Historical Jesus

[Swammerdami]

The idea that a UNIQUE report suggests the report is true does have some merit. Unlike others in the thread I'm willing to give this part of Lumpen's argument some weight.

BUT it is not an absolute. The baby Gilgamesh was hurled to his death from the top of a tower but rescued by an eagle before he hit the ground. I don't recall hearing this reported of any baby except Gilgamesh. If it was unique, does that make it true?

Davy Crockett kilt him a b'ar when he was only three. Was this feat duplicated by any other three year-old? If not, does this force us to treat Crockett's b'ar-killing as true?

-- -- -- -- -- --

Does Paul mention ANY miracle at all besides the Resurrection? The Resurrection was essential to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah; it was the way to counter the ignominy of death by crucifixion. Moreover the Christian faith relied on the self-hypnotic meme of imagining a living Jesus and accepting Him into one's heart. The Resurrection is a metaphor that allows that meme.

Once we understand that the Resurrection should be discounted when pondering the alleged miracles worked by the living Jesus, Paul's OMISSION of miracles becomes very telling. If Jesus were a miracle-worker, why didn't Paul mention any miracles?

-- -- -- -- -- --

Finally, I don't know how to shake sense into people who claim the Gospels are independent sources. Examine the relevant texts side-by-side and it becomes crystal-clear that the accounts are taken from a single source, with no attempt whatsoever even to "fake" an alternative witness.

Interrogation experts will tell you that when there are several witnesses to an event, their accounts will vary. If instead the accounts are identical, that suggests strongly that the stories were rehearsed and makes it LESS likely that the accounts are honest.

If Jesus really did work miracles, the accounts of two (or more) witnesses might have worked their way into the 1st-century accounts. But with Mark, Matthew and Luke obviously quoting the EXACT same witness (or myth-inventor) and Paul reporting on no witness at all, the inference is that the miracles are fictions.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

2 propositions/arguments

whether Jesus did miracle acts or not
-- pro and con


PRO: JESUS DID THE MIRACLE ACTS (miracle healings and Resurrection)

This is based on the facts, or the evidence from history. I.e., in the normal way that most of our historical facts are derived (at least 90% of our historical facts). I.e., from the written accounts of the times when the events happened. I.e., the NORMAL PROCESS for determining historical facts.


CON: JESUS DID NOT DO THE MIRACLE ACTS (miracle healings and Resurrection)

This is based largely on a priori doctrine which rules out any miracle claims, regardless of evidence. I.e., "miracles" are all ruled out as fiction based on the a priori premise that they have to be fiction, by nature, or inherently due to their essence as automatically fiction, in all cases, regardless of evidence there might be (in a particular case) that the alleged event did happen.

The argument is also based on conjecture and not on any facts from the written documents/evidence of the times when the alleged events happened. The argument offers alternatives for what happened, or explanations what might have happened instead of what the evidence says happened. These are alternative stories for which there is no evidence but are just suggestions or conjectures of what might have happened instead of what the evidence says happened.

So this conjecture argument is NOT THE NORMAL PROCESS for determining historical facts.
____________________________

This 2-argument pattern seems to keep happening over and over again, in these posts. So it's good to note this pattern, reiterate this point, to see how all the arguments here keep taking this form. So,

the PRO: based on the historical evidence.

the CON: rejecting the historical evidence and instead appealing to a priori doctrine and to conjecture what might have happened instead of believing the evidence.

And, this argument dichotomy does not automatically prove the historicity of the Jesus miracle acts, because one might argue that in some cases maybe the historical evidence is wrong. This would probably require a belief that there is FURTHER EVIDENCE, not yet known, which would show a different conclusion. So it's not an Absolute Rule of Logic (or truth-seeking) that one must always agree with the historical evidence (or current evidence). One might find room for cases where the evidence we have so far could be wrong, or misleading. In which case one might have "FAITH" that there's more evidence to come which would counteract the evidence we have so far. (E.g., there is more evidence today about the historical Jesus and Christian origins than there was 100 years ago. So additional evidence later has to always be taken into consideration. And, e.g., today there is evidence that the earth is round, whereas 50,000 years ago the existing evidence was that the earth is flat. So the existing evidence at a given time could eventually be contradicted by future evidence that turns up.)

Here's an example of the conjecture argument -- the historical evidence might be rejected in favor of conjecture as to what might have really happened. There's no evidence for any of the following, nothing from any ancient source, or from any standard history reasoning process, using any findings from the past. Just pure conjecture, even making up stories, fiction, to substitute in place of what the evidence tells us:


argument by conjecture:

Suppose Jesus didn't die on the cross. Suppose He were sentenced to death by crucifixion, but dodged somehow.

Suppose Jesus' biological father, Pantera, pulled some strings and got his boy off with a lashing?

Suppose Jesus's compadres pulled together enough money to bribe some prison guards into crucifying someone else?

Suppose Jesus would up on the cross. But before He was dead Mary Magdalene took the Roman guard for a romp behind the bushes while Jesus's compatriots got Him down from the cross?

Regardless of how Jesus escaped death on the cross, He would remain a criminal under sentence of death, by Pilate. He would remain wanted for His entire life. Anybody could turn Him in again. He could be summarily executed, along with anyone He happened to be with at the time. He was a dangerous man.

Maybe He figured out a way to stay in Judea incognito. Maybe He left Judea completely. But people saying "I thought Jesus was dead. I saw Jesus weeks later! What gives?" would explain why some folks invent a Resurrection.

Better than saying "We bribed some Roman guards."

Maybe maybe maybe. The above can't be totally ruled out, though most is contradicted by the evidence -- and yet you can argue that maybe the evidence is wrong in this case, or in some cases the current evidence may be wrong.

All the above conjectures are alternative possibilities, just as one could imagine alternatives to ANY of our historical facts based on the evidence. It's always possible that ANY facts of history might not really have happened and that something else happened instead.

Maybe George Washington was not really the first U.S. President and instead it was someone else who got elected. There are always possible ways to suppose how the evidence we have might be wrong, and maybe something else really happened instead.

Maybe arguments can be given in some cases why the alternative story is easier to believe. But this requires to consider at least 3 factors:

⬤ How much evidence is there for the history claim that's being rejected? The miracle acts of Jesus are attested to in at least 4 (5) sources, and these are closer to the time of the alleged events than for most of the ancient history events we believe based on the written evidence. When you reject a historical claim supported by the evidence, how much evidence is it that you're rejecting? What is another example of an alleged event in history, supported by extra evidence, which you reject in favor of a conjecture of what might have happened instead? There should be another example of this which you can offer.

⬤ If some such alternative is considered, what about other cases of the same? E.g., if the above alternatives happened in the case of Jesus, did they happen in other cases also? Where? When? What examples are there of such happenings from any written sources reporting such a thing? Why assume such a thing happened only in the case of Jesus but never in any other case? There were literally millions of crucifixions in the ancient world. Shouldn't we see a few other examples where a crucifixion got botched in some way?

⬤ Even if it's not unreasonable to suppose the alternative conjecture as being the truth, it's also not unreasonable to believe the evidence rather than the conjecture. Or, it's reasonable to believe the evidence rather than the conjecture. It's possible for opposite beliefs to be reasonable, based on logic or evidence, since both are possible though only one can be the truth and we don't know with certainty what the truth is, for lack of 99% probability or certainty of the evidence.


For unusual claims (about what happened historically) it's never wrong to believe the evidence, if there are extra sources and there's no evidence from the time which contradicts the sources.

 

[Rhea]

the PRO: based on the historical evidence.

This is based on the facts, or the evidence from history. I.e., in the normal way that most of our historical facts are derived (at least 90% of our historical facts). I.e., from the written accounts of the times when the events happened. I.e., the NORMAL PROCESS for determining historical facts.

By “of the times when the events happened,” you’re meaning, The accounts written 60-80 years later, right?

Imagine if the first record of Woodstock concert were written next year. You’d call that “historical evidence” as a ”written account of the times when the event happened”???


I keep hearing you and other apologists say this, as if the records were recorded contemporaneously, but … they weren’t, right? Why do you keep trying to sell it as if they were written in the “times when the events happened”?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Was Jesus an anti-Roman Rebel/Militant?

