Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Actually RandFan, the majority of scholars support a historical Jesus (again not a mythic Christ).

But 99% of those "scholars" are faithful Christian believers and/or work in Christian organisations - their jobs, reputations, and friends DEPEND on believing in Jesus.

The scholarship devoted to this quest has been going on for over a century. There have been a few scholars who have presented various "myth" theories over the years but these never hold up well under peer review and gather no serious support.

Nonsense - the Jesus Myth theory is growing in support. While faithful believers insist no "serious" support exists for the JM theory.

Of course, when support is cited, it is dismissed as not "serious" - perfectly circular faithful belief.



K.

 

[Ethnikos]

Email William of Ockham with your theory and let us know what he says.

I grew up hearing about how "Christianity was corrupted in the dark ages and made into something practically pagan."
I wondered how they knew that and what if it was really pagan to begin with.
My evidence is Paul changing his name from Saul, which is in accordance with the Egyptian practice of initiates (putting the letter P at the beginning of your name) and may have been adopted by whatever branch he belonged to. The other evidence is when he was shipwrecked and washed up to shore, the locals went out to see who these people were and he flashes the secret hand signal (or probably did) and says, "Don't worry, we are not barbarians" which is code for saying he is an initiate.

 

[Craig B]

Ethnikos

The "initiation" obviously didn't work too well. HE thought the MALTESE were barbarians. Acts 28:2 *And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I have argued for some time that it's trivial to assert that there was a historical Jesus. Nobody special, just some guy who moved from cosmopolitan Galilee to uber-Jewish Judea and found that nothing there really jibed with what he'd been brought up with (don't forget, they raised pigs in Galilee -- that'd probably be unheard of in Judea). He found a girlfriend named Maryam and a bunch of friends who agreed with his message of "lighten up and treat each other with respect even if you hate them". Those friends, including his brother (and probably Maryam), were the core of the early Christian church until Paul came along. Said historical Jesus wound up crucified for inciting a riot on the Temple Mount. All of this comes under "sure, why not, Paul probably didn't pull the whole thing out of thin air". There are glimpses of this historical Jesus buried in the Gospels, though since this Jesus was of no particular importance in his life, it's still a "sure why not". I'd guess Paul's church or a Gnostic group was the one that wound up attaching all the Messianic imagery to him.

The downside is: It's also trivial to assert that a historical Sherlock Holmes existed. Or a historical Harry Potter. Or Abdul Al Hazred. Or, for that matter, Russell's Teapot.

Repeat after me: not being implausible, is not evidence of existence of anything. Just because you can believe there could be a real teapot in orbit, is no reason to assert it as true.

So, yeah, it's trivial to assert unsupported BS, but it doesn't make it true.

What I find odd is the necessity of some atheists to prove somehow that Jesus never existed. It's a fool's errand because the existence of a historical personage behind the stories doesn't really make any difference as to whether the doctrine is true or not. Paul Bunyan may have actually existed, may have been a really tall lumberjack, and might have owned an oddly colored pet bull; he almost certainly wouldn't have been an actual giant, and he obviously didn't carve the Grand Canyon. (Please note that I actually don't know anything about the Paul Bunyan backstory; it's just a hypothetical.) It is... fascinating... how people go to such lengths to deny the existence of Jesus when it doesn't even make any sense to consider the question absent actual evidence of fabrication.

That's such a trying to handwave in an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity, it's not even funny.

No, see, the way Occam's Razor works is: you don't add extra entities just because you don't have evidence they're false. You only add them if you have evidence that needs them to be true.

You don't need any evidence that there ISN'T a teapot in orbit, to not believe there's a teapot in orbit. You don't need to have evidence that the <Insert Conspiracy Ruling The World> is fabricated, to not believe that there is such a conspiracy. You don't need evidence that the nigerian widow with 80,000,000$ to transfer is fabricated, to take it as a scam. If there isn't evidence that such a teapot or conspiracy or rich widow actually exists, then the default position is that it isn't. It's that bloody simple. It's not rocket science.

