The Historical Jesus III

[IanS]

No, you are misrepresenting your own views, perhaps for "rhetorical" reasons. I stated that "(a) Consensus that someone is a God, born of a virgin is worthless. It may be dismissed." You respond with: "Since you are arguing with dejudge about the word "consensus", I'll tell you something about what you say is a valid "consensus" between bible scholars saying Jesus did exist - those bible scholars apparently almost all say that he "definitely" did exist as a matter of literal "certainty", and they claim that is shown by actual evidence in the gospels and letters of the bible ... "

Now, that means that the two kinds of consensus are of comparable validity - or there is no point in your writing it. And that is preposterous. The "certainty" if such it be, that Jesus existed as a natural human being, is infinitely more rational than the consensus of Church fathers that he was a virgin born God.

No it does not mean whatever you want to claim the words mean. My words mean precisely what they say they mean and nothing else. I am asking you about a "consensus" which you say exists amongst scholarly experts like Bart Ehrman and all the many thousands of his academic colleagues of whom he says "practically every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees" when he puts in print for all the world to see that what he calls the "evidence" proves that Jesus "certainly existed....

... I am asking you what a "consensus" of such moronically stupid and deluded "expert scholarly" opinions like that is worth!

 

[The Greater Fool]

I am not interested in what you think about any so-called "consensus" amongst anyone called "church fathers". I am not asking you about that all.

I am asking you what a "consensus" between biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman and “practically every properly trained scholar on the planet” can be worth when they claim that the bible is evidence actually proof of the “certainty” of Jesus existence?

How credible is an expert “consensus” like that?

Because those are the people who you are actually reliant upon for your own HJ belief.

Hey IanS, how you doing?

Obviously, the Bible, being focused on the supernatural, is beyond science.

Just kidding

It seems obvious that there is a lot of special pleading intended to include the Bible as a historical source. It is, however, different than most fiction in that it purports to be true. After all, god detests liars, so if it was a lie god wouldn't allow it... right?

By this reasoning, and I think it may actually be active reasoning, Hercules, Ulysses, Persius, et al, were based on real people. Of course, it's possible. OR, the authors have great imaginations.

The whole thing seems to be a house of cards, with the (still) default position that the one true god and Jesus are real. For such folks, removing that 'reality' in order to study it is nearly impossible. For atheists who are able to discard that foundation, the house of cards crumbles.

In other words, I agree with your rhetorical question "How credible is an expert “consensus” like that?"

After the Zombie Apocalypse, I wonder what the alien archeologists will make of our apparent obsession with Harry Potter.

 

[Belz...]

The whole thing seems to be a house of cards, with the (still) default position that the one true god and Jesus are real. For such folks, removing that 'reality' in order to study it is nearly impossible. For atheists who are able to discard that foundation, the house of cards crumbles.

In other words, I agree with your rhetorical question "How credible is an expert “consensus” like that?"

I'm pretty sure that historians aren't concluding that god exists.

 

[Craig B]

Hey
By this reasoning, and I think it may actually be active reasoning, Hercules, Ulysses, Persius, et al, were based on real people. Of course, it's possible. OR, the authors have great imaginations.

After the Zombie Apocalypse, I wonder what the alien archeologists will make of our apparent obsession with Harry Potter.

As soon as they become aware that the Harry Potter books were written as intentional fiction, accepted as such by both author and readers, they will know not to reach a consensus that the hero of thse works really existed.

 

[The Greater Fool]

As soon as they become aware that the Harry Potter books were written as intentional fiction, accepted as such by both author and readers, they will know not to reach a consensus that the hero of thse works really existed.

Assuming, of course, they have a concept of fiction.

 

[David Mo]

Christians of antiquity admitted THEIR Jesus was God of God, the Lord from heaven and born of a Ghost.

Please, explain where you would find historical data for Jesus of Nazareth?

In the same books which state he was a Ghost???