He hadn't really broken any laws, other than being a public nuisance in the temple. He wasn't questioning Roman rule. He represented one of the, at that time, many side branches of Judaism. It was undergoing dramatic changes at that point.

There's no way to know that.

We do know the above, based on the evidence. I.e., it's very likely -- in a sense we don't "know" anything from history for certain, it's all based on probability only. We "know" Jesus challenged the authority of the Jerusalem Establishment -- "scribes, pharisees, hypocrites" etc. -- based on the written evidence, but we have nothing about him challenging Roman authority, or siding with the anti-Roman militants.

Had Jesus been part of one of the more violent groups it would explain the crucifixion sentence.

There are other explanations that are more likely.

If Jesus was an anti-Roman rebel, you have to explain why Paul converted to the Christian cause. Paul was likely pro-Roman and sympathetic to cooperation with Rome. So, why would he join an anti-Roman rebel group?

Even if you reject all the miracle claims, Resurrection etc., still the evidence is that Paul's motivation had nothing to do with anti-Roman militancy, but rather his change to a belief that the Resurrection really did happen. This is basically his explanation what happened, though he explains it as a vision he had of Jesus resurrected and calling him to serve him rather than persecuting the Christians. This is good evidence contradicting the claim that Jesus was an anti-Roman militant rebel.

The best explanation why Jesus was crucified is his conflict with the Jerusalem authorities, and so they arrested him and wanted him eliminated and appealed to the Roman authorities to execute him. That's what the evidence shows.

Possibly he became suspected of insurrection because of some anti-Roman militants who were attracted to him as a potential leader for their cause. Even if Jesus had no anti-Roman militant leanings himself, the mere fact that some anti-Roman militants were attracted to him was enough to make him suspect and get him condemned -- this could explain how the priests convinced Pilate that Jesus was an anti-Roman threat.

Nothing in the actual evidence shows Jesus to be anti-Roman. And that Paul would convert to the Christ belief is strong evidence that Jesus was not anti-Roman.

And likely get left out of the Legend as it was being "refined" for a Greco-Roman audience.

That theory might work if you can explain why even Paul converted to the "Legend" long before the Gospels were written and the "Legend" got changed. If the original "Legend" was of Jesus as an anti-Roman rebel, this was known in the 30s and 40s and 50s, before the final War which destroyed the Temple. Paul became an Apostle long before the "Legend" got changed, back when Jesus might have been the reputed anti-Roman rebel. (I.e., if Jesus had really been the anti-Roman militant, this would have been the popular version of him in the 30s, when Paul converted. And yet Paul would not have converted if that's what Jesus had been.)

The truth is that there is no evidence of any process to REFINE the Jesus legend to make him pro-Roman. No evidence that the Gospel writings were "refined" to remove the anti-Roman Jesus and replace him with a pro-Roman. You might prove that some pro-Roman elements, in the 70s and later, did try to give extra emphasis to a non-violent Jesus, preaching "turn the other cheek" etc., to give more emphasis to a non-nationalist Jesus, or pacifist Jesus. But we have no anti-Roman Jesus anywhere indicated by any evidence, even earlier when the anti-Roman sentiment should show through.


Did "The Church" ERASE an earlier anti-Roman Jesus?
(BLOT OUT the original anti-Roman Jesus)?

There's no evidence of any master Conspiracy in charge of putting together a picture of Jesus being this or that, and changing him from something earlier into something different later. Rather, we have conflicting pictures of Jesus, where the 4 Gospels almost contradict each other in how they present him, and nothing to show some pattern of changing him later into a pro-Roman and blotting out an earlier anti-Roman Jesus.

You could argue that Jesus gets changed, as it were, as a later writer tries to correct the earlier picture, by giving a different emphasis than the earlier. But not that anything earlier got censored out, by a later faction which took the scissors to the earlier writing and removed something offensive to the later faction. There was no Established Church in the 1st (or 2nd) century which did this censorship to clean up something earlier. Rather, we have in some cases a contradiction, in 2 or 3 different versions, showing some change in their interpretation of Jesus, and both versions of Jesus still are there.

But there is no anti-Roman Jesus anywhere to be found. If there had been any anti-Roman Jesus earlier, there would still be some trace of it later. It would not have gotten censored out. I.e., by some Master Conspiracy of "The Church" to sanitize the earlier version and impose a New Improved Jesus for later consumption.

Not a shred of evidence for any such thing.

There's tons of stuff that got left out of His biography.

We've learned more about Jesus and his contemporaries in recent times (new mss discovered etc.). We have to be ready for any new evidence. So far all the evidence is that he was only anti-Jerusalem Establishment, and that he was not an anti-Roman dissident. Until there's evidence to indicate his anti-Roman militancy, the probability is that he was not anti-Roman.

Just because you can speculate that he was something that goes against all the evidence is not reason to believe it. There needs to be something more than just the speculation/conjecture.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is good "EVIDENCE" for the history events?

All the stuff about Jesus talking about non-violence and turning the other cheek, could have been backpeddling from his surviving followers to appease the Herodian and Roman authorities. Just to save their own asses. We shouldn't assume that the Bible is, at all, an accurate depiction of what happened.

We should assume all the evidence (near the time of the events) is accurate at those points when it's consistent and is not contradicted by other evidence. Especially wherever there are multiple sources, as in the case of the Jesus events where the sources don't contradict each other. This should be applied to "the Bible" and all other sources, no matter what. For any sources, they are credible on the points of agreement, while on the discrepancies of detail there's less (or no) credibility. This applies to all sources, and no double standard in order to eliminate a source someone finds offensive.

And for ancient events the "evidence" means written accounts within 100 or 200 years after the reported events (though some sources are even 400 or 500 years later). For anything very unusual, like miracle claims, it should be less than 100 years (time span between the event and the written account).

The norm for ancient history is written accounts 50-200 years later. Only a very tiny fraction of ancient history comes from sources contemporary to the reported events.

The Gospel accounts are 40-70 years later, and the Paul Epistles are only 20-30 years later. By the normal standards for ancient history this is very good evidence for the miracle healing acts of Jesus and for the Resurrection. This is the only case of reported miracle acts in ancient history for which we have good evidence. For all other miracle claims, the written evidence is much later, usually several centuries. And also there is usually only one source, whereas for the Jesus miracle acts we have 4 (5) sources.

So-called "inerrancy" or infallibility of "the Bible" is not required in order to reasonably believe the miracle acts of Jesus as historically factual.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Gospel accounts are 40-70 years later, and the Paul Epistles are only 20-30 years later. By the normal standards for ancient history this is very good evidence for the miracle healing acts of Jesus and for the Resurrection. This is the only case of reported miracle acts in ancient history for which we have good evidence. For all other miracle claims, the written evidence is much later, usually several centuries. And also there is usually only one source, whereas for the Jesus miracle acts we have 4 (5) sources.

Hi Lumpen. I DO agree with what you write here, EXCEPT for two issues I have discussed before.

(1) I am not a New Testament expert, but I don't recall Paul discussing any miracle (other than the Resurrection). Is this correct? If so, do you see why your phrasing here is misleading?

(2) You persist in treating the synoptic Gospel as independent testimonies despite my REPEATEDLY showing this to be error. Just now I compared three accounts of two miracles. (These weren't "cherry-picked.")
* Matthew 8:23 - 8:34
* Mark 4:36 - 4:41 ; 5:1 - 5:21
* Luke 8:22 - 8:40
If you read these side-by-side, they are obviously from a SINGLE account. The three narrators of the three accounts make no attempt to disguise that they are all working from the exact same source. Much of the accounts are word-for-word identical.

Please read those three passages, and see if you agree with my claim.

Once we understand that the miracles are attested by only a SINGLE source, your case vanishes. If the miracles were real, why weren't there at least TWO known witnesses?

 

[Swammerdami]

(2) You persist in treating the synoptic Gospel as independent testimonies despite my REPEATEDLY showing this to be error. Just now I compared three accounts of two miracles. (These weren't "cherry-picked.")
* Matthew 8:23 - 8:34
* Mark 4:36 - 4:41 ; 5:1 - 5:21
* Luke 8:22 - 8:40
If you read these side-by-side, they are obviously from a SINGLE account. The three narrators of the three accounts make no attempt to disguise that they are all working from the exact same source. Much of the accounts are word-for-word identical.