And Paul Bunyan is probably the best example of what's wrong with believing any BS unless you have evidence it's fabricated. Because Paul Bunyan first appears in some stories clearly written as fiction, some century after he was later retrofitted to have lived, and for that matter the author doesn't actually place him in that period either. The whole hyping him as real was done by some interested party, who had something to gain from that hype. In Paul Bunyan's case, it was a logging industry ad campaign that made him real and bigger than life.

 

[Greediguts]

Gday,



But 99% of those "scholars" are faithful Christian believers and/or work in Christian organisations - their jobs, reputations, and friends DEPEND on believing in Jesus.

Kapyong, seriously? 99%? Did you do a head count? Every scholar in the field is either completely biased due to their beliefs or they can't rock the boat because if they do, they will lose their job.

That sounds like a logical premise to you? Really?

Nonsense - the Jesus Myth theory is growing in support. While faithful believers insist no "serious" support exists for the JM theory.

Of course, when support is cited, it is dismissed as not "serious" - perfectly circular faithful belief.


K.

Kapyong, I agree support has grown for JM but that exists only on the internet, not on college campuses and not in peer-reviewed journals.

I linked to the discussion between Prof. McGrath (HJ) and Earl Doherty(MJ) regarding peer review for mythicists (here). Also, Thomas Verenna's blog (who doesn't feel the evidence supports the HJ or MJ camp) discusses the idea of peer review as well. Neil Godfrey and Earl Doherty have avoided this process and Verenna calls them on the carpet for this.

Richard Carrier is in the process of submitting his new book for peer review. He is a MJ supporter and he has no problem having his work judged for competency by others in the field.

If you want MJ theories to gather serious scholarly support, why not go through the process? It seems that some MJ theorists and their supporters would rather win a popularity contest on the internet than engage the other side in academia...

 

[Kapyong]

I grew up hearing about how "Christianity was corrupted in the dark ages and made into something practically pagan."
I wondered how they knew that and what if it was really pagan to begin with.
My evidence is Paul changing his name from Saul, which is in accordance with the Egyptian practice of initiates (putting the letter P at the beginning of your name) and may have been adopted by whatever branch he belonged to. The other evidence is when he was shipwrecked and washed up to shore, the locals went out to see who these people were and he flashes the secret hand signal (or probably did) and says, "Don't worry, we are not barbarians" which is code for saying he is an initiate.

Paul makes it clear he's an initiate :
"We speak wisdom, however, among the initiates "
...yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nothing. "

Paul says he is a pneumatic (a spiritual person) :
"But to us, God revealed them through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. ... But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, ... But he who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is judged by no one. "

In fact, Paul even has Christ's mind :
"For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have Christ's mind."

And he boasts of rising to the 3rd heaven :
"I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
and he heard things that cannot told, which man may not utter... ''

And what about this little beauty (probably not by Paul though) :

"Therefore it is said:
Awake O sleeper,
and arise from the dead
and the Christos will shine on you"
(Eph. 5:14)

This sounds exactly like an initiatory ritual - the initiate, called 'dead' in the physical body, is enticed to 'rise' above the physical so the Christos may shine on him. Like Apuleis meeting the Gods.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

What I find odd is the necessity of some atheists to prove somehow that Jesus never existed.

What I find odd is how some people see this in terms of just two sides, black-and-white, rather like a football game -
the nasty atheists
Vs
the wonderful believers.

Well - I am NOT an atheist.
(And I actually BELIEVE in Jesus ! Yes - Jesus is REAL. He is a real mythic being who really lives and moves - in the spiritual dimensions.)

But somehow, I am frequently labelled an atheist in these debates. Because only someone on the OTHER SIDE could possibly deny Jesus!

And we know that tarring your opponent with a nasty name is a sure way to win an argument.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Kapyong, seriously? 99%? Did you do a head count? Every scholar in the field is either completely biased due to their beliefs or they can't rock the boat because if they do, they will lose their job.

I have checked the background of NT scholars that I read about, and I have often asked for examples of NON Christian NT scholars.

The actual numbers would be about 95-98% or so.
(Of course 99.9% was a magic number.)

