Did Paul create Jesus?

[Swammerdami]

I'm glad you asked! It's common knowledge that any claim that has a probability of being true that is 50 percent or less is by definition not probably true. So any argument based on such a premise is not probably true. For further study, I'd recommend Schaum's Outline of Logic, Second Edition. Chapter 9 on induction should be especially helpful. I've used that book to learn logic because in addition to my being a debater, I'm also a mathematician and am currently studying how to prove mathematical theorems. Applying that kind of knowledge to the issue of the historicity of Jesus allows me to spot weak and fallacious arguments, and I've seen plenty of those in the arguments for a real Jesus.

So what do you think of the probabilities Carrier comes up with? Not the final numbers, but his methodology? Do you have confidence in that? I won't repeat my own opinions, expressed in one of the other threads.

By the way, one of my 30+ U.S. patents is for an algorithm to combine probability estimations. There's a fair amount of mathematics in some of my peer-reviewed computer science papers.

If you're interested in proving mathematical theorems, I hope you check out the latest thread in the Natural Sciences-->Mathematics forum. The puzzles I present there — still unsolved at IIDB — do involve interesting proofs. (Never mind that the latest post in that thread derives a NEGATIVE probability, showing that brute linear algebra fails on that problem.)

 

[TomC]

And speaking of Robert Price, he poses a very astute analogy between Jesus and Superman: If we wish to try to demonstrate that Jesus existed only he wasn't a miracle-working God, then we might as well conclude that Superman existed only he was merely the mild-mannered newspaper reporter, Clark Kent.

I don't see that as astute at all. I see it as ridiculous.
An agenda driven assertion that makes as much sense as asking "So, where does Aquaman poop?"

It might seem like an astute question to people who are comic book nerds, but nobody else.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

Superman: Truth, judtice, and the American wa
Jesus: Truth Jutsce and the Hebrew way?

Superman was no supernatural. His father was not a god.

Lousy comparison.

From what I read the idea for Superman came from a Jewish immigrant. Superman was an immigrant who underneath was as American as anyone else. Myths have a context in the culture that creates them.

Jews were under occupation. An ancient Jewish myth of the return of a king gave rise to a number of claimant.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

And speaking of Robert Price, he poses a very astute analogy between Jesus and Superman: If we wish to try to demonstrate that Jesus existed only he wasn't a miracle-working God, then we might as well conclude that Superman existed only he was merely the mild-mannered newspaper reporter, Clark Kent.

I don't see that as astute at all. I see it as ridiculous.
An agenda driven assertion that makes as much sense as asking "So, where does Aquaman poop?"

It might seem like an astute question to people who are comic book nerds, but nobody else.
Tom

Something tells me that we disagree.

But setting aside Bob Price's comparing an all-mighty, floating Jesus battling Satan to Superman battling Lex Luthor (how ridiculous!), I think Bob's analogy is apt. Bob's point is that it will do us no good to posit somebody who existed who wasn't Jesus in an effort to prove Jesus existed. It's like arguing for a historical Zeus who never reigned on Mount Olympus or cast thunderbolts from the sky. Even if there was a Greek man named Zeus who was bearded and muscular, he would hardly qualify as the Zeus from Greek lore. The same goes for Jesus because some loser peasant preacher living in Judea in 33 CE isn't really the Jesus of the Gospel story.

 

[excreationist]

....And speaking of Robert Price, he poses a very astute analogy between Jesus and Superman: If we wish to try to demonstrate that Jesus existed only he wasn't a miracle-working God, then we might as well conclude that Superman existed only he was merely the mild-mannered newspaper reporter, Clark Kent. Bob's point is that it will do us no good to try to prove A by proving B. That's valid logic if B isn't A.

In early stories of Jesus people were interested in his teachings. Who would be interested in an ordinary historical Clark Kent? Perhaps the whole point is that Clark Kent wasn't very important or interesting. So I don't think it is a very relevant analogy. In the case of Jesus many believe that he could gradually develop from an interesting historical person to having special powers.

So since a Jewish peasant preacher who got himself crucified by the Romans and is dead and gone isn't the Jesus of the New Testament, then proving the peasant preacher doesn't prove Jesus.

That could involve a historical character even if it doesn't fully fit the New Testament.

.....Bob's point is that it will do us no good to posit somebody who existed who wasn't Jesus in an effort to prove Jesus existed. It's like arguing for a historical Zeus who never reigned on Mount Olympus or cast thunderbolts from the sky. Even if there was a Greek man named Zeus who was bearded and muscular, he would hardly qualify as the Zeus from Greek lore. The same goes for Jesus because some loser peasant preacher living in Judea in 33 CE isn't really the Jesus of the Gospel story.

