Historical Jesus

[Learner]

Do you believe in abiogenesis and evolution?
What about electrons?
What's your criteria for believing in something to be true?

Before it's reasonable to believe that something actually exists (or existed), first we must define what qualifies. Abiogenesis, evolution and electrons are clearly defined things. But 'Historical Jesus' is not - that entity has many different definitions, and often more than one within a single argument.

Perhaps you're both using erroneous arguments to the "historical" Jesus. Historical applied the same way ; what was historically recorded and witnessed about abiogenesis and evolution?

We all believe in something I suppose.

 

[Juma]

If I don't believe it is credible evidence, what exactly am I not accepting as evidence??

Apparently there is evidence - it's just that you don't find that evidence credible.
You don't believe the evidence. Fair enough.

The thing you're not accepting is the evidence. The reason you're not accepting it (the evidence) is because you don't believe it. Others do believe it. But it's still evidence of something.

Are melting glaciers evidence? Yes. Evidence of man-made global warming? Maybe.

The evidence is what it is.the probabilty of the hypotesis being true is a different matter.
And there is no place for belief, just reasons for probabilities.

 

[Lion IRC]

Don't tell me.
none was the person who said "if I don't believe".

 

[bilby]

Before it's reasonable to believe that something actually exists (or existed), first we must define what qualifies. Abiogenesis, evolution and electrons are clearly defined things. But 'Historical Jesus' is not - that entity has many different definitions, and often more than one within a single argument.

Perhaps you're both using erroneous arguments to the "historical" Jesus. Historical applied the same way ; what was historically recorded and witnessed about abiogenesis and evolution?

We all believe in something I suppose.

Evolution has been observed many times.

Abiogenesis must have occurred, because life now exists, but didn't always exist.

Your suppositions are unsupported and of no value. Evidence and reason are the path to knowledge. Supposition and belief are not, because they fail to eliminate any hypotheticals.

Literally ANYTHING can be equally well supported by supposition or faith; so these things tell us nothing of any value.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes. What matters is what they can demonstrate.

Perhaps I am using an erroneous argument. The only way to find out, is for someone to point out the error, and demonstrate that it exists.

Perhaps the moon is made of Stilton. Perhaps unicorns shit rainbows. Perhaps you actually have something useful to say. But until you demonstrate any of these things, we are justified in rejecting them.

 

[none]

If I don't believe it is credible evidence, what exactly am I not accepting as evidence??

Apparently there is evidence - it's just that you don't find that evidence credible.
You don't believe the evidence. Fair enough.

Evidence of a myth, that's what the evidence is
Made up shit
That's why I dismiss it
The claim made isn't being supported with credible evidence
Take today's holiday as an example
Stories of Zeus Xenu are evidence of myth, it happens all the time
Even the miracles Jesus performed are plagiarized from other myth characters

 

[none]

Before it's reasonable to believe that something actually exists (or existed), first we must define what qualifies. Abiogenesis, evolution and electrons are clearly defined things. But 'Historical Jesus' is not - that entity has many different definitions, and often more than one within a single argument.

Perhaps you're both using erroneous arguments to the "historical" Jesus. Historical applied the same way ; what was historically recorded and witnessed about abiogenesis and evolution?

We all believe in something I suppose.

Nature is observed, that's where the understanding comes from
Abiogenesis and evolution is understood by observing nature
What evidence of Jesus isn both eye witness and credible
What evidence of Jesus is credible

 

[abaddon]

Christians want to have it both ways - they want to say that as Clark Kent is a plausible candidate for having been a really real person, therefore Jesus the Christ is equally plausible. That's a logical fallacy (or a piss-weak attempt at fraud, if they are being disingenuous rather than merely stupid).

This is a very important distinction that I'm betting will never be addressed by Christians (or even by many atheists). The historicity of Jesus is no big thing. What matters is if this Jesus did anything miraculous or was God (or one-third of God) in human form.

People will go on arguing over historical Jesus as if he and miraculous Jesus were the same thing. Stop and try, if you can, to address which you really think you have evidence for.

 

[Jobar]

I disagree that mythicist historians are creating special standards by which to judge the origins of the Jesus story as it comes down to us. I would say rather that Carrier and others are trying to apply the normal methods of historical investigation to an area and era that has been extremely difficult for historians to examine clearly, due to the obvious religious pressures on scholars living in a predominantly Christian society. Up until the past couple of centuries, any historian that questioned the actual existence of Jesus as a historical figure risked sanctions up to and including being tortured and then burned at the stake!

We can be sure that at least a very large percentage of the Jesus story is mythical. The birth narratives, for instance, are plainly myth. Non-fundamentalist Christian scholars can't seem to agree on what episodes described in the NT documents concerning Jesus are definitely historical. Far from mythicism being a cheap shot at the Christian faith, I consider it to be a valid (if not necessarily true) hypothesis attempting to explain the origins of that faith.

