDeD: I know, I know: "mythicists" and no "miticists", but this a barbarism, is it not? And barbarisms are free and I am a barbar of anlgo-saxon grammar. And I should not be here at this time. This is not my Randi's hour.
I wonder which of these propositions you don't accept.
1. The level of evidence of the natural sciences is higher than that called for in court of law.
2. The level of evidence required for testimony in court is higher than the level of evidence that we require for texts of antiquity.
3. All ancient text must be analyzed critically before give it some degree of veracity.
If you agree with the above assumptions I do not quite understand why you demand for the case of a historical event J a similar degree of evidence than 2. It seems that your only reason is that J is a special case because it is important for many people. I find this a bit odd reason. Because then we would have to set levels of importance to statements and require a scale in order of importance, which would introduce a rather high degree of subjectivity. For example, the statement "Jesus really existed" (J) has a minimal importance for me, but you seem to assign it the utmost importance. You surely would agree with Pope Francisco in that for different reasons. I think all I can state is the sentence 'J is more likely than noJ'. And I do not see the importance that neither you nor Pope Francisco attribute to the subject. I can keep my statement "J is more likely than noJ" without losing one ounce of the atheism and materialism that I keep since I had reached the age of reason.
If the Pope Francisco asserted that J has the same level of evidence that we attribute to 1 or 2, I would discuss with pleasure or even with passion with him. And I will argue with those who, like you do, pretend that J requires the same level of evidence than 1 or 2. At least, nobody could accuse me of bias in my demands, because for me J is true or is not true with the same criteria that allow me to discuss the evidence of the battle of Alesia or the amazing life of Apollonius of Tyana. I think this is not your case.
PS: I managed not to mention Ehrman in the entire comment. Bravo, a success! For me Ehrman and his anti-miticist crusade is an accessory detail. Of course, I am not miticists despite my sympathies for the miticist gang. Yes. Crusaders even cause considerable racket.
ADDeD: I know, I know: "mythicists" and no "miticists", but this a barbarism, is it not? And barbarisms are free and I am a barbar of anlgo-saxon grammar. And I should not be here at this time. This is not my Randi's hour.
Last edited:
My arguments have been causing you a lot of concern. This is exactly what I expected.
You must respond to my posts even though you have nothing to contribute and have no evidence for your HJ, the obscure Nazarite preacher who was NOT the Christ and was NOT born in Bethlehem.
Robert Eiseman is an historian and he claims that NO-ONE has been able to solve the question of an historical Jesus.
Your argument about an unknown Consensus has effectively been utterly dismantled by an historian Robert Eiseman.
Your Chinese Whispers argument has been destroyed--you can't use it anymore.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I doubt that your arguments are causing anyone anywhere any concern. They are certainly not causing anyone here to doubt the existence of the HJ.
- Status