Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[angellous_evangellous]

Please go and troll elsewhere. This is not appropriate.

Please write something useful and relevant. If you insist on posting something useless to the conversation, post something like outhouse did.

Topics: Willie Nelson songs, Junior Brown, Eric Clapton - to start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn-AB78kvvE

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Many serious scholars have done so, you are wrong.

Name them. Historians.

I'd also like to see the list of incompetent idiots that think that Alexander never lived.

 

[Bunyip]

Name them. Historians.

I'd also like to see the list of incompetent idiots that think that Alexander never lived.

I have reported your posts, but am aware that you are a staff member. Please troll somebody else.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have reported your posts, but am aware that you are a staff member. Please troll somebody else.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You said that there are serious scholars who doubt the historicity of Jesus and Alexander. I asked you to provide the simplest amount of proof - names of historians who 'believe' what you say.

I know that you're talking out of your ***. I don't think that you know that, and looking for reputable historians who don't think that Jesus existed will do you some good. If you're honest.

There's bound to be a few shoe salesmen, philosophers, and the like who don't believe that Jesus existed... but not many professional historians who apply an historical method.

Of course, you don't know that because your source (your ***) doesn't know that.

 

[Bunyip]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You said that there are serious scholars who doubt the historicity of Jesus and Alexander. I asked you to provide the simplest amount of proof - names of historians who 'believe' what you say.

I know that you're talking out of your ***. I don't think that you know that, and looking for reputable historians who don't think that Jesus existed will do you some good. If you're honest.

There's bound to be a few shoe salesmen, philosophers, and the like who don't believe that Jesus existed... but not many professional historians who apply an historical method.

Of course, you don't know that because your source (your ***) doesn't know that.

All serious scholars have doubt. Richard Carrier references many dozens of other notable scholars in his recent book on the topic. The historicity is not proveable, nor proven - that is just how history works.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Before you give any more lectures about how history works, let me give you a friendly heads-up.

I always appreciate these. However, history works by being in the past. Historiography and historians, though...

Historians catalogue and interpret the data, the historicity of Jesus (or any other character) is what is called an 'inference to the best explanation''

Formal languages & mathematics (and in particular logic, logical inference, statistical inference, and data analysis) is central to what I do, particularly because a lot of my work involves demonstrating to professional researchers who rely on logical inference and data analysis that their reasoning is illogical and their analyses largely baseless.

a tentative conclusion of what that particular researcher believes to be the most likely explanation.

True. That's why historical scholarship, like every academic field, doesn't amount to the sum of any and every individual with a degree who proffers some opinion. Various experts with various specialties use different assessments of evidence to make conclusions with differing levels of confidence. Some historians believe that the oral tradition behind the canonical gospels was passed on reliably by eyewitnesses. Others believe that the gospels (and non-canonical sources) are incredibly unreliable in general and all we can trust is the bare minimum. There are all kind of views in-between almost complete skepticism and religious (or religious-like) faith in how trustworthy our sources are.

This is called ABDUCTIVE REASONING

It also inaccurately describes the foundations of historical inquiry. To see why, we have only to look to the reasons why we write off as ahistorical or non-historical any account of Jesus in which he is actually the son of god who rose from the dead. Historians start using deductive reasoning, starting from premises about the nature of reality (e.g., the "laws" of physics and similar established epistemological frameworks supplied by empiricism and the sciences that tell us people can't actually turn water into wine or rise from the dead). Without the deductive reasoning that allows us to assume that phenomena like the chemical make-up of water, the surface tension of liquids, the physiological pathology underlying blindness or paralysis, etc., weren't completely different 2,000 years ago we couldn't get anywhere.

Yes, inference, inductive reasoning, various weights placed on interpretations of various pieces of evidence, and so on, are most of what historians do. It's also what most scientists do: formal deduction is actually largely restricted to mathematics in which the discourse universe is fully defined and built upon axioms rather than our understanding of external reality. Also, the same subjective reasoning behind some historian's analysis of our evidence for Jesus is behind every historian's analysis of our evidence for Caesar.

not an actual conclusion or proof.

It clearly and trivially gives us a conclusion. As for proof- that's limited to mathematics. Even in physics, proofs are few and far between and even then are limited. The formal structure of QM allowed Bell's famous inequality proof but did not prove how it should be interpreted.

When a person mistakes a guess drawn from abductive reasoning for an actual firm conclusion as you are doing - that is a fallacy called 'affirming the consequent'.