 

[Lion IRC]

Christians want to have it both ways - they want to say that as Clark Kent is a plausible candidate for having been a really real person, therefore Jesus the Christ is equally plausible. That's a logical fallacy (or a piss-weak attempt at fraud, if they are being disingenuous rather than merely stupid).

This is a very important distinction that I'm betting will never be addressed by Christians (or even by many atheists). The historicity of Jesus is no big thing. What matters is if this Jesus did anything miraculous or was God (or one-third of God) in human form.

People will go on arguing over historical Jesus as if he and miraculous Jesus were the same thing. Stop and try, if you can, to address which you really think you have evidence for.

I consistently uphold this obvious distinction. I think I've even done so in this very thread.
But in my experience its the Jesus Mythers who do that all-or-nothing routine.
...prove Jesus turned water into wine or else therefore He never existed.

And it's the conclusion of total non-existence which is just plain stupid.

Surely, as an atheist, you can read the bible as a historical account about real historical people (who are sincerely reporting what they claim to have seen/heard/done,) and still retain your atheistic skepticism. A real historical person could attend a real wedding at Cana where some of the wedding guests - for whatever reason - came to believe that extra wine appeared 'miraculously'.

To me, Jesus Mythers come across a bit like the person who knocks all the chess pieces off the board because it's easier than trying to stave off defeat. They disingenuously argue about bible contradictions and manuscript dates and a lack of eye witnesses and then they say...oh well none of that even matters because there never was a Jesus of Nazareth and we all know miracles never happened because there's no such thing as God.

I just don't get it.

Why not simply say yes, OK. A historical person named Jesus was born in a manger and (religious) shepherds did believe they heard what they (mistakenly) thought were something called 'angels' and His family did flee to Egypt for fear of a Middle Eastern despot who may or may not have committed atrocities against his own citizens etc etc.
You're not compromising your atheism by accepting a secular history of Jesus.

No Christian apologist to my knowledge has ever claimed that Jesus' (secular) historicity necessarily compels belief in miracles as the only explanation for the events reported in that history.

 

[none]

And still no credible evidence, that's why

 

[Learner]

Evolution has been observed many times.

Not doubting the smaller 'evolution' which theists also acknowledge but noticeably too miniscule to really give final conclusions.

Abiogenesis must have occurred, because life now exists, but didn't always exist.

Not observed but granted it is an idea.

Your suppositions are unsupported and of no value. Evidence and reason are the path to knowledge. Supposition and belief are not, because they fail to eliminate any hypotheticals.

Literally ANYTHING can be equally well supported by supposition or faith; so these things tell us nothing of any value.

It doesn't matter what anyone believes. What matters is what they can demonstrate.

I agree belief by faith has for sometime been that way for theists hard to demonstrate , however we are all, generally speaking, learning more while updating knowledge and arguments are evolving maybe to the point that theists may use the very science to argue for God (catching up with the IDers).

The only way to find out, is for someone to point out the error, and demonstrate that it exists.
Perhaps the moon is made of Stilton. Perhaps unicorns shit rainbows. Perhaps you actually have something useful to say. But until you demonstrate any of these things, we are justified in rejecting them.

I go along with this but I am rejecting abiogenesis.

 

[none]

Ok besides stellar nucleosynthesis and fossil record we have a record of abiogenesis, life

 

[Jobar]

I just don't get it.

Why not simply say yes, OK. A historical person named Jesus was born in a manger and (religious) shepherds did believe they heard what they (mistakenly) thought were something called 'angels' and His family did flee to Egypt for fear of a Middle Eastern despot who may or may not have committed atrocities against his own citizens etc etc.
You're not compromising your atheism by accepting a secular history of Jesus.

No Christian apologist to my knowledge has ever claimed that Jesus' (secular) historicity necessarily compels belief in miracles as the only explanation for the events reported in that history.

I quite agree that we could easily theorize that there was an actual Jewish preacher/teacher in that ancient day, who was the bit of grit around whom all the miraculous myths and legends of the Christian faith grew, like a pearl in an oyster. Historicism is in no way the same thing as Christianity.

Thing is, that theory just doesn't seem to fit all the texts we have, and which we do not have, as well as the theory that Jesus Christ began as a dying-and-rising savior god springing from the interactions of Judaism and paganism, and from the terrible events of the Jewish Wars.

Sure, there could have been a man who inspired the myth. I think that Buddhism began that way. But in the case of Christianity, I think the myth created the man.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I just don't get it.

Why not simply say yes, OK. A historical person named Jesus was born in a manger and (religious) shepherds did believe they heard what they (mistakenly) thought were something called 'angels' and His family did flee to Egypt for fear of a Middle Eastern despot who may or may not have committed atrocities against his own citizens etc etc.
You're not compromising your atheism by accepting a secular history of Jesus.