So really -
how many NT scholars can YOU name who are NOT
"faithful Christian believers and/or work in Christian organisations"
(Please try to avoid working it up into emotive phrases like "completely biased". I didn't say that.)

That sounds like a logical premise to you? Really?

Yes, I seriously argue that the vast majority of NT scholars have huge pressures to support an HJ.

And yes - the consequences of suddenly announcing that Jesus was a myth would certainly costs friends, it would clearly costs reputation, and it would probably mean loss of certain religious positions - of COURSE it would.

The people who DO argue Jesus is NON historical are already suffering ridicule from the mainstream - like the pathetic example of James McGrath's attack on Doherty? It's a perfect case in point - McGrath is so convinced the JM theory is like holocaust-denial that he doesn't even address Doherty's points - he just ridicules it all because he already "knows" Doherty is wrong.

Kapyong, I agree support has grown for JM but that exists only on the internet, not on college campuses and not in peer-reviewed journals.

Yes, the mainstream is still doing all they can to ignore and suppress it. It is certainly a minority view.

I linked to the discussion between Prof. McGrath (HJ) and Earl Doherty(MJ) regarding peer review for mythicists (here). Also, Thomas Verenna's blog (who doesn't feel the evidence supports the HJ or MJ camp) discusses the idea of peer review as well. Neil Godfrey and Earl Doherty have avoided this process and Verenna calls them on the carpet for this.

McGrath's behaviour is like a petulant school-girl. It's a bit rich for him to talk about scholarly ways, frankly.

Neil Godfrey's work stands head-and shoulders above McGrath, and many others NT 'scholars' in my view.

But sure - I hope more attention, and even formal peer-review, is paid to Doherty's work. But his ideas should ideally stand on their merit - and the peer-review issue is mostly an excuse to AVOID his work I reckon. Considering the way Doherty has been abused by alleged 'scholars' such as McGrath, I understand his reluctance. The guy is getting sick of having meta-arguments - arguments about HIM and about his procedue etc. - while avoiding his actual argument about MJ.

Richard Carrier is in the process of submitting his new book for peer review. He is a MJ supporter and he has no problem having his work judged for competency by others in the field.

Great. I hope to see more.

If you want MJ theories to gather serious scholarly support, why not go through the process? It seems that some MJ theorists and their supporters would rather win a popularity contest on the internet than engage the other side in academia...

Oh come on.
It's mostly happening on the internet - because things mostly happen on the internet these days. So what?

I DO want scholars to address the issue, and it's happening, slowly.


K.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, no CNN back then, so we use historical evidence. The writings of Tacitus and Josephus are historical evidence plain and simple.

They are anecdotal evidence. On its own, worthless.

Hans

 

[punshhh]

Gday,



What I find odd is how some people see this in terms of just two sides, black-and-white, rather like a football game -
the nasty atheists
Vs
the wonderful believers.

Well - I am NOT an atheist.
(And I actually BELIEVE in Jesus ! Yes - Jesus is REAL. He is a real mythic being who really lives and moves - in the spiritual dimensions.)

But somehow, I am frequently labelled an atheist in these debates. Because only someone on the OTHER SIDE could possibly deny Jesus!

And we know that tarring your opponent with a nasty name is a sure way to win an argument.


K.

Does this mean you consider Jesus to actually exist? or the myth of jesus to actually exist?

 

[Mudcat]

Does this mean you consider Jesus to actually exist?

It's obvious he doesn't because if he ever did than he be long dead and turned to dust by now.

or the myth of jesus to actually exist?

Weather you acknowledge him as a myth or not, the myth clearly exists, regardless you believe it does or not.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

cool. i think that seems pretty reasonable.
i'm not a christian, but i like jesus. i've always figured that he probably lived.
paul certainly ********** the whole thing up.