1) You don't know what I base my conclusions on.
2) This particular fallacy is ubiquitous throughout the sciences in the form of NHST. This doesn't make it ok (far from it), but it also only matters insofar as the potential problems underlying such inferences are known. ONLY deductive reasoning is potentially fool-proof. Alas, no research lends itself to purely deductive research outside of fields like mathematics.
3) Abductive or inductive reasoning is necessarily used in all historical research, including any that determines individuals as well-documented as Einstein, Podolsky, & Rosen existed. There are no axioms from which I can infer that any historical evidence is evidence of anything without assuming an interpretative framework that is necessarily at best mostly assured by our understanding of the dynamics and physics which govern the cosmos.

If anyone imagines that the historicity of Jesus has been established evidentially, or that historians agree that the historicity of Jesus is conclusively evidenced - then they are wrong, they are commiting the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

This is trivially and obviously wrong. If I define a historian as someone who believes Jesus was a historical person, then necessarily all historians do believe Jesus was a historical person. My would be horribly flawed, but I wouldn't be committing the fallacy you state. Likewise, if I conclude that historians agree Jesus was historical based upon reading historical literature by experts, then either I can't understand what I read, my sample is too small, too many historians are liars, historians really do agree on this point, or there is another explanation that still isn't an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

[s2a]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You said that there are serious scholars who doubt the historicity of Jesus and Alexander. I asked you to provide the simplest amount of proof - names of historians who 'believe' what you say.

I know that you're talking out of your ***. I don't think that you know that, and looking for reputable historians who don't think that Jesus existed will do you some good. If you're honest.

There's bound to be a few shoe salesmen, philosophers, and the like who don't believe that Jesus existed... but not many professional historians who apply an historical method.

Of course, you don't know that because your source (your ***) doesn't know that.

Upon your request (check the bona fides as you wish):

Thomas L. Thompson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But to save some time...you just might to scroll along the bottom listing of sources available here (you did ask), with similar checking of qualifications of "reputable", "historian", etc.:

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enjoy!

How nice to see you again

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All serious scholars have doubt. Richard Carrier references many dozens of other notable scholars in his recent book on the topic. The historicity is not proveable, nor proven - that is just how history works.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Upon your request (check the bona fides as you wish):

Thomas L. Thompson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But to save some time...you just might to scroll along the bottom listing of sources available here (you did ask), with similar checking of qualifications of "reputable", "historian", etc.:

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enjoy!

How nice to see you again

With respect, I don't see the relevance of this... I'm not sure you're actually replying to what I was 'talking' about.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But of course historians DO apply those same criteria to other characters and the historicity of any of them is open to speculation.

That's the point. Grant asserts that we must apply the same standards to the evidence for Jesus that we do for others, whether Achilles or Caesar.

The point is that nobrody claims that the historicity of Alexander has been proven, it is still open for speculation.

Proof is for mathematics. Since the realization that infinitely many confirmations of some "theory" (in the colloquial sense) can continually provide evidence for inaccurate conclusions, the use of the term is virtually absent in technical literature within the sciences, let alone the humanities.

Many serious scholars have done so, you are wrong.

There is some truth to this, if we ignore the time interval. Historical-critical research into Jesus' person practically began with Reimarus' attempt to undermine Christianity and was quickly followed by the extreme skepticism of "serious scholars" like Strauß. However, by the time we come to armchair anthropologists/historians like Frazer we find serious challenges to the naïve historical methods employed by early modern historical scholars and the beginnings of the incorporation of more advanced methods including those from certain sciences into historical scholarship. So, within the last ~50 years, how many individuals with expertise relevant here "have done so"? And those like Wells, Doherty, Freke, Gandy, "Acharya S", etc., don't count. Price? Sure. Carrier? Absolutely. But these don't amount to "many serious scholars". There are more scientists whose expertise is relevant to evolution who are creationists/ID proponents (which is more misleadingly than one would think; while our methods for investigating history change we can seldom know more about what happened, especially in antiquity, given more time and better methods; currently, the increases in our knowledge of biological systems and complex systems in general have opened more questions than they have answered, so it's really more an issue of too many god in the gaps).

Now that is just nonsense

I can continue to cite actual experts and present my own reasoning/arguments, but if your rebuttal will continue to consist of unsubstantiated opposition, what's the point? Can you do more than supply categorical denials peppered with some personal opinions and vague references to historical methodology?

there is a far greater body of evidence for many other historical figures

Sure. The invention of the printing press, photography, videography, etc., provided not only more evidence for countless individuals but qualitatively superior evidence. However, I meant historical figures from prehistory to the late middle ages and in particular to the classical and Hellenistic period.

at the very least for every single historical figure that unlike Jesus we have contemporary evidence for.