Bob believes that Jesus began as a god then later was historized. The example of Zeus also involves a character that began as a god. There is evidence that Jesus might have begun as a human and legends were added (e.g. compare the original ending of Mark with the additions to Mark and later gospels). His example of Superman also involves him starting as a god-like being and Bob seems to use Clark Kent as a way of historicizing Superman..... maybe

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm glad you asked! It's common knowledge that any claim that has a probability of being true that is 50 percent or less is by definition not probably true. So any argument based on such a premise is not probably true. For further study, I'd recommend Schaum's Outline of Logic, Second Edition. Chapter 9 on induction should be especially helpful. I've used that book to learn logic because in addition to my being a debater, I'm also a mathematician and am currently studying how to prove mathematical theorems. Applying that kind of knowledge to the issue of the historicity of Jesus allows me to spot weak and fallacious arguments, and I've seen plenty of those in the arguments for a real Jesus.

So what do you think of the probabilities Carrier comes up with? Not the final numbers, but his methodology?

I haven't actually checked his calculations, but obviously Jesus historians won't change their minds anyway. I tend to be more conservative than he is and think that the probability of a real Jesus who inspired the New Testament is an even chance.

If you're interested in proving mathematical theorems, I hope you check out the latest thread in the Natural Sciences-->Mathematics forum. The puzzles I present there — still unsolved at IIDB — do involve interesting proofs. (Never mind that the latest post in that thread derives a NEGATIVE probability, showing that brute linear algebra fails on that problem.)

Here's one I worked on recently. Is the theorem legitimate?


Theorem: If A, B, C, and D are any four sets where A × B ⊆ C × D, then A ⊆ C and B ⊆ D.

Proof:

Suppose A, B, C, and D are sets where A × B ⊆ C × D. Let arbitrary (x, y) ∈ A × B. Then all x ∈ A, and all y ∈ B. Because A × B ⊆ C × D, then all (x, y) ∈ C × D. So all x ∈ C, and all y ∈ D. So if any x ∈ A, then x ∈ C, it is true that A ⊆ C. Likewise, if any y ∈ B, then y ∈ D, it is true that B ⊆ D. □

 

[Unknown Soldier]

....And speaking of Robert Price, he poses a very astute analogy between Jesus and Superman: If we wish to try to demonstrate that Jesus existed only he wasn't a miracle-working God, then we might as well conclude that Superman existed only he was merely the mild-mannered newspaper reporter, Clark Kent. Bob's point is that it will do us no good to try to prove A by proving B. That's valid logic if B isn't A. So since a Jewish peasant preacher who got himself crucified by the Romans and is dead and gone isn't the Jesus of the New Testament, then proving the peasant preacher doesn't prove Jesus.

Even though Superman was pretending to be an ordinary human reporter he was in fact an alien with amazing powers. In the legend of Jesus an ordinary human could have had stories of special powers added...

True, and Jesus, like those amazing powers he reputedly had, could have been made up just like them. How is a real Jesus any more probable than this created Jesus especially considering that his chroniclers were lying about those amazing powers? I think it's prudent that if it is known that some people lied about A, then don't be too quick to believe them about B.

...while there are no stories of Superman where he is just a human reporter the whole time (without super powers including strength and flight).

And do we have stories about Jesus being a mere peasant?

.....Bob's point is that it will do us no good to posit somebody who existed who wasn't Jesus in an effort to prove Jesus existed. It's like arguing for a historical Zeus who never reigned on Mount Olympus or cast thunderbolts from the sky. Even if there was a Greek man named Zeus who was bearded and muscular, he would hardly qualify as the Zeus from Greek lore. The same goes for Jesus because some loser peasant preacher living in Judea in 33 CE isn't really the Jesus of the Gospel story.

Bob believes that Jesus began as a god then later was historized. The example of Zeus also involves a character that began as a god. There is evidence that Jesus might have begun as a human and legends were added...

That's a hypothesis, actually. A hypothesis is not evidence.

(e.g. compare the original ending of Mark with the additions to Mark and later gospels).

If you're saying that that demonstrates that Mark was lying about a real Jesus, then how is that more likely than Mark lying about a made-up Jesus?