Please read those three passages, and see if you agree with my claim.

Once we understand that the miracles are attested by only a SINGLE source, your case vanishes. If the miracles were real, why weren't there at least TWO known witnesses?

The above is not something I read on the 'Net -- It is "my own invention." Therefore let me ask for feedback from ALL my fellow Infidels. I have attached pertinent excerpts from afore-said narratives.

Do these look like separate witnessings? Or look as though they were copied from the same source? (If it matters, conventional thought is that Matthew and Luke were borrowed from Mark or proto-Mark.)

I have color-coded the excerpts from KJV of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.
And ... they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm. And he said unto them, Where is your faith?

But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?
And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.

And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.

And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea.
Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.

And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine. And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.
Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.

 

[uzersuperman]

2 propositions/arguments

whether Jesus did miracle acts or not
-- pro and con


PRO: JESUS DID THE MIRACLE ACTS (miracle healings and Resurrection)

This is based on the facts, or the evidence from history. I.e., in the normal way that most of our historical facts are derived (at least 90% of our historical facts). I.e., from the written accounts of the times when the events happened. I.e., the NORMAL PROCESS for determining historical facts.


CON: JESUS DID NOT DO THE MIRACLE ACTS (miracle healings and Resurrection)

This is based largely on a priori doctrine which rules out any miracle claims, regardless of evidence. I.e., "miracles" are all ruled out as fiction based on the a priori premise that they have to be fiction, by nature, or inherently due to their essence as automatically fiction, in all cases, regardless of evidence there might be (in a particular case) that the alleged event did happen.

The argument is also based on conjecture and not on any facts from the written documents/evidence of the times when the alleged events happened. The argument offers alternatives for what happened, or explanations what might have happened instead of what the evidence says happened. These are alternative stories for which there is no evidence but are just suggestions or conjectures of what might have happened instead of what the evidence says happened.

So this conjecture argument is NOT THE NORMAL PROCESS for determining historical facts.
____________________________

This 2-argument pattern seems to keep happening over and over again, in these posts. So it's good to note this pattern, reiterate this point, to see how all the arguments here keep taking this form. So,

the PRO: based on the historical evidence.

the CON: rejecting the historical evidence and instead appealing to a priori doctrine and to conjecture what might have happened instead of believing the evidence.

And, this argument dichotomy does not automatically prove the historicity of the Jesus miracle acts, because one might argue that in some cases maybe the historical evidence is wrong. This would probably require a belief that there is FURTHER EVIDENCE, not yet known, which would show a different conclusion. So it's not an Absolute Rule of Logic (or truth-seeking) that one must always agree with the historical evidence (or current evidence). One might find room for cases where the evidence we have so far could be wrong, or misleading. In which case one might have "FAITH" that there's more evidence to come which would counteract the evidence we have so far. (E.g., there is more evidence today about the historical Jesus and Christian origins than there was 100 years ago. So additional evidence later has to always be taken into consideration. And, e.g., today there is evidence that the earth is round, whereas 50,000 years ago the existing evidence was that the earth is flat. So the existing evidence at a given time could eventually be contradicted by future evidence that turns up.)

Here's an example of the conjecture argument -- the historical evidence might be rejected in favor of conjecture as to what might have really happened. There's no evidence for any of the following, nothing from any ancient source, or from any standard history reasoning process, using any findings from the past. Just pure conjecture, even making up stories, fiction, to substitute in place of what the evidence tells us:


argument by conjecture:

Suppose Jesus didn't die on the cross. Suppose He were sentenced to death by crucifixion, but dodged somehow.

Suppose Jesus' biological father, Pantera, pulled some strings and got his boy off with a lashing?

Suppose Jesus's compadres pulled together enough money to bribe some prison guards into crucifying someone else?

Suppose Jesus would up on the cross. But before He was dead Mary Magdalene took the Roman guard for a romp behind the bushes while Jesus's compatriots got Him down from the cross?

Regardless of how Jesus escaped death on the cross, He would remain a criminal under sentence of death, by Pilate. He would remain wanted for His entire life. Anybody could turn Him in again. He could be summarily executed, along with anyone He happened to be with at the time. He was a dangerous man.

Maybe He figured out a way to stay in Judea incognito. Maybe He left Judea completely. But people saying "I thought Jesus was dead. I saw Jesus weeks later! What gives?" would explain why some folks invent a Resurrection.

Better than saying "We bribed some Roman guards."

Maybe maybe maybe. The above can't be totally ruled out, though most is contradicted by the evidence -- and yet you can argue that maybe the evidence is wrong in this case, or in some cases the current evidence may be wrong.

All the above conjectures are alternative possibilities, just as one could imagine alternatives to ANY of our historical facts based on the evidence. It's always possible that ANY facts of history might not really have happened and that something else happened instead.

Maybe George Washington was not really the first U.S. President and instead it was someone else who got elected. There are always possible ways to suppose how the evidence we have might be wrong, and maybe something else really happened instead.

Maybe arguments can be given in some cases why the alternative story is easier to believe. But this requires to consider at least 3 factors:

⬤ How much evidence is there for the history claim that's being rejected? The miracle acts of Jesus are attested to in at least 4 (5) sources, and these are closer to the time of the alleged events than for most of the ancient history events we believe based on the written evidence. When you reject a historical claim supported by the evidence, how much evidence is it that you're rejecting? What is another example of an alleged event in history, supported by extra evidence, which you reject in favor of a conjecture of what might have happened instead? There should be another example of this which you can offer.

⬤ If some such alternative is considered, what about other cases of the same? E.g., if the above alternatives happened in the case of Jesus, did they happen in other cases also? Where? When? What examples are there of such happenings from any written sources reporting such a thing? Why assume such a thing happened only in the case of Jesus but never in any other case? There were literally millions of crucifixions in the ancient world. Shouldn't we see a few other examples where a crucifixion got botched in some way?

⬤ Even if it's not unreasonable to suppose the alternative conjecture as being the truth, it's also not unreasonable to believe the evidence rather than the conjecture. Or, it's reasonable to believe the evidence rather than the conjecture. It's possible for opposite beliefs to be reasonable, based on logic or evidence, since both are possible though only one can be the truth and we don't know with certainty what the truth is, for lack of 99% probability or certainty of the evidence.


For unusual claims (about what happened historically) it's never wrong to believe the evidence, if there are extra sources and there's no evidence from the time which contradicts the sources.

Jesus in Paul's writings did not perform any miracles at all. Paul did not know of any miracles performed by Jesus, as he lived in the same generation as Jesus and those who witnessed him were still alive, so he could not invent any miracles for him. Therefore, his letters were devoid of them. Jesus, according to Paul, was a Jewish man whom he saw as the promised Messiah. He believed that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for human sins, rose on the third day, ascended to his Father in heaven, and will return in Paul's lifetime or possibly in his generation to establish the Kingdom of God. It should be noted here that the kingdom that Paul speaks of is an earthly kingdom, not a heavenly one, as later Christian theology insists, which collided with Paul's beliefs and what he wrote in his letters.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Rejecting the Evidence

It's OK if your impulse is to dismiss the miracle acts as impossible and therefore fiction. But then you are rejecting the evidence.

I do that a lot.

No, you probably do not. What's an example where you reject the evidence? The norm is to accept the evidence, or to believe what the evidence shows.

When people make wildly implausible, even impossible, claims . . .

What's an example where you reject the evidence? Do you really "do that a lot"? You probably cannot give a serious example of this.

When people make wildly implausible, even impossible, claims (oftentimes not fact-checkable) my instincts are to dismiss the claims. It . . .

Yes, because your instincts are to believe the evidence, to ACCEPT it, not reject it.

It happens most days, if I turn on the news.

But that's not rejecting the evidence. Your instinct to "dismiss" the claims is PRO-evidence, or the same as a demand for evidence. When you demand facts and something plausible, you're demanding evidence, not rejecting evidence. What's an example where you REJECT the evidence? It's probably not true that you "do that a lot." Tell us a case where you really do reject the evidence (other than the case of the historical Jesus who did miracle acts, which is likely the ONLY case where you really do reject the evidence)?