The problem is that it's essentially fanfic. One can't just imagine that events X1, Y1 and Z1 are true -- even though they're buried in some documents that are by and large some huge lies -- but X2, Y2 and Z2 are not, and have it somehow magically be true. E.g., to arrive at that nice Jesus, one has to somehow "know" in the absence of any evidence that the nice parts are true. While also knowing that all the atrocious episodes are false, like Jesus being ok with whipping a slave who didn't even know he did something the master didn't want, or his getting angry at someone touching his robe (in earlier manuscripts), or ranting against washing your hands and dishes before a meal, or killing children for just bumping into him or for splashing in a puddle (Infancy Gospel of Thomas), or performing an exorcism by tying a cloth around a girl's head and setting it on fire (First Infancy Gospel), etc,are not the real thing. How would one know that, absent any evidence? Even allowing for a historical Jesus, how would one know if it's the nice Jesus and the bad parts are invented, or if it's a dangerously deranged Jesus and it's the parts that make him nice that are invented?

Someone's just liking a version they just imagined himself doesn't make it true, or anything. Unless you genuinely believe that he's a prophet and has some magical/divine/whatever information there.

But the best way to illustrate what's wrong with it, is: watch me do the same for Pinocchio.

I believe that there was a real Pinocchio. Sure, he wasn't a real animated puppet, he was a real boy with a long nose who just believed he's an inanimate puppet. There are real (though thankfully rare) mental disorders where one believes stuff like that. (And it can actually get even more gross. E.g.,in the Cotard delusion, one believes oneself to be dead or even nonexistent.) Or maybe he's the victim of a dad with Capgras delusion, who always believed that his son was replaced with an identical puppet and always treated him like one. And I could then go on to proclaim which events from Pinocchio actually happened, and which didn't. E.g., that the fox and the cat aren't really supernatural talking animals, but the nicknames of two human bandits. Nicknames like that would likely imply cunning or stealth, and not be very uncommon in that line of work. Etc.

Does that mean I found a historical Pinocchio, and it was Carlo Collodi that screwed it up? Or did I just write my own BS fanfic?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Might I offer my personal opinion, as a functional atheist?

At around 30 AD, in what was then Palestine, there was a revisionist movement. At that time and place, distinguishing between religion and politics made little sense, and indeed this movement was both. One rabbi in the new movement was quite active and distinct. His name might have been Jesus. Anyhow, he was distinct and popular enough that the powers that be saw him as a threat, and they managed to convince the occupying Romans (who, in their usual style, interfered as little as possible with local affairs) to deal with him. He was subsequently arrested, brought to a fair trial (as fair as any trial came in that time and place, which doesn't say much) and executed. Since crucifixion seems to have been a common method, especially if you wanted to set an example to the people, it is likely that he was crucified.

With this, the ones in power no doubt hoped to have nipped the movement in the bud, but, as has happened many times later, and no doubt also earlier, they had instead provided it with a nice and useful martyr. It also persuaded the members to keep a fairly low profile for a while. However, some time later, about a century, the movement had spread and grown, and its current leaders and spokesmen dared to resurface. However, in order to avoid, or at least postpone, their own martyrdom, they pushed the already legendary rabbi Jesus forward as the figurehead of the new sect. - After all, the enemies could hardly kill him again.

In those days, myths and supernatural deeds were routinely ascribed to leading persons, including kings and warlords, so ascribing them to their new prophet was really standard procedure. At the same time, a nice legend of his birth was adopted or crafted, but either little was done about his youth, or most such legends were subsequently lost again.

With the new leaders, and their new prophet design (God's son, no less!), the movement grew and prospered in the religious vacuums in long declined Greece and the decadent Rome, where it gradually replaced the long outdated polytheistic religions. Some of the spokesmen also became martyrs, but the convenient practice of ascribing controversial stuff to those already dead kept the rest alive to spread the gospel, and in an era where a human life had very limited value, the movement practically fed on such martyrs.

That is one way it could have happened.

Hans

 

[Belz...]

2) He lived a virtuous life.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

Do you have any extra-biblical evidence of 2 and 8 ?

 

[Belz...]

It is like saying people did not walk on the moon.

Well, aside from the visual records we have of the landings.

 

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
This sounds exactly like an initiatory ritual - the initiate, called 'dead' in the physical body, is enticed to 'rise' above the physical so the Christos may shine on him. Like Apuleis meeting the Gods.
K.