His example of Superman also involves him starting as a god-like being and Bob seems to use Clark Kent as a way of historicizing Superman..... maybe

I don't think that Bob was saying he could historicize Superman with Clark Kent. Bob was actually saying that to try to historicize Superman by positing Clark Kent is to try to prove a myth has a basis in reality where the supposed reality, even if it was actually real, doesn't prove the myth. So although there were some real Jesuses, they don't prove the Gospel Jesus.

 

[excreationist]

Even though Superman was pretending to be an ordinary human reporter he was in fact an alien with amazing powers. In the legend of Jesus an ordinary human could have had stories of special powers added...

True, and Jesus, like those amazing powers he reputedly had, could have been made up just like them. How is a real Jesus any more probable than this created Jesus especially considering that his chroniclers were lying about those amazing powers? I think it's prudent that if it is known that some people lied about A, then don't be too quick to believe them about B.

I think the "real Jesus" didn't have any actual supernatural powers - the "created Jesus" often had supernatural powers. I'm not quick about believing in what parts of the Jesus stories were real... I just think it began with a real person....

...while there are no stories of Superman where he is just a human reporter the whole time (without super powers including strength and flight).

And do we have stories about Jesus being a mere peasant?

I'm saying the legends involved a human - not necessarily a peasant.

Bob believes that Jesus began as a god then later was historized. The example of Zeus also involves a character that began as a god. There is evidence that Jesus might have begun as a human and legends were added...

That's a hypothesis, actually. A hypothesis is not evidence.

There are only a few possibilities - that Jesus was based on a real person - or it was based on a god that was historicized into a person that didn't actually exist, etc.

(e.g. compare the original ending of Mark with the additions to Mark and later gospels).

If you're saying that that demonstrates that Mark was lying about a real Jesus, then how is that more likely than Mark lying about a made-up Jesus?

As the legends developed they would tend to go further and further from the truth.... and include Jesus being a god more and more (e.g. compare Mark with John)

His example of Superman also involves him starting as a god-like being and Bob seems to use Clark Kent as a way of historicizing Superman..... maybe

I don't think that Bob was saying he could historicize Superman with Clark Kent. Bob was actually saying that to try to historicize Superman by positing Clark Kent is to try to prove a myth has a basis in reality where the supposed reality, even if it was actually real, doesn't prove the myth. So although there were some real Jesuses, they don't prove the Gospel Jesus.

All I'm saying is that I think the gospels were based on a real person rather than Bob's belief that it was based on a god story first.

 

[James Brown]

Paul himself wrote that he learned about Christ "from no man" but from direct revelation from his god and from his readings of the Torah.

Why would he say that if there really was a Jesus (non-supernatural or not) that he had in mind?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

....And speaking of Robert Price, he poses a very astute analogy between Jesus and Superman: If we wish to try to demonstrate that Jesus existed only he wasn't a miracle-working God, then we might as well conclude that Superman existed only he was merely the mild-mannered newspaper reporter, Clark Kent. Bob's point is that it will do us no good to try to prove A by proving B. That's valid logic if B isn't A.

In early stories of Jesus people were interested in his teachings. Who would be interested in an ordinary historical Clark Kent?

I suppose if millions of people in our society wanted to be saved by Superman, then to feed those masses' desire for Superman, it would be necessary to educate scholars to assure them that there was indeed a historical Clark Kent. To deny the historicity of Clark Kent would deny the possibility of being saved by Superman, an intolerable situation.

Perhaps the whole point is that Clark Kent wasn't very important or interesting. So I don't think it is a very relevant analogy.

I don't think that's correct. Clark Kent like the "real" Jesus might have been boring in his day, but what matters is that we prove the people we want to prove. So if we want the Jesus of Christian faith, then a normally boring Jewish preacher is necessary to get us to where we want to go: A real Jesus! Bob is saying that getting that Jesus from a Jewish peasant is no more valid than to get a real Superman from a newspaper reporter.

In the case of Jesus many believe that he could gradually develop from an interesting historical person to having special powers.

But that's no more probable than a Jesus who was fictional to begin with, a point you keep evading.

So since a Jewish peasant preacher who got himself crucified by the Romans and is dead and gone isn't the Jesus of the New Testament, then proving the peasant preacher doesn't prove Jesus.

That could involve a historical character even if it doesn't fully fit the New Testament.

Yes, but that character isn't the Jesus we want so desperately to establish.