There was a guy I ran into at a couple of parties back in the late 70s. He seemed to sincerely believe that he had met Frodo Baggins and a few other hobbits. I could think of several different explanations for this belief, most involved psychedelic drug use. LOTR was very popular, culturally, at the time so maybe he was tripping and ran into a LOTR costume party. Who knows? He believes in this miraculous event and . . .

No he doesn't.

You're making my point for me by giving this example which really contradicts your claim that you "reject" evidence. You can't name a case (other than that of the 1st-century Jesus miracle-worker) where you reject the evidence. The evidence from the 1st century record is that Jesus did the miracle acts, including the Resurrection. We have 5 1st-century sources which say the Resurrection happened, which is good evidence. Multiple written accounts from the time which are not contradicted by other sources is good evidence. What's another example of that, where the evidence is rejected?

By contrast to this 1st-century example, based on 1st-century written accounts, a fiction story unconnected to anything in history is not evidence for some "miraculous event" which no one really claims anyway. That this is the only example offered is further indication that we generally do believe the evidence and don't reject it -- because there seem to be no other examples anyone can offer. It is irregular to reject evidence, or reject claims like this one based on good evidence. (I've given an example of once when the evidence was wrong -- 50,000 years ago when the evidence was that the earth is flat -- so that shows that "the evidence" can possibly be wrong, i.e., the currently-known evidence.)

In this case (1st-century Jesus miracle-worker) the evidence is rejected because of the a priori doctrine that no miracle event can ever happen regardless of the evidence. This once again confirms my earlier dichotomy -- Belief that Jesus did the miracle acts vs. Disbelief:

PRO: JESUS DID THE MIRACLE ACTS (miracle healings and Resurrection)

This is based on the facts, or the evidence from history. I.e., in the normal way that most of our historical facts are derived (at least 90% of our historical facts). I.e., from the written accounts of the times when the events happened. I.e., the NORMAL PROCESS for determining historical facts.


CON: JESUS DID NOT DO THE MIRACLE ACTS (miracle healings and Resurrection)

This is based largely on a priori doctrine which rules out any miracle claims, regardless of evidence. I.e., "miracles" are all ruled out as fiction based on the a priori premise that they have to be fiction, by nature, or inherently due to their essence as automatically fiction, in all cases, regardless of evidence there might be (in a particular case) that the alleged event did happen.

This is not an argument that one must believe the miracle acts of Jesus. Rather it's just to point out the main difference between believing it and disbelieving it, which is simply that

Belief is based on the evidence, from the 1st century, in the normal sense that we know history based on the evidence. And by contrast

Disbelief rejects the evidence, relying instead on a priori doctrine that miracle events can't ever happen even if the evidence shows that it did.

So our TomC example here actually helps prove my point.

Who knows? He believes in this miraculous event and I don't, despite his "evidence".

No, obviously this is no example of anyone believing in any miracle event or claiming evidence for it. This is obviously no reported event anyone believed, being only fiction, and no one offered any evidence for it. The phrase "his 'evidence'" (with the quote marks) makes it clear that there was no real claim of anything to prove, no supposed event, nor any evidence being claimed for it.

In reality we do accept the evidence for the historical events, and do not reject it. Normally. But there are those who make an exception for the case of Jesus in the 1st century doing the miracle healing acts and resurrecting after he was killed. In this one exceptional case the evidence is rejected. And it seems you cannot name other cases where the evidence is rejected. If there were any such case, you'd give it instead of citing the above fiction story no one really believes and for which no one ever offered evidence.

So -- give us a serious example of a case where you reject the evidence. I.e., an example where you really do disbelieve a reported event even though the evidence says that it happened. Why is there only this one exception to the rule -- i.e., the rule that we generally believe the evidence -- one exception: the Jesus miracle-worker in the 1st century. In this one case we're supposed to reject the evidence and disbelieve the claimed event(s).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Believing the truth matters.

I do not care what people believe. It is what people do in the name of belief that matters.

This is an interesting idea having some merit.

However, belief per se is also important, regardless what people do "in the name of" their belief. Different believers react differently -- some even go crazy and burn "heretics" at the stake. What believers DO "in the name of" Christ or their god isn't all that matters. The belief per se also matters, i.e., whether it is true.

Arguments that your belief is true if it causes you to do good deeds etc. are false. Even if a false belief motivates you to do good deeds it's still false and should not be believed. There is something fundamental about this principle: we should believe whatever is true and disbelieve whatever is false, regardless of anything else, like the consequences which the belief or disbelief would lead to.

In the "early church" -- from the beginning in Jerusalem, there were different kinds of Christ-believers who did different things, some good and some bad, and some said things which conflicted with what others were saying. And the Gospel accounts, reflecting the different ideas about it, give contradictory interpretations. Some believed that Jesus suddenly BECAME Christ at the time of his baptism, while others believed he was BORN Christ, or even that he existed earlier (from "Eternity") as Christ and took the human form at some point, maybe at conception. They believed the same facts (reported events), but interpreted these facts differently to derive contradictory conclusions.

And there were many differences/contradictions about what to do, what to preach, how to "convert" the unbelievers out there. They did not all think and do the same, but went in different directions, or thought in different directions.

This cannot be explained unless Jesus did those miracle acts, regardless what the believers then did in response. There was no general need for a "Messiah" figure to whom religious symbols and miracles could be added. Rather, there were differing expectations and symbolisms and end-of-the world visions which did not converge into one Messiah scenario, and especially none calling for a miracle-worker to appear in history. The only explanation for the facts we know is that the ideas and symbols were already there, in people's minds, and then the Jesus miracle-worker appeared in history, unexpected, and hundreds (thousands?) of religionists found it necessary to connect the ideas they already had to Jesus, to make him into a preacher of their ideas, which they already had before there was any Jesus miracle-worker.

Not all histry is scant, you are rayiknalixng yiur irrational bekief.

"rayiknalixng"? What's that?

We know . . .

Whatever "rayiknalixng" means, I'm sure I've never done such a thing, and I resent this accusation.

We know a lot about Caesar, Alexander, Plato, Aristotle.

Yes, much was written about those of high status, the rich and powerful, the top .1% of the population, those closely connected to the elitist power structure. But there were some of low status -- maybe not many -- who also are known to us and who matter. We cannot pretend that only those at the highest social echelons did anything important.

The Jewish revolt left archeological evidence at Masada. They left wrings. There is historical corroborations.

Actually, for the details of it our only source is Josephus, with virtually no corroboration from any other 1st- or 2nd-century source. Except for Josephus, the 1st-century historians said almost nothing about it.

But it's reasonable to believe Josephus, just as it's reasonable to believe the Gospel accounts about the Jesus miracle acts. There is "historical corroborations" for these accounts of what happened. For the Jesus miracle healing acts we have 4 sources reporting it, which is good corroboration, better than what we know about Masada, which is mainly from one source only. But all these accounts are credible sources for what happened.

The "archeological evidence" would mean nothing without the writings to tell us the events. For 99% of ancient history events there is no archeological evidence -- for non-military battle scenes and non-building structures probably 99.9% is from the writings only.

Nothing for Jesus.

It's ridiculous to expect any archaeological findings from the Jesus events, since his activity lasted only 1-3 years and had nothing to do with any battlefield action. Had he led an army of 10,000 combatants maybe we should expect to find some trace of it. What archeological remains do we have of John the Baptizer and James the Just or the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness? or of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai, or of Philo the Alexandrian and other influential Jews of much higher status than Jesus at the time?

Even the term Jesus Christ is symbolic. The gospel Jesus and the supernatural myths are obviously Greek.

No, the Jesus miracle healing acts are not Greek, and these (plus the Resurrection) are the most conspicuous element to be found in the Gospel accounts. There's nothing in the Greek legends which resembles Jesus the miracle-healer. Nor anything resembling the Jesus Resurrection. All the evidence is that he was a miracle healer to whom some pagan and Jewish symbols were added later.

Jesus in the gospels makes sense as a Greek/Roman demigod.