Mistake.
Christians didn’t “admit”. They believed.
Some Christians thought that Jesus was a kind of pre-existent deity subordinated to the Father. Paul.
Other Christians thought that Jesus was a man elevated to the “right” of Yahweh at a moment of his life. Mark.
Other Christians thought that the Holy Spirit fecundated a virgin called Mary that gave birth a child, maybe semi divine. Luke. Other Christians didn’t say anything about miraculous births. Mark.
I don’t remember the expression “God of God” in the gospels. Moreover, I think it is grammatically incorrect in English. In any case, Jesus is presented as subordinate to the Father in the gospels. He submits the will of his Father, he is authorized by his Father to do some things and he doesn’t know some things that the Father knows.
And he is presented as a man in the gospels. He is born, as the men are; he has brothers, as many other men have; he eats, as the men eat; he sleeps and awakes, as the other men; he is angry, as the men are; he suffers, as the others; he dies as all the men die.
He also does other things that a few men are also able to do, according to the evangelists: he does miracles and he resurrects. Only, he does those things because he is also an elected by God or he is some divine entity.

Fallacy: Can you tell us what the hell all these things have to do with the real existence of a man called Jesus? There were men in the Antiquity that were dead, resurrected and did miracles, according their believers. For example, Empedocles or Antinous. They were deified men. Of course, this is not to say that Jesus really had existed, but that this kind of belief was possible.

Please, don’t bore us with other long litany! Just answer my question. Thank you.

The second part of your question will come after we discuss that, Point by point, please.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I'm pretty sure that historians aren't concluding that god exists.

Of course. I did not intend to imply otherwise. My apologies.

My intent was to identify a likely deeply ingrained bias, and how that deeply ingrained bias could color their conclusions.

I am certainly neither historian nor bible scholar, and therefore cannot challenge their conclusions in any meaningful way. But, I find the discussion (when it is a discussion, and not folks repeating the same thing to rebut arguments nobody makes) entertaining and often educational.

 

[Belz...]

Can you tell us what the hell all these things have to do with the real existence of a man called Jesus?

Well he was born of a ghost so he can't possibly have existed. What's that? Other historical figures have had mythical stuff said about them? Well, they weren't born from ghosts, were they? QED.

 

[Belz...]

Of course. I did not intend to imply otherwise. My apologies.

My intent was to identify a likely deeply ingrained bias, and how that deeply ingrained bias could color their conclusions.

I'm sure that's correct, but only for people who are both Christians and unable to eliminate that bias from their analysis. Plenty of Christians have challenged their own beliefs in view of the evidence throughout history. Giordano Bruno comes to mind. Just because _some_ of those historians are Christians (not all, as some here have implied or outright claimed) doesn't mean that the fruit of their research is tainted. Claiming otherwise is a fallacy. The research stands or falls on its own merits, but often laypeople simply lack the ability to question the findings.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I'm sure that's correct, but only for people who are both Christians and unable to eliminate that bias from their analysis. Plenty of Christians have challenged their own beliefs in view of the evidence throughout history. Giordano Bruno comes to mind. Just because _some_ of those historians are Christians (not all, as some here have implied or outright claimed) doesn't mean that the fruit of their research is tainted. Claiming otherwise is a fallacy. The research stands or falls on its own merits, but often laypeople simply lack the ability to question the findings.

Again, don't disagree. Just apparently not good at agreeing

 

[dejudge]

Like physicists. They keep talking about "dark matter" and such nonsense. "Dark" matter? That sounds like magic. How credible is their expert consensus?

Pretty good, actually, since they are the experts and I am not. Unless we start doubting relevant expert opinion on the basis that we disagree. Now, I know what you're going to say: the nature of the evidence is different, and all. But I'm discussing, as you were, expertise: does the fact that _you_ find the evidence unconvincing somehow disqualify the experts?

Instead, you should show that they are not experts.

What bizarre nonsense.

Based on logical fallacies Atheists should have never claim God does not exist because experts claim he does.

At one time so-called experts were claiming the earth was stationary and that the sun revolved around the earth.

So-called expertise is useless when they have zero evidence for 'expert' opinion.