.....Bob's point is that it will do us no good to posit somebody who existed who wasn't Jesus in an effort to prove Jesus existed. It's like arguing for a historical Zeus who never reigned on Mount Olympus or cast thunderbolts from the sky. Even if there was a Greek man named Zeus who was bearded and muscular, he would hardly qualify as the Zeus from Greek lore. The same goes for Jesus because some loser peasant preacher living in Judea in 33 CE isn't really the Jesus of the Gospel story.

Bob believes that Jesus began as a god then later was historized. The example of Zeus also involves a character that began as a god. There is evidence that Jesus might have begun as a human and legends were added (e.g. compare the original ending of Mark with the additions to Mark and later gospels).

There's evidence Jesus began as an analogue to pagan gods, too.

His example of Superman also involves him starting as a god-like being and Bob seems to use Clark Kent as a way of historicizing Superman..... maybe

On the contrary, Bob is saying that even if Clark Kent was historical, it doesn't prove Superman. In the same way Bob's point is that even if there was that "apocalyptic Jewish preacher," then it doesn't prove Jesus. We can search for a Jack who planted some beans, but that wouldn't get us anywhere in the search for that Jack whose beanstalk reached to the sky kingdom of an angry giant.

 

[excreationist]

....And speaking of Robert Price, he poses a very astute analogy between Jesus and Superman: If we wish to try to demonstrate that Jesus existed only he wasn't a miracle-working God, then we might as well conclude that Superman existed only he was merely the mild-mannered newspaper reporter, Clark Kent. Bob's point is that it will do us no good to try to prove A by proving B. That's valid logic if B isn't A.

In early stories of Jesus people were interested in his teachings. Who would be interested in an ordinary historical Clark Kent?

I suppose if millions of people in our society wanted to be saved by Superman, then to feed those masses' desire for Superman, it would be necessary to educate scholars to assure them that there was indeed a historical Clark Kent. To deny the historicity of Clark Kent would deny the possibility of being saved by Superman, an intolerable situation.

In the case of Jesus it is common to believe that the ordinary human is historical while the supernatural aspect is a legend.

Perhaps the whole point is that Clark Kent wasn't very important or interesting. So I don't think it is a very relevant analogy.

I don't think that's correct. Clark Kent like the "real" Jesus might have been boring in his day,

No one would be interested in Clark Kent's career but many are interested in Jesus being an ordinary human - saying he was a great teacher.

but what matters is that we prove the people we want to prove. So if we want the Jesus of Christian faith, then a normally boring Jewish preacher is necessary to get us to where we want to go: A real Jesus! Bob is saying that getting that Jesus from a Jewish peasant is no more valid than to get a real Superman from a newspaper reporter.

Usually people who believe that Jesus was only a human, like Bart Ehrman, don't believe that Jesus was based on a boring person. (or at least much less boring than Clark Kent)

In the case of Jesus many believe that he could gradually develop from an interesting historical person to having special powers.

But that's no more probable than a Jesus who was fictional to begin with, a point you keep evading.

Yes you think there is a 50:50 chance of those two possibilities while other people believe in different probabilities.

So since a Jewish peasant preacher who got himself crucified by the Romans and is dead and gone isn't the Jesus of the New Testament, then proving the peasant preacher doesn't prove Jesus.

That could involve a historical character even if it doesn't fully fit the New Testament.

Yes, but that character isn't the Jesus we want so desperately to establish.

I think a character can still be called Jesus even if it doesn't fit all of the Bible.... i.e. it's about an historical Jesus vs the Jesus of the Bible.

.....Bob's point is that it will do us no good to posit somebody who existed who wasn't Jesus in an effort to prove Jesus existed. It's like arguing for a historical Zeus who never reigned on Mount Olympus or cast thunderbolts from the sky. Even if there was a Greek man named Zeus who was bearded and muscular, he would hardly qualify as the Zeus from Greek lore. The same goes for Jesus because some loser peasant preacher living in Judea in 33 CE isn't really the Jesus of the Gospel story.

Bob believes that Jesus began as a god then later was historized. The example of Zeus also involves a character that began as a god. There is evidence that Jesus might have begun as a human and legends were added (e.g. compare the original ending of Mark with the additions to Mark and later gospels).

There's evidence Jesus began as an analogue to pagan gods, too.

Though some of this has poor evidence though the viewers would get the impression that it has good evidence... (like in Religulous and Zeitgeist)
e.g.

Was Jesus copied from the Egyptian god Horus?

www.straightdope.com

His example of Superman also involves him starting as a god-like being and Bob seems to use Clark Kent as a way of historicizing Superman..... maybe

On the contrary, Bob is saying that even if Clark Kent was historical, it doesn't prove Superman. In the same way Bob's point is that even if there was that "apocalyptic Jewish preacher," then it doesn't prove Jesus. We can search for a Jack who planted some beans, but that wouldn't get us anywhere in the search for that Jack whose beanstalk reached to the sky kingdom of an angry giant.