We have contemporary evidence for Jesus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is some truth to this, if we ignore the time interval.

Yeah, I was thinking about this. But even if we find folks who 'denied the existence of Jesus' before critical methods became popular, I believe that we'll see that they did not separate the Jesus of religion (myth / belief) from the 'historical' Jesus (the guy who may have actually existed).

That's where many folks are today - "Well, the Jesus who worked miracles and such, he never existed - but a real person behind the founding of Christianity named Jesus - that I can agree existed." Denying the existence of some kind of Jesus creates more problems than it solves - one has to come up with an early Christian movement without a starting point.... there's always Paul, but there's little more proof that he existed, if we have already dismissed Jesus on some criteria. Then there's all the apostolic literature - where did that come from?

I guess if we start with stupid, we can't get very far.

 

[Bunyip]

I always appreciate these. However, history works by being in the past. Historiography and historians, though...


Formal languages & mathematics (and in particular logic, logical inference, statistical inference, and data analysis) is central to what I do, particularly because a lot of my work involves demonstrating to professional researchers who rely on logical inference and data analysis that their reasoning is illogical and their analyses largely baseless.



True. That's why historical scholarship, like every academic field, doesn't amount to the sum of any and every individual with a degree who proffers some opinion. Various experts with various specialties use different assessments of evidence to make conclusions with differing levels of confidence. Some historians believe that the oral tradition behind the canonical gospels was passed on reliably by eyewitnesses. Others believe that the gospels (and non-canonical sources) are incredibly unreliable in general and all we can trust is the bare minimum. There are all kind of views in-between almost complete skepticism and religious (or religious-like) faith in how trustworthy our sources are.


It also inaccurately describes the foundations of historical inquiry. To see why, we have only to look to the reasons why we write off as ahistorical or non-historical any account of Jesus in which he is actually the son of god who rose from the dead. Historians start using deductive reasoning, starting from premises about the nature of reality (e.g., the "laws" of physics and similar established epistemological frameworks supplied by empiricism and the sciences that tell us people can't actually turn water into wine or rise from the dead). Without the deductive reasoning that allows us to assume that phenomena like the chemical make-up of water, the surface tension of liquids, the physiological pathology underlying blindness or paralysis, etc., weren't completely different 2,000 years ago we couldn't get anywhere.

Yes, inference, inductive reasoning, various weights placed on interpretations of various pieces of evidence, and so on, are most of what historians do. It's also what most scientists do: formal deduction is actually largely restricted to mathematics in which the discourse universe is fully defined and built upon axioms rather than our understanding of external reality. Also, the same subjective reasoning behind some historian's analysis of our evidence for Jesus is behind every historian's analysis of our evidence for Caesar.


It clearly and trivially gives us a conclusion.

No. And that is the point - abductive reasoning does NOT provide a conclusion. To imagine it does is fallacious.

As for proof- that's limited to mathematics. Even in physics, proofs are few and far between and even then are limited. The formal structure of QM allowed Bell's famous inequality proof but did not prove how it should be interpreted.



1) You don't know what I base my conclusions on.
2) This particular fallacy is ubiquitous throughout the sciences in the form of NHST. This doesn't make it ok (far from it), but it also only matters insofar as the potential problems underlying such inferences are known. ONLY deductive reasoning is potentially fool-proof. Alas, no research lends itself to purely deductive research outside of fields like mathematics.
3) Abductive or inductive reasoning is necessarily used in all historical research, including any that determines individuals as well-documented as Einstein, Podolsky, & Rosen existed. There are no axioms from which I can infer that any historical evidence is evidence of anything without assuming an interpretative framework that is necessarily at best mostly assured by our understanding of the dynamics and physics which govern the cosmos.



This is trivially and obviously wrong. If I define a historian as someone who believes Jesus was a historical person, then necessarily all historians do believe Jesus was a historical person. My would be horribly flawed, but I wouldn't be committing the fallacy you state. Likewise, if I conclude that historians agree Jesus was historical based upon reading historical literature by experts, then either I can't understand what I read, my sample is too small, too many historians are liars, historians really do agree on this point, or there is another explanation that still isn't an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

[s2a]

With respect, I don't see the relevance of this... I'm not sure you're actually replying to what I was 'talking' about.

Well bad on me for being really dumb in reading comprehension capacities.

Just a few posts earlier, you said:

"You said that there are serious scholars who doubt the historicity of Jesus and Alexander. I asked you to provide the simplest amount of proof - names of historians who 'believe' what you say.