You could just as reasonably say he makes sense as a Persian or Egyptian or Babylonian or Hindu demigod. There were many symbols added to the original Jesus miracle-worker, not just Greek/Roman symbols. The important question is not about the pagan symbols added to him, but about the original historical Jesus figure to whom these pagan symbols later got added. Why did so many 1st-century writers want to add these symbols to him -- and also Jewish symbols? Why did they do this to Jesus only and not to anyone else? What was special about him that so many wanted to make him, and only him, into a miracle god hero having all these symbols attached to him?

A demigod typically offspring or lineage from a god and human. Some powers but not all of the god parent. Mary being impregnated by a god is Greek, an abomination to Jews.

One culture's revered symbol is another culture's abomination. You are making my point. Why did so many different conflicting religionists feel a need to turn Jesus into such a divine legend? Why him only and no one else? -- there were others to whom such symbols were added? Who?

The form of the gospel stories was that of a Greek myth.

No, it was also that of Jewish myth. And also Egyptian. And . . .

Gentiles of the day would understand the myth, they were the target audience of the story.

You have to say that the "target audience" was all the various cultures, not just "Gentiles." There are also many Jewish symbols used by the Gospel writers.

Jews were not hoping for mystical prophet, they wanted a . . .

Some wanted a mystical prophet. You can't generalize what ALL "Jews" wanted or were hoping or not hoping for.

. . . not hoping for mystical prophet, they wanted a king to . . .

No, some were tired of the kings, who turned out to be tyrants. Some believed as the Prophet Samuel had preached, that a "king" would be harmful for the nation. Not all Jews were hoping for the same thing. The "messiah" term also referred to an anointed special prophet, also to an anointed special High Priest. "Jews" were not all united in what they wanted. The Qumran Jews wanted something much different than what the Teachers and Priests in Jerusalem wanted. The symbols added to Jesus included something for all the different factions, and also included contradictory elements. No one religious tradition invented the Jesus person and fashioned him exclusively according to what they wanted. What Jews wanted does not explain where Jesus the miracle healer came from, or where the resurrected Messiah came from.

. . . they wanted a king to restore them to glory. A leader in the line of David.

That symbol is also added to Jesus in the Gospel accounts, but it's only one of many symbols connected to Jesus. The important question is: What was the original Jesus figure to whom all these symbols were added later? And why were these symbols attributed to Jesus and to no one else, such as to some popular Prophet or Teacher, of whom there were many of higher status and recognition than Jesus?

We do not know the family name of the alleged Jesus. To me Jesus Christ was a general tag applied to numerous events and people.

"general tag"? Whatever that means, you're entitled to your subjective feelings about it, but the evidence is that he was a miracle-worker to whom various symbols became attached, by different writers interpreting him according to this or that earlier mystical tradition.

Somebody in a movement gets crucified and people say 'Jesus was crucified'.

Whatever this means, it makes "Jesus" someone very unimportant, undistinguished, unworthy of notice, unworthy to be written about, the opposite of what the historical Jesus became in the historical record. What we need you to explain to us is what made the historical Jesus stand out as important, not what made him unimportant and of low status, such as having been crucified. Crucified criminals and rebels were about as low and disrespected as anyone could be.

Somebody gives a sermon on a hill and its 'Jesus gave a sermon'.

Again, this makes Jesus unimportant and unworthy of notice. There were thousands of apocalyptic preachers giving sermons on this or that hill, or in a temple, or on a street corner, or in a valley or a plain or beach or river bank, or in a river, like John the Baptizer, etc. Tell us something Jesus did (or reportedly did) that is noteworthy -- something that distinguishes him from others, rather than something also done by hundreds or thousands of others who are forgotten or are omitted from the written record of the time.

Where did the term Christ come from?
Jesus | Facts, Teachings, Miracles, Death, & Doctrines ...
Christ was not originally a name but a title derived from the Greek word christos, which translates the Hebrew term meshiah (Messiah), meaning “the anointed one.” This title indicates that Jesus' followers believed him to be the anointed son of King David, whom . . .

Some of them believed this -- not all. But why did these ones believe such things about Jesus in particular and not about anyone else? What did he do to cause so many to want to make a divine hero figure out of him? or a King, or Prophet, or High Priest? There were plenty of Prophets and Rabbis who had higher status and recognition than he had at that time. Why did so many conflicting groups all choose him to become their god-man-hero-messiah instead of each group choosing their own separate hero?

. . . to be the anointed son of King David, whom some Jews expected to restore the fortunes of Israel.

Why would they expect such a thing from someone who did nothing noteworthy?

Why is it that whenever we reject the fact of the miracle healing acts he did, and the Resurrection, we are left exasperated to come up with any explanation how he is distinguished in history, what is noteworthy about him, why he is in the historical record at all?

 

[steve_bank]

An idea with merit? To use an old phrase 'Jesus H.Christ!' do you know any history at all?

The Crusades? European religious wars? The Inquisition?

Here in the PNW the issue of Native American kids being taken by force from parents and forced into Christian schools, and subjected to abuse. People are alive today who lived through it as kids.

There is nothing inherently moral about Christianity as compared to the rest of the population.

Christian republicans in congress are notably unethical and self serving They support the morally repugnant Trump because it is in their political interest.

It s not what you say it is what you do.

Did not Jesus, allegedly, say don't wear your faith on your sleeve like the hypocrites do?

Christians as a whole tend to talk Jesus but not do Jesus.

I admire Liz Cheny an exception. She went against Trump in the insreection hearings knwng it could end her career which it did.

 

[TomC]

Why is it that whenever we reject the fact of the miracle healing acts he did, and the Resurrection, we are left exasperated to come up with any explanation how he is distinguished in history, what is noteworthy about him, why he is in the historical record at all?

I don't see anything difficult to explain here.
Historical Jesus was unimportant. It was Paul the Evangelist who started creating the pagan epic hero, Christ. The miracle working demigod who Rose from the Dead, then Ascended to Heaven to form a previously unknown pantheon called the Trinity.

Honestly, I'm sure that if HJ had actually done half the miracles attributed to him in the gospels he'd have had a huge following. When he was brutally, and very publicly, executed lots of people would know about it. If he reappeared the next week, alive and well, there'd be a huge uproar.

Why would anyone fear a Roman with a sword when your leader has demonstrated power over physical death?

But that didn't happen.* Jesus disappeared like a pebble in a pond. It wasn't until Paul came along, got a vague and garbled version of the Jesus legend, that Christianity started mattering to more than a tiny handful of people. Paul transplanted Christianity into the pagan Roman Empire, where it became a Greek style myth.

But the fact remains. Jesus disappeared, leaving no trace.

Christ became a figurehead for a major Jewish heresy that came to dominate the Greco-Roman world. Became important enough to get adopted by a Roman Emperor.

And the rest is history.
Tom

* Sometimes, lack of evidence is itself evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why did anyone write about Jesus?
Why the 4 Gospels? or the Paul Epistles?

What did Jesus do special
that writers would report about him?

What I have always said is the Jesus of the gospels as a Jew of the day would have been one of a number of wandering 'prophets'.

Perhaps, and so then we have to ask: Why did so many take him to be something special and make him into a miracle-working Resurrected Son of God, even saying this in written accounts, when in reality he was nothing but just another dime-a-dozen wandering prophet like so many others, and actually less popular and less important than many others who did more than he did and had more status than he had and left more impact than he left at that time? So -- why are we even talking about him?

The miracle acts of Jesus are not comparable to other ancient miracle legends -- about Hercules, about Gilgamesh, about Apollonius of Tyana, about Prometheus, about Osiris, about St. Patrick, about Romulus, about so many other hero legends. In the case of Jesus we have 4 written sources of the 1st century (a few decades later than the reported events) which attest to his miracle acts -- 5 sources attesting to the Resurrection. Even if there are some other "miracle" legends you think are comparable, there is no evidence for them such as we have in this one case. For virtually all the miracle legends there is less evidence than is expected for normal events we accept. Usually there is ONLY ONE SOURCE in each case, whereas for the Jesus miracle acts we have more evidence than we have for most ancient history events. You have to keep this in mind when you offer other examples for comparison.

If there was only one source, or if the source was 200+ years later, as was normal for miracle legends, we'd have no reason to take note of the Jesus case as having any significance. Why is he in the written record of the time, in multiple sources, and there's no other such wandering prophet given such attention in the writings, none others mythologized into a resurrected miracle-hero-messiah-savior? Why does someone who did nothing special get singled out like this for such special treatment? having multiple attestation?