I always thought it was too convenient that the Greeks already had a name to describe this entity.

ETA: do you mean the character in the book?
This would kind of go along with what I was trying to say about Paul.
Apuleis wants to share insight into his religion but is restrained from just making an expose so writes an obviously fictional account of a character who goes through these processes but can do it in such a way as to give a spiritual understanding of the concepts involved, but not divulging what the actual secret cultic rituals are.
Paul could have done this by creating out of the HJ, a MJ to demonstrate the ideal which Paul fully expected his initiates to be able to reproduce.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Of course, you can imagine that. But the problems are:

1. Crucifixion was not that common. (I know, I could hardly believe that Life Of Brian got that wrong) It was only fairly common for runaway or rebellious slaves, bandits (and even then non-citizen bandits), etc.

2. We see in several places, including both Josephus and Acts, that the Romans actually do distinguish between political cases and local religious disputes, and that most of the local customs and laws in Judaea were solved by the local courts. When someone wants a certain James (who may or may not have been the brother of Jesus) dead, we see in Josephus that they just summon the Sanhedrin and it has that James executed. Or when John The Baptist annoys the king, said king doesn't need the Romans to execute John.

Sorry, it makes no bloody sense to have the Romans involved there. And in several places, including Acts (though that is a questionable source) that the Romans refuse to be the ones dispensing punishments at all in cases concerning local religious disputes.

Even to the authors of the Gospels, the whole episode warrants a convoluted setup where the Roman governor has his hand forced by two high priests who didn't even rule at the same time, and a hare-brained accusation of Jesus trying to proclaim himself king, that supposedly Pilate couldn't ignore. In fact, he could jolly well ignore it, if Jesus wasn't a credible threat at all. They didn't nail every single crazy guy who thought he's some religious king or messiah. And it's not clear at all why would they annoy a pretty uncooperative Roman governor, instead of just dispensing a punishment they could themselves.

3. Sorry, the whole idea of attributing something to a dead rabbi to avoid being martyred for those views, is silly, if you look at real history.

For the Romans what could get you martyred was more like:

A) denying the Gods of the state. (Merely preaching an extra God was no reason to be persecuted. You had to actually annoy the Roman by telling them their Gods are false.) And

B) treason, sedition, or other such actual crimes, by the standards of the time.

For neither of those was there an exemption if you just claimed to repeat someone else's words, regardless of whether that person was dead or alive. Attributing those ideas to Jesus would probably be the most ridiculous defense ever.

4. Roman persecution of Christians actually allowed for a far easier line of defense, than trying to convince the Judges that you're only repeating the words of an imaginary undead rabbi. At least if your only crime was denying the gods of the state.

See, the more immediate and effective defense would have been to just show that you don't. If you offered to go to the nearest shrine and offer a symbolic libation to the official god of your choice, all accusations were dropped, name cleared, you're free to go.

5. Plus, persecution was only minimal in the first century anyway. You had to make yourself pretty visible to even be accused in the first place, much less to actually end up among the single-digit number of people actually martyred. And I mean, seriously, outside of Nero's backlash after the great fire of Rome, the most you can find for any given Emperor in the 1st Century is like 1 (ONE) guy executed for religion, if even that.

Combined with the above, you probably get the idea already -- like many Roman writers also would -- that the only people martyred, were those who actually wanted to commit suicide by the Romans' hand. The new religion promised instant saintdom to everyone who dies for their faith. If you could get the Romans to kill you, you were promised to immediately go to heaven, do not pass go, do not collect 200 denarii So a lot of people went and trolled the Romans to get their instant guaranteed eternal reward.

Which brings us to the briefer point: all you needed to avoid getting martyred for Christianity, was to not try to get martyred. That's it.

Convoluted scenarios involving imaginary undead rabbis were simply not necessary.

6. Even more importantly, if you realize they attributed some of their own BS to a legendary rabbi Jesus, then why not all of it? How would you know which parts are true, and which are such later BS?