Atheists like Bart Ehrman believe that Jesus was a human despite what the legendary stories say and despite Bob's analogies and the example about Jack.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Paul himself wrote that he learned about Christ "from no man" but from direct revelation from his god and from his readings of the Torah.

Why would he say that if there really was a Jesus (non-supernatural or not) that he had in mind?

In Galatians 1 we are told:

11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Obviously, Paul was saying that he only knew about Jesus because God told him about Jesus, earthly or otherwise. Paul then disqualifies himself as a credible source of information about a historical Jesus in the normal sense of the word "historical."

Some real-Jesus apologists I've debated object to this argument and counter that Paul isn't saying he wasn't informed about Jesus himself by people but wasn't told the gospel by people. In other words, the gospel is a story of salvation with or without Jesus, and Paul knew about Jesus from people who evidently told Paul nothing about the gospel.

So we have Paul learning about Jesus from people, those people said nothing about the gospel, and only later was Paul informed about the gospel.

That's a novel idea--the gospel minus Jesus. Talk about an ad hoc excuse!

 

[TomC]

Obviously, Paul was saying that he only knew about Jesus because God told him about Jesus, earthly or otherwise.

This is not obvious at all.
In fact, I'll state unequivocally that Paul never said or wrote that. I know that for a fact.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Obviously, Paul was saying that he only knew about Jesus because God told him about Jesus, earthly or otherwise.

This is not obvious at all.
In fact, I'll state unequivocally that Paul never said or wrote that. I know that for a fact.
Tom

Yes he did! I already proved it. Why not come over to the winning side?

 

[bilby]

No one would be interested in Clark Kent's career

Are you crazy? Any of his articles from the Daily Planet would be interesting reading, particularly the features he co-wrote with Ms Lane on the subject of Superman.

 

[steve_bank]

Obviously, Paul was saying that he only knew about Jesus because God told him about Jesus, earthly or otherwise.

This is not obvious at all.
In fact, I'll state unequivocally that Paul never said or wrote that. I know that for a fact.
Tom

Playing devil's advocate, how can you say Paul never said or wrote it? Unless you know everythig Paul wrote or said.


At best you can say it is not written in any of the writings we have which are atributed to Paul.

 

[TomC]

Obviously, Paul was saying that he only knew about Jesus because God told him about Jesus, earthly or otherwise.

This is not obvious at all.
In fact, I'll state unequivocally that Paul never said or wrote that. I know that for a fact.
Tom

Yes he did! I already proved it. Why not come over to the winning side?

What's obvious is that Paul didn't say that.
Couldn't possibly have done.
Tom

 

[excreationist]

No one would be interested in Clark Kent's career

Are you crazy? Any of his articles from the Daily Planet would be interesting reading, particularly the features he co-wrote with Ms Lane on the subject of Superman.

I thought Lois is the one who got the interviews (maybe I'm wrong). Also I'm talking about the Clark Kent character in a world without Superman.

 

[TomC]

Obviously, Paul was saying that he only knew about Jesus because God told him about Jesus, earthly or otherwise.

This is not obvious at all.
In fact, I'll state unequivocally that Paul never said or wrote that. I know that for a fact.
Tom

Playing devil's advocate, how can you say Paul never said or wrote it? Unless you know everythig Paul wrote or said.


At best you can say it is not written in any of the writings we have which are atributed to Paul.

Nonsense.
I know for a fact that had Paul said it, nobody would have understood it, much less remembered it.

This is a big part of the problem. Modern people making assertions about what ancient people said and attributing motivations and such. Trying to parse meaning out of it.

Tom

 

[excreationist]

Paul himself wrote that he learned about Christ "from no man" but from direct revelation from his god and from his readings of the Torah.

Why would he say that if there really was a Jesus (non-supernatural or not) that he had in mind?

In Galatians 1 we are told:

11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Obviously, Paul was saying that he only knew about Jesus because God told him about Jesus, earthly or otherwise. Paul then disqualifies himself as a credible source of information about a historical Jesus in the normal sense of the word "historical."

What do you think it meant by "gospel"? Just that Jesus died to save us from our sins? Or everything about the life of Jesus? Do you think he learnt about 1 Corinthians 15:3b-8 from other people or from a voice or something?