What happened in the case of Jesus, about 30 AD, which caused him to be treated differently in the historical record, in the written record of the time?

There was rebellion and Jewish nationalism in the air.

No more rebellion and nationalism than in other lands dominated by Rome, where there was the same imperialism and oppression and heavy taxation and resentment against the empire. E.g. why don't we have the Gospel (or Gospels) of Mithridates who was a real King leading a Revolution against the Romans in Asia Minor? Why don't we have stories of his miracles and Resurrection?

Jews wanted a leader to restore Israel to power, . . .

No more so than in other lands dominated by Rome. And many Jews were tired of the bad "leaders" they had already suffered under (King Herod the Great and his predecessors). Many were happy when Pompey earlier put an end to the Hasmonean Dynasty. Much of the Jewish population supported the Roman takeover, and many Jews fought on the side of Pompey against the Jewish resistance.

And even if it's agreed that "Jews wanted a leader" in some special sense, how was Jesus any candidate to become such a "leader" in comparison to hundreds or thousands of other Jews just as willing and able as he was? or MORE able? Obviously there were hundreds, even thousands, who had more status and more recognition than he had.

. . . not a delusional mystic who thought he was related to god.

Some wanted that too, like the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness -- wasn't he a delusional mystic? and also his many disciples? and also John the Baptizer and his disciples? Why don't we have Gospels of these Jewish mystics also? who were more widely recognized and revered than Jesus was at the time? Why don't we also have reports of their miracles and resurrection?

Different Jews wanted a "leader" of one kind or another, but some wanted no "leader" at all, and those who wanted a "leader" did not agree on who this "leader" should be. Even if there was general hate against the Romans, there was just as much hate against the bad Jewish "leaders" they had already put up with, including the Jerusalem Temple Establishment.

One thing they did not want, if we examine all the literature: They were not seeking a miracle-worker to perform healing acts, such as we see Jesus doing. There were no other reported miracle-workers in the Jewish tradition or events of those times. Why does this single case of a miracle-worker pop up suddenly about 30 AD, with no indication of any other such character doing any such things?

I believe the gospel stories were likely based on oral stories of multiple events and people. That would explain multiple images of the Jesus character.

But what brought those diverse events and people together into one single hero-character to be enshrined as The Messiah for all the Jews? to be mythologized exclusively into a resurrected miracle-worker? why only this Jesus character and no others?

What we need an explanation for is the heavy concentration of miracle stories here, or the extreme recurrence of the miracle acts done by Jesus, for which there is no precedent anywhere else in ancient history, i.e., no other such hero figure. Where do we find any other miracle-workers depicted over and over doing such acts? in multiple sources? Why do we find this one 1st-century character alone in history being depicted this way, and no others? What was it about him that attracted this kind of attention paid to him and to no one else?

Whoever made up these stories about him -- why didn't they (or others) make up similar stories about anyone else? about other popular Teachers and Prophets who had more status than Jesus had? who had more followers and wider reputation as Divine Ordained Prophets and Priests deserving to be revered and treated as Divine Messengers or Divine Mediators between humans and the gods? Why did these storytellers rather than using someone important as their miracle-worker hero instead choose an insignificant disgraced crucified criminal dissident as their storybook miracle hero? and why also did the religionist writers choose someone of such low esteem to be a MOUTHPIECE for their mystical theories or teaching and spiritualism and messianic apocalyptic judgmentalism and condemnation of the Establishment?

This is what needs to be explained.

The gospels were likely fictionalized embellished stories with a supernatural myth of a god son to attract the gentiles.

But why are they the ONLY examples of such literature? Why is there no other such "god son" myth to be found in the literature to attract gentiles? no other "god son" or "supernatural myth" stories presenting a miracle-worker? Why is there no other such miracle-worker historical person presented to us in all the literature over so many centuries? What was there about this Jesus miracle-worker character that made him the only such myth character in all the writings? Why is there no other such figure in all the Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Persian etc. writings, in multiple sources dating from near the time of the reported miracle-worker's life? What happened in this case that a written record was left telling us of this historical figure's reported miracle acts, and yet no such writings are to be found about any other reported miracle-worker in history?

If he actually did exist and did perform those miracle acts, then it all makes sense. But if it's only fiction with "supernatural myth" to attract gentiles, no one can explain why we have only this one example of such a fiction miracle-worker in the written record and no other cases like it. What produced a fictional miracle-worker only in this one case and there are no others for which we have evidence (multiple sources dating from the time of the reported events)?

I.e., why is this the only case for which there is evidence and there aren't any others? such that in this case the only argument to disprove it is the a priori premise that there can't be any miracles? The evidence we have, from the written record of the time, is that these miracle acts did happen. And so the only argument that it's not true is the premise that it can't be true (because miracles per se are ruled out or excluded regardless of the evidence). This argument is not necessary in other cases of miracle claims, because in other cases there is no evidence (or virtually no evidence), and so the argument in all other cases is that the miracle claims are contrary to the evidence. Whereas in the singular case of the Jesus miracle acts the only argument is that miracle claims have to be ruled out as a fundamental premise regardless of the evidence -- because in this one case we have the evidence of multiple attestation or multiple sources reporting these miracle events.

It is what makes sense to me. Promotional literature.

But why is there no promotional literature about any other miracle-worker Messiah? There were no others? Why not?

If that conflicts with your image of Jesus as a purveyor of a superior morality that is . . .

No, my image of Jesus is only that he had power to heal physical afflictions, which are in the "miracle" category because it went far beyond conventional medical science -- plus also he's reported as returning back to life after he had been killed. There may be other images of him also, but that's the one we know for sure, i.e., his life-giving power, or his power to overcome death. And this is just based on the facts, or the evidence of history, in the normal sense that we know historical events.

. . . that is your problem not mine. Your version of . . .

It's not a "problem" but just the facts of history, known from normal evidence like 99% of our historical facts, based on the writings from the times of the reported events.

. . . Your version of Jesus is no more or less valid than anyone else's. You rationalize . . .

"valid" or "true" or "accurate" or whatever -- put any label you want on it. But whatever you call it, it's just based on the facts, such as we know them from our history books and history classes, which are "valid" in the sense that we all know there were events in the past -- yesterday, 10-20-30 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. -- and of course there is an element of error and guesswork in all our determinations of what happened back then, centuries ago.

Of course, history is not a perfect science and is sort of contaminated with some error, as all our historical facts require some guesswork and get tainted with some error, and we continue to work on it in order to improve our knowledge. It's not correct to say that everyone's "version" of the historical facts is equally "valid" in comparison to everyone else's. No, there are some errors, and thus INVALID versions of the facts, which are promulgated by some claiming this or that version, and it's proper to compare and rely upon the facts as these are determined in the process of investigating the evidence from the past, so we can make corrections in this or that version.

It is correct -- "valid" -- to say that Jesus did perform the miracle acts, including the Resurrection, based upon the evidence. But like all/most historical facts, this must be subject to further review and reconsideration, especially in view of any new discoveries. There have been further discoveries, recently (20th century), such as new manuscripts, and all the evidence has to be taken into consideration, ongoing, into the future, without end. Some new evidence has discredited certain Christian claims of the past, but nothing new has come to light which casts doubt on the fact of the Jesus miracle acts.

You rationalize your beliefs as do all the theists on the forum past and present.

It's good for us to give our reasons for our beliefs. All of us, believers and disbelievers, skeptics, atheists, freethinkers etc. -- we should all search for the truth, and when we think we've found any important truth, it's good to communicate it to others and say what our evidence is, or what our reasons are. That we "rationalize" our beliefs does not make them less credible.

As I don't believe there was single historical Jesus and the . . .

The evidence indicates that he was a particular person living about 30 AD in Galilee-Judea, like normal historical persons each had a particular location and time in history. Known historical characters he encountered are named, and these are verified. Obviously you could speculate that many persons in history really were not just one person but many. Possibly that makes sense in a few unusual cases, but not in this case, in terms of the known facts.

. . . and the authorship is unknown I freely . . .