No Christian apologist to my knowledge has ever claimed that Jesus' (secular) historicity necessarily compels belief in miracles as the only explanation for the events reported in that history.

I quite agree that we could easily theorize that there was an actual Jewish preacher/teacher in that ancient day, who was the bit of grit around whom all the miraculous myths and legends of the Christian faith grew, like a pearl in an oyster. Historicism is in no way the same thing as Christianity.

Thing is, that theory just doesn't seem to fit all the texts we have, and which we do not have, as well as the theory that Jesus Christ began as a dying-and-rising savior god springing from the interactions of Judaism and paganism, and from the terrible events of the Jewish Wars.

Sure, there could have been a man who inspired the myth. I think that Buddhism began that way. But in the case of Christianity, I think the myth created the man.

And you could make the same argument for any piece of literature. Who was Hercules? Who was Paul Bunyan? Christians just like special pleading.

Christians are amusing. Their magic spaceman has to be historical or they crap their pants. How can faith be so thin?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well, that's because being a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim doesn't stop you from being a scientist...

Absolutely.

But I would argue that it goes further than just a coincidental connection.

Surely there's something like a sort of numinous awe about the act of discovery which keeps us searching the 'horizon' of the unknown.

And when I listen to scientists like Carl Sagan, Brian Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, etc. talking (existentially) about that horizon, I can't help but smile. Do they know how 'religious' they sound?

The religious don't have a monopoly on spirituality. Aesthetics, poetry and sense of wonder is universal in humans. I think the religious often have a tendency to put a lid on the wonder. Instead of embracing the mystery they slap a God label onto it. Just to kill off any further impulse to explore it. Just to shut off the brain and have faith, instead of being filled up by the awesomeness of the universe. The scientific world will always be more magical and spiritual than the religious world ever can be. The more you know about the natural world the richer your experience of it will be. Because you will know what to look for. The religious have decided in advance what they'll find. It's a filtered, boring and grey existence. Come join the colourful side. Catholics have dry biscuits. We have magic mushrooms.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus person who existed and was executed. While I do have concerns of bias due to the religious backgrounds of those scholars, that's enough for me to defer to them.

On the other hand, so what? It doesn't make any of the fantastical elements of the Christian mythos more believable, any more than finding out that King Arthur was based on a real person would make me believe in magic swords or wizards.

Isn't it more likely that he dodged out of view when he was wanted by the cops. They thought he was crucified, and then he returned they thought he had been resurrected. When the rumor started spreading he decided to become scarce again. There's just so many versions of the story that are a hell of a lot more likely than the Biblical narrative. Including everything about it is made up.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus person who existed and was executed. While I do have concerns of bias due to the religious backgrounds of those scholars, that's enough for me to defer to them.

On the other hand, so what? It doesn't make any of the fantastical elements of the Christian mythos more believable, any more than finding out that King Arthur was based on a real person would make me believe in magic swords or wizards.

Isn't it more likely that he dodged out of view when he was wanted by the cops. They thought he was crucified...

The Romans mistakenly thought Jesus had been Crucified? Crucified by by who?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Isn't it more likely that he dodged out of view when he was wanted by the cops. They thought he was crucified...

The Romans mistakenly thought Jesus had been Crucified? Crucified by by who?

It's the ancient world. Executing the wrong guy was common in the 19'th century. Guess how much more common it was in the ancient world? Also, people often changed names back then. They didn't have the strong attachment to a name back then as we have today. Which just adds another layer of uncertainty to it.

Everybody and anybody could have made a mistake or misunderstood any detail about the execution of Jesus. Or everything about it.

 

[beero1000]

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus person who existed and was executed. While I do have concerns of bias due to the religious backgrounds of those scholars, that's enough for me to defer to them.

On the other hand, so what? It doesn't make any of the fantastical elements of the Christian mythos more believable, any more than finding out that King Arthur was based on a real person would make me believe in magic swords or wizards.

Isn't it more likely that he dodged out of view when he was wanted by the cops. They thought he was crucified, and then he returned they thought he had been resurrected. When the rumor started spreading he decided to become scarce again. There's just so many versions of the story that are a hell of a lot more likely than the Biblical narrative. Including everything about it is made up.

It's possible, maybe even likely. Like I said, my understanding is that the scholarly consensus is that he existed and was crucified (note that historical scholars don't, as a group, support as fact him performing any miracles/resurrection/whatever). It's entirely possible that people just thought he had been crucified - it's hard to tell stuff like that from the historical record.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Dawkins is gonna convert on his deathbed I suspect like Hitchens probably did.

And I bet you still wonder why nobody takes you seriously. I'm not even going to bother looking up and presenting to you the thread in which your attempts to twist a casual remark of Hitchens' into some sort of promise of a deathbed conversion were thoroughly debunked; I'm sure you remember it well enough without that. Back then, it might be excused as naïveté on your part; repeating it here and now comes across as simply dishonest.