In addition, presently we know that experts are arguing that Jesus was a figure of mythology based on the evidence so the claim that there is a consensus is irrelevant.

Most persons, most so-called experts] who claim Jesus existed worship him as the Son of God described in the Bible.

The former bishop of Rome is an expert [a Scholar] who admits his Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost.

Perhaps there are THOUSANDS of experts who pray to Jesus in order to get ETERNAL Life.

Go to any Sunday School, University or College with a Chapel and you will see EXPERTS who claim Jesus existed asking Jesus to REMIT their Sins.

Robert Van Voorst is an EXPERT who claim Jesus existed but as is expected he believes Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I'm convinced.

Everything we believe now is nonsense, for it will certainly be overturned in 2000 or 3000 years. It takes a keen mind to see current consensus for the sham it actually is.

 

[IanS]

Hey IanS, how you doing?

Obviously, the Bible, being focused on the supernatural, is beyond science.

Just kidding

It seems obvious that there is a lot of special pleading intended to include the Bible as a historical source. It is, however, different than most fiction in that it purports to be true. After all, god detests liars, so if it was a lie god wouldn't allow it... right?

By this reasoning, and I think it may actually be active reasoning, Hercules, Ulysses, Persius, et al, were based on real people. Of course, it's possible. OR, the authors have great imaginations.

The whole thing seems to be a house of cards, with the (still) default position that the one true god and Jesus are real. For such folks, removing that 'reality' in order to study it is nearly impossible. For atheists who are able to discard that foundation, the house of cards crumbles.

In other words, I agree with your rhetorical question "How credible is an expert “consensus” like that?"

After the Zombie Apocalypse, I wonder what the alien archeologists will make of our apparent obsession with Harry Potter.

Hi GF ... ha ha (smiles) OK, I appreciate the Joke, I did smile at that, honestly! (i.e. the "beyond science bit) .

Yes, I'm just trying to highlight something to Craig about his reasoning when he makes an appeal to authority saying there is a consensus amongst expert academics who say that Jesus did exist.

It's all quite pointless of course because Craig is never going to admit anything no matter how many times it's shown in unmistakable terms.

Actually I don't dislike Bart Ehrman. I find his books to be far clearer and with a better standard of writing than the books of Carrier. But I think it was rather a give-away when in his 2013 book he repeatedly used the words "certainty" and "definitely" when talking of the existence of Jesus.

IOW - Craig and other HJ supporters here should understand that something is very seriously wrong with an academic profession (in this case it's biblical scholars), if a consensus amongst "practically every properly trained scholar on the planet", actually thinks that a book as unreliable as the bible is a credible source of reliable evidence sufficient to conclude that the existence of Jesus was a "definite" "certainty". A consensus amongst a group as un-objective and as partial as that, is probably worse than useless ("worse" because it leads huge numbers of people, such as Craig, to think that bible scholars surely must have some really good evidence ... when in fact, as Bart Ehrman's book shows, there actually is no good evidence).

So did Jesus exist? Dunno. But imho it needs something far better than the bible if any educated objective person is to conclude that the likelihood is greater than 50% (i.e. more likely than not, as distinctly from less likely).

 

[dejudge]

Mistake.
Christians didn’t “admit”. They believed.
Some Christians thought that Jesus was a kind of pre-existent deity subordinated to the Father. Paul.
Other Christians thought that Jesus was a man elevated to the “right” of Yahweh at a moment of his life. Mark.
Other Christians thought that the Holy Spirit fecundated a virgin called Mary that gave birth a child, maybe semi divine. Luke. Other Christians didn’t say anything about miraculous births. Mark.
I don’t remember the expression “God of God” in the gospels. Moreover, I think it is grammatically incorrect in English. In any case, Jesus is presented as subordinate to the Father in the gospels. He submits the will of his Father, he is authorized by his Father to do some things and he doesn’t know some things that the Father knows.
And he is presented as a man in the gospels. He is born, as the men are; he has brothers, as many other men have; he eats, as the men eat; he sleeps and awakes, as the other men; he is angry, as the men are; he suffers, as the others; he dies as all the men die.
He also does other things that a few men are also able to do, according to the evangelists: he does miracles and he resurrects. Only, he does those things because he is also an elected by God or he is some divine entity.