The Gospel accounts can be put into the "anonymous" category, like several other ancient writings. This does not undermine their credibility as sources for the historical events. Many anonymous writings are relied on for their contribution to the historical facts. At the same time we also have the Epistles of Paul and other writings for which the author is identified. All the writings have to be read critically, with skepticism, regardless if the author is known. All of them contain a mixture of fact and fiction, and we can usually determine the difference, or we can be reasonably certain of some of the facts -- the most important -- while much else is in doubt.

. . . I freely speculate as debate evolves on religion. As this is informal discussion I do not worry if at times I may be inconsistent.

To me Christianity is all nonsense to begin with.

Some of it though is based on historical fact and is not nonsense. If it's really "all nonsense" then you'd have to eliminate some of known history, about the facts of the 1st century. The cult of John the Baptist and of the Qumran community, and much else, is fact and connects to known historical events and to the reported Jesus events. This part of "Christianity" is not nonsense, though much is difficult to determine as to the accuracy of information, and it shows some confusing ideas people had, which might be called "nonsense" by our modern judgment about facts we've learned and comparing their ideas with someone else's. E.g., the Jews earlier had some conflicts with the Canaanites and others, and we can't be sure if the Jewish "monotheists" really were so much different than the other cultures around them. It's difficult to identify what is just normal ignorance someone had and what is "nonsense" they shared with others who were confused.

Just because Christians had some erroneous beliefs does not mean "all" of it was "nonsense."

The tone and choice of words and personal comments in your response, do they reflect your Jesus based morality?

All the "morality" beliefs are based on the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel accounts -- parables, sermons, etc. These are a problem in the sense that most (all?) of these are words put into the mouth of Jesus by later writers -- not only Christian writers but earlier Jewish writers who repeated the apocalyptic sermons of the popular preachers and prophets prior to Jesus. What we know for sure, as history, is that he did the miracle acts, but we can't be sure of the authenticity of the sayings and morality and religious teachings of Jesus. These can so easily be the ideas of believers who used him as a mouthpiece for their beliefs, some of which is superstitious and irrational, and perhaps even hateful. I think it's better to not attribute moralistic teachings to Jesus, even though maybe he did preach something moralistic -- we don't know. Some of the sayings seem definitely to be ideas different than his.

Where is that Christian inner peace and serenity?

Maybe the Buddhists are better experts on "peace and serenity." And whether we find this or not, it's still legitimate to seek the facts, or the truth about what happened historically.

But also there is a satisfaction ("peace and serenity"?) in knowing that one's belief is based on the facts of history, or the evidence. It's good to rely on the facts and de-emphasize the feelings and subjectivity which cannot be corroborated by the evidence. Facts and evidence are real and do matter, for everyone. But this does not mean the feelings are invalid. The feelings and spiritualism and subjectivity might have some kind of validity outside the objective facts. These might be of value as long as they do not CONTRADICT the facts. When they cross that line they become invalid.

Morality comes down to what you do and say, not who you quote.

Some philosophers have said significant points about "morality" or "good vs. evil" and "ethics" etc. Maybe we can figure it out independently of them. But it's OK to refer to the ideas of Immanuel Kant and the Utilitarians and others who had some good insights on "morality." It's not necessary to identify Jesus in particular as THE Authority on "morality" to be quoted as superior over all others.

The best evidence is that Jesus indicated "FAITH" or "BELIEF" as something we need, whereas the demand for OBEDIENCE and MORALITY etc. seems to have come from the later writers who put words into his mouth and then threatened HELL FIRE to all those who are disobedient and do not perform the necessary deeds and rituals required by their particular sect. Religion puts heavy emphasis on performance of ritual and ceremony and virtue in order to make people behave correctly and sacrificially, and to threaten them with damnation if they don't comply. It seems religion turned Jesus into a religious preacher to accuse and condemn and judge people for their bad behavior. There's reason to doubt this presentation of him as a fire-breathing preacher of Hell and Damnation. Maybe he didn't do that at all. All we can be sure of is the power he demonstrated in the miracle acts. And from this it looks like religionists seized upon him as a tool to impose religion, or some religionists' version of morality.

As I said the test of your beliefs is when you are faced with consequences following your beliefs.

No, strictly speaking the belief is something separate from consequences happening later. The belief might be true and also important, and it's good to believe the truth, regardless what psychological outcome it might lead to. Otherwise you'd have to stop yourself when learning anything, like facts of history, or science, and say, "Is this really true? Before I can be sure I have to ask what practical effect it would have on me. If it would lead me to do something good, then it's "true" and I should believe it. But if this might cause me to do something bad, then this claim is not "true" and I should disbelieve it. So the psychological effect it has on me is what determines if a claim is true or false."

This is not correct. The facts/Truth = reality = what is, regardless what outcome we expect as a result of believing it or learning it. It does matter what the facts are, and it's good to believe the facts, regardless of any outcome from believing it.

Anything else is armchair intellectual moralizing.

Whatever you call it, it's good to believe the facts (especially if it's something important) regardless whether there's any outcome from your believing it, or whether the outcome is good or bad. Of course consequences do matter and we want to produce good outcomes. But beyond that, it's also good to just believe the truth per se, even if there's no outcome, or a bad outcome, or we don't know the outcome of believing it.

If you do not understand that you do not understand morality and Christianity.

There's no way to prove who really does "understand morality and Christianity." Those claiming to understand these keep contradicting each other again and again, with no one really proving they have proved it or disproved all the others who say something contrary.

But some facts are established, from the evidence, and it's good for us to believe the facts, even though there is some guesswork, and there's NO ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY (100% probability) about it. We have to keep searching, forever, always seeking more truth.

The gospel Jesus went to his death for his beliefs, that is an inspiration for Christians.

That's OK.

But many martyrs also have gone to their death for a BAD cause, based on false beliefs. It's not necessarily a good thing that "disciples" were inspired by someone who championed a bad cause. How many terrorists have killed themselves for a bad cause? how many mass killers? It isn't necessary to identify the cause of Jesus as something verified by the fact that he was killed for it.

It's more useful to identify who killed him and why. And the best explanation is that he was killed by religious zealots who were offended by his acts of power which exposed their religious customs and beliefs as incorrect, or even false. Because he showed that healing/salvation and Eternal Life is possible without the performance of religious obedience and ritual and righteous deeds. His performance of healing acts showed that the life-giving power existed without the need for the religionists and their prescriptions and moralisticism.

 

[TomC]

What happened in the case of Jesus, about 30 AD, which caused him to be treated differently in the historical record, in the written record of the time?

Again, this is obvious and doesn't need magic to explain.

Jesus became the legendary name sake of a small and unimportant band of Judean activists. Paul took the legend out into the wider pagan world where it developed into Christianity.
Tom

 

[TomC]

It's more useful to identify who killed him and why. And the best explanation is that he was killed by religious zealots who were offended by his acts of power

Again, there's a simple and plausible explanation.
Jesus was an annoying pain in the butt to the Jewish elite, and not afraid to put in some muscle. Assuming the story about turning over tables in the Temple market place is well founded, that part is clear.
An easy way to get rid of Jesus would be to turn him over to Pilate on trumped up charges. Play up the "King of the Jews" part. Play down the social reformer part. What could go wrong?

Obviously, they didn't think Jesus had magical powers. And they lived in the same place Jesus did and at the same time. As opposed to Paul the Evangelist or the Gospel authors.
Tom

 

[bilby]

What did Jesus do special
that writers would report about him?

We could ask the same of Baron Munchausen, Sherlock Holmes, or Luke Skywalker.

What Jesus did special was be an entertaining character for a set of stories.

People like stories.

 

[TomC]

But some facts are established, from the evidence, and it's good for us to believe the facts, even though there is some guesswork, and there's NO ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY (100% probability) about it.

You and I have very different ideas about what constitutes evidence and facts.

I don't consider ancient tall tales, told by gullible religious cult members, to be evidence of facts.
Tom

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It matters what happened back then.

If you need medical attention would you go to a Christian faith healing center or a medical center with doctors practicing objective medical science?

The latter.

But if I want to know what happened 1000 or 2000 years ago, I consult the historical evidence, which is based on the written record from the time. The "Historical Jesus" topic is about what happened 2000 years ago. And the evidence indicates that he did the miracle healing acts and resurrected back to life after he was killed.