For that matter, if you actually believe that attributing political ideas to a dead rabbi would do anything, then why would you need a real rabbi? If you tried to avoid martyrdom in Rome, you could pretty much be assured that nobody there would know if a rabbi called Jesus actually existed before the war. So exactly why would you need a real one? Why can't you just invent a rabbi with a relatively common name -- let's call him, dunno, "Jesus" -- if you just need a mythical sockpuppet?

 

[Bill Thompson]

It doesn't seem to me that people in position of authority could keep a secret for 2000 years and someone in authority would have known that there never was a human being at the heart of Christianity like there exists a single human being at he heart of Buddism, Islam, etc.

I think the big revelation would have come from one of the priests rather than in the form of a conspiracy theory from an atheist.

I mean, it seems this way to me. Historically, people have not been able to keep secrets for that long, it seems to me.

============

Do you remember in the 70's there was a book called "Chariots of Fire" that presented the idea that the earth was visited by ancient aliens. It was a big fad but eventually people who had studied the subjects in the book more extensively came forward to say it was all bunk. It was like a fad that was a rage and it died away. I wonder of socieologists will come forward and say that, in judging human nature, it is unlikely that there wasn't at least some sort of flawed individual at the heart of Christianity. This is, afterall, a theory. No Catholic Bishop in charge of records has said Christ never lived. I would think that if it was a scam or a hoax, there might be some ancient text confessing this.

 

[Akhenaten]

It doesn't seem to me that people in position of authority could keep a secret for 2000 years and someone in authority would have known that there never was a human being at the heart of Christianity like there exists a single human being at he heart of Buddism, Islam, etc.

I think the big revelation would have come from one of the priests rather than in the form of a conspiracy theory from an atheist.

I mean, it seems this way to me. Historically, people have not been able to keep secrets for that long, it seems to me.

Things like the Inquisitio Hæreticæ Pravitatis can be a big help with keeping that sort of thing a secret.

Do you remember in the 70's there was a book called "Chariots of Fire" that presented the idea that the earth was visited by ancient aliens. It was a big fad but eventually people who had studied the subjects in the book more extensively came forward to say it was all bunk. It was like a fad that was a rage and it died away. I wonder of socieologists will come forward and say that, in judging human nature, it is unlikely that there wasn't at least some sort of flawed individual at the heart of Christianity. This is, afterall, a theory. No Catholic Bishop in charge of records has said Christ never lived. I would think that if it was a scam or a hoax, there might be some ancient text confessing this.

Erich von Däniken and Colin Welland are going to be very disappointed in you.

 

[RandFan]

It doesn't seem to me that people in position of authority could keep a secret for 2000 years and someone in authority would have known that there never was a human being at the heart of Christianity like there exists a single human being at he heart of Buddism, Islam, etc.

Agreed. But then no one thinks that. That's just a straw man you erect to protect your precious belief.

I think the big revelation would have come from one of the priests rather than in the form of a conspiracy theory from an atheist.

I think it did. Many times. But then it was never the kind of caricature you are making out to be. That's a straw man.

I mean, it seems this way to me. Historically, people have not been able to keep secrets for that long, it seems to me.

Many of the secrets of the Church has come out. The genocide, the torture, the graft and criminality. No one thinks the Catholic Church is the kind of conspiracy you claim. That's a straw man.

Do you remember in the 70's there was a book called "Chariots of Fire" that presented the idea that the earth was visited by ancient aliens. It was a big fad but eventually people who had studied the subjects in the book more extensively came forward to say it was all bunk.

Same thing happened with Catholicism. Many times. Corruption, atrocity, on and on.

It was like a fad that was a rage and it died away.

Sadly not all BS dies away. Look around at all of the Churches.

I wonder of socieologists will come forward and say that, in judging human nature, it is unlikely that there wasn't at least some sort of flawed individual at the heart of Christianity.

Many, many flawed people. Many corrupt and evil. That's a straw man.

No Catholic Bishop in charge of records has said Christ never lived. I would think that if it was a scam or a hoax, there might be some ancient text confessing this.

No Mormon Prophet ever said that Joseph wasn't a prophet. That's a straw man.