Fallacy: Can you tell us what the hell all these things have to do with the real existence of a man called Jesus? There were men in the Antiquity that were dead, resurrected and did miracles, according their believers. For example, Empedocles or Antinous. They were deified men. Of course, this is not to say that Jesus really had existed, but that this kind of belief was possible.

Please, don’t bore us with other long litany! Just answer my question. Thank you.

The second part of your question will come after we discuss that, Point by point, please.

You seem to think what you believe in the 21st century is evidence.

Your 21st century un-evidenced opinion is rather worthless.

Christians of antiquity did ADMIT THEIR Jesus was God of God and truly born of a Ghost.

Eamine the writings of Christians of antiquity.

A writer under the name of Tertullian did ADMIT his Jesus was of God the father seed WITHOUT a human father.

On the Flesh of Christ

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Origen in "Against Celsus" admitted his Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Against Celsus 1......

let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost.....

Jesus of Nazareth is no different to the God of the Jews.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth/fiction character like Satan and the Lord God of the Jews.

 

[maximara]

Like physicists. They keep talking about "dark matter" and such nonsense. "Dark" matter? That sounds like magic. How credible is their expert consensus?

Except social sciences (like history and historical anthropology) are more prone to the model driving the theory then the theory driving the model.

This was driven home in 1956 with Horace Mitchell Miner's darkly satirical "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" which shows had one preconception regarding "primitive" cultures and their uses of "magic" was leading to a preordained conclusion. The sting in the tail was this "primitive" culture using "magic" was the then modern United States.

Miner's article cause a sea change in anthropology and it cousin field of archeology. The expert were forced to reevaluate if the consensus there were seeing was "real" or the product of the models they had been using.

The African Kinship system which consensus had been all hunter gathers followed was found to be the unknowing forcing of the data being collected into that model.

The records produced by the historical particularism of Boasian anthropology and archeology (c1890s-c1920s) became the new darling because it the model had presupposed each culture was unique was doomed to be destroyed by the expansion of 'White" civilization. So you would have page after page of detail and perhaps a paragraph if that of interpretation.

Out of it came historical anthropology which tried to create a culture reconstruction so that records could be reevaluated ie what bias would those recording events and those preserving those records have and how does that effect our view of what may have actually happened.

 

[Belz...]

What bizarre nonsense.

If every simple inference is bizarre nonsense to you, it's time to consider that the problem lies with you.

 

[Belz...]

Except social sciences (like history and historical anthropology) are more prone to the model driving the theory then the theory driving the model.

Granted. But just saying it doesn't make any particular conclusion biased. You have to show bias and not just imply it.

 

[Craig B]

You seem to think what you believe in the 21st century is evidence.

Your 21st century un-evidenced opinion is rather worthless.

Christians of antiquity did ADMIT THEIR Jesus was God of God and truly born of a Ghost.
...

Origen in "Against Celsus" admitted his Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Ah, so the opinion of Christians in antiquity is better than that of modern scholarship?

 

[Belz...]

Ah, so the opinion of Christians in antiquity is better than that of modern scholarship?

Obviously, since modern scholars don't understand that Jesus had a ghost for a father!!

 

[dejudge]

Ah, so the opinion of Christians in antiquity is better than that of modern scholarship?

What bizarre nonsense.

What is modern Scholarship WITHOUT evidence?

No person, Scholar or NOT, can present historical data for Jesus of Nazareth except for the FAKE Shroud of Turin fabricated AFTER Jesus resurrected.

Virtually every person who argues Jesus existed uses the admitted fiction/myth fables called the NT as evidence for THEIR HJ.

You Might as well start using myth/fiction books to argue that Romulus, the Angel Gabriel and Satan were figures of history by removing all the fiction.