Science is not metaphysics . . . based on abstract metaphysical constructs. It is based on quantifiable physical measurements and experiments, not subject to subjective reception. If I measure 10 volts there is no subjective perception involved.

OK, but still the verification of science is the tangible results it produces, which are witnessed by someone, just as historical events were/are witnessed. The Truth or Science is not only about experiencing it today, but also about what happened 100 or 1000 years ago, which someone witnessed directly, so that we also rely on the evidence of history to tell us what the truth is, or what happens or happened. This history is based on objective perception, or observation of witnesses at that time. It's not "subjective," unless you mean ALL measurements and experiments are only the subjective experience of the scientists or researchers or observers present.

The reports of what happened in the past are "scientific" in the sense that they are evidence, as written accounts from someone of that time reporting what happened, or what they heard had happened, or what they witnessed directly. It's reasonable to believe it, even though there is not the same direct confirmation we can have with present events witnessed by observers today.

Measurements and experiments anyone can duplicate and see.

Yes, the evidence is available to everyone. But we can't "duplicate and see" the past events even though our knowledge of them is still "scientific" as known by us based on the appropriate evidence for history events. We cannot insist that because something which happened back then is not happening today that therefore it must not really have happened or that it's not important. No, it probably did happen if the evidence says it did, and also it might still be important for us today.

Again, the evidence from the 1st century (our topic) is that he did perform those miracle acts. That much is objective, based on the facts (which we know INdirectly through the evidence) which anyone has access to, whereas present-day events/facts are known more directly by us. And yet even today we have to trust the scientists to tell us the truth about most of the scientific findings. Most of us cannot do those measurements and experiments directly and produce the same objective results -- so there is still some INdirect confirmation and TRUST that the direct observers are reporting the results to us accurately. So the difference between our knowing today's facts is not inherently different from knowing the facts of history centuries ago.

 

[steve_bank]

Round and round we go....


The NT is not objective historical recounting. The concept of objective academic history as it evoled in the west did not exist back then, ad it is still mot objective.

There are ongoing disputes today on how the history of America should be taught in primary
education.

Ancient writers always favored a side or individual. Writers in Rome most always embellish and glorified the reigning elite and emperor. The Roman emperors claimed a blood line to a god.

An HJ may have been an ordinary wandering Jewish mystic. In the tradition of Greek and Roman mythology a possible real flesh and blood character is raised over time to mythical god like staus.

Over time the myth grows and gets elaborated. The Jewish Jesus in the gospels would have been serious blasphemy. I see Greek mythology in the gospels.

I grew up thinking King Artur was a real historical character, he was fiction created by a monk who wrote a history of Britain based on embellished folk tales. The physical archeological evidence discussants the alleged Arthurian narrative of a large scale conflict between factions. The evince and modern genetic studies point to an agrarian society with interbreeding.

Hercules - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

n Roman mythology, although Hercules was seen as the champion of the weak and a great protector, his personal problems started at birth. Juno sent two witches to prevent the birth, but they were tricked by one of Alcmene's servants and sent to another room. Juno then sent serpents to kill him in his cradle, but Hercules strangled them both. In one version of the myth, Alcmene abandoned her baby in the woods in order to protect him from Juno's wrath, but he was found by the goddess Minerva who brought him to Juno, claiming he was an orphan child left in the woods who needed nourishment. Juno suckled Hercules at her own breast until the infant bit her nipple, at which point she pushed him away, spilling her milk across the night sky and so forming the Milky Way. She then gave the infant back to Minerva and told her to take care of the baby herself. In feeding the child from her own breast, the goddess inadvertently imbued him with further strength and power.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How do you judge what's "unbelievable" vs. "believable"?

No, it's not about "unbelievable" stories.

Yes it is.

Your pronouncement doesn't make it so. You're just pronouncing that something is "unbelievable" because you dogmatically pronounce it, like the Pope handing down a Papal Bull which everyone must accept because he pronounces it so, without saying how we judge what is believable and what is unbelievable.

And you repeat the pronouncement while continuing not to explain the difference between what is believable and what is unbelievable:

You can go on and on, but the fact remains. The stories are unbelievable.

What "fact"? other than your dogmatic pronouncement? Why do you pretend that your pronouncement alone makes it so? Are you incapable of giving a REASON for your pronouncement?

Again, here's the difference between claims which are credible and those which are not: We believe events of history based on the written accounts of the time which report to us what happened. You cannot give us any example of an historical event you know which you did not acquire this way.

If this isn't how we distinguish between what did and did not happen, then how do we distinguish them? What's the criterion to distinguish what is believable from what is "unbelievable"?

All that you know (or 99% of it) about ancient history is from written accounts from the historical period in question which say something happened, and you believe it in most or all cases unless that source is contradicted by other evidence, such as another similar source which says something contrary.

E.g., you believe George Washington was the first U.S. President. Why do you believe that? because that's what the written accounts of that historical period say. Except for the written accounts from the time in question, you have no proof/evidence for your beliefs about the history, about those past events, about what happened.

And for the Resurrection of Jesus we have 5 1st-century sources which say this happened. As with most ancient history events, these are not written by someone directly present when it happened, as a contemporary, but rather by writers some decades later -- And that's the norm for ancient history, whereas reliance on contemporary reports of the event, dated at the same time as the event, are the rare exception.

Though actually, one of these 5 sources really was contemporary, i.e., the Apostle Paul, who lived at the time of Jesus, but it wasn't 'til 20 years later that he wrote his account of this -- so it's almost contemporary -- which most of our (ancient) historical record is not. I.e., our evidence for the Jesus events is stronger than for most of our known ancient history.

For any ancient history event 5 sources is very good evidence. And there are no other ancient reported miracle events for which we have such evidence, or sources reporting it near the time it happened -- though in a very few cases there might be one source near the time, like less than 50 years = exceptional case. For most reported historical events (the ones believed by virtually everyone), the source reporting it is later than this, like 50-200 years later than the event(s) happened.

So we don't need pronouncements of someone's subjective feelings what are the "unbelievable" vs "believable" stories, since we have a standard for evidence (rather than dogmatic pronouncements): Whatever is reported in multiple written accounts of the time in question, and is not contradicted by other evidence, is credible, or is "believable" rather than "unbelievable." Why do you think your Authority to pronounce what is "unbelievable" has to take priority over our standard criteria for evidence? over the written record from the time the events happened?


the need for EXTRA evidence, more sources

If it's a miracle claim, or something very unusual, we need extra sources rather than only one. Also, if it's very easy to explain how a hero figure got mythologized, then this mythologizing is the more likely explanation rather than the miracle story being true. But when there's no explanation how the mythologizing could have happened, such as there's not in the case of Jesus, then the story is more credible because the explanation is not that he became mythologized, i.e., an alternative explanation is necessary.

A very common explanation how a miracle story originated is that the hero in question was a famous rich-and-powerful celebrity, like Alexander the Great or Emperor Vespasian, so in cases like these it's more credible to attribute the story to mythologizing rather than believing the miracle event actually happened.

In the case of the ancient pagan heroes/gods the main explanation is the several centuries of storytelling or legend-building between the reported event(s) and the later written source(s) telling the stories.

And can be easily explained.

But you can't give the explanation. I.e., you can't explain how a nobody like Jesus was made into a miracle resurrected messiah hero in 4 (5) written sources appearing 20-70 years after the reported events. If it was true that this "can be easily explained," then you or someone would explain it, which no one has. Why is it that no one can explain it but can only keep repeating that it can be explained? If there is an explanation, why is no one giving any?

It's easy to see why the stories were created.

If that were true, someone would tell us why. All hero miracle stories were about famous heroes who distinguished themselves in their lifetimes and then became mythologized. They were uniquely popular and famous from the beginning and/or they became famous after several centuries of legend-building. You can't name any example who does not fit this pattern, because the reason to publish them is that they were widely popular among millions of admirers or disciples. No writers left written accounts about someone who did not have such widespread renown and status among the masses.

Since Jesus the miracle-worker does not fit into this pattern (of being widely popular and famous while still alive), it's impossible to explain how he became published or promoted by writers in the published accounts they left behind (the 4 Gospels & the Paul Epistles) over a short period of a few decades rather than the several generations/centuries usually required in order to become widely publicized and turned into a miracle hero legend.