I know that you're talking out of your ***. I don't think that you know that, and looking for reputable historians who don't think that Jesus existed will do you some good. If you're honest.

There's bound to be a few shoe salesmen, philosophers, and the like who don't believe that Jesus existed... but not many professional historians who apply an historical method.

Of course, you don't know that because your source (your ***) doesn't know that."

To ensure my proper erudition and understanding in follow-up, what part of that were you not talking about? I'll do my level best to only respond to what you were talking about, perhaps akin to "reputable historians who don't think that Jesus existed", which kinda seemed directly on topic and in direct reply.

As noted before, the listing (link provided) of authors, scholars, historians (many of which are quite religious, as it happens) remains for you to peruse at you leisure, pending correction of my utter misunderstanding of you were "talking about", of course.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No. And that is the point - abductive reasoning does NOT provide a conclusion.

1) No birds can fly.
2) A crow is a bird.
________________
3)Ergo, a crow isn't a bird.

The above is a conclusion. It is ridiculously wrong, completely unsound, and pointless other than to illustrate that it couldn't matter less how poor one's use of reasoning is when providing a conclusion. Illogical, baseless reasoning can provide a conclusion. The issue is whether the reasoning is valid and sound. I can conclude that because you don't believe that Jesus was a historical individual, you must be a born-again, biblical literalist Christian. There's no logical basis for such a conclusion (and plenty against), but it is a conclusion.

You seem to confuse inference rules from formal logic as well formal reasoning in general with informal terms, phrases, and notions associated with the colloquial sense of "reasoning".

To imagine it does is fallacious.

Or the application of anything equivalent to or greater than the most basic familiarity with formal logic.

You've made claims about historical methods you haven't backed up apart from unsubstantiated claims.

You've referenced logic and reasoning without seeming to understand formal logic, argumentation, epistemology, etc., in order to conclude what is blatantly obvious to everybody who knows anything about research in the humanities or the sciences: virtually all conclusions, findings, and confirmations cannot make use of deductive reasoning and necessarily depend upon inductive, abductive, or a mix of both with or without deductive reasoning as well as subjective evaluations of what is considered evidence to particular specialists.

You've given no indication that you either understand or are familiar with historical scholarship in general or historical scholarship on ancient history specifically (let alone historical Jesus studies).

You've made categorical claims about what historians believe without the slightest indication that these are true.

You've made claims about the nature of evidence for historical persons like Caesar you contrast with Jesus without giving any indication you are familiar with the nature of our evidence for persons from antiquity in general or those you've mentioned.

I could go on, but again I think it would help us move along here if you would actually proffer some evidence for your claims and give some indication other than blanket, unsubstantiated statements that your assertions are supported by any combination of evidence and sound reasoning?

 

[Bunyip]

1) No birds can fly.
2) A crow is a bird.
________________
3)Ergo, a crow isn't a bird.

The above is a conclusion. It is ridiculously wrong, completely unsound, and pointless other than to illustrate that it couldn't matter less how poor one's use of reasoning is when providing a conclusion. Illogical, baseless reasoning can provide a conclusion. The issue is whether the reasoning is valid and sound. I can conclude that because you don't believe that Jesus was a historical individual, you must be a born-again, biblical literalist Christian. There's no logical basis for such a conclusion (and plenty against), but it is a conclusion.

You seem to confuse inference rules from formal logic as well formal reasoning in general with informal terms, phrases, and notions associated with the colloquial sense of "reasoning".



Or the application of anything equivalent to or greater than the most basic familiarity with formal logic.

You've made claims about historical methods you haven't backed up apart from unsubstantiated claims.

You've referenced logic and reasoning without seeming to understand formal logic, argumentation, epistemology, etc., in order to conclude what is blatantly obvious to everybody who knows anything about research in the humanities or the sciences: virtually all conclusions, findings, and confirmations cannot make use of deductive reasoning and necessarily depend upon inductive, abductive, or a mix of both with or without deductive reasoning as well as subjective evaluations of what is considered evidence to particular specialists.

You've given no indication that you either understand or are familiar with historical scholarship in general or historical scholarship on ancient history specifically (let alone historical Jesus studies).

You've made categorical claims about what historians believe without the slightest indication that these are true.

You've made claims about the nature of evidence for historical persons like Caesar you contrast with Jesus without giving any indication you are familiar with the nature of our evidence for persons from antiquity in general or those you've mentioned.

Yes I am familiar with the nature of the evidence. I majored in ancient history.

I could go on, but again I think it would help us move along here if you would actually proffer some evidence for your claims and give some indication other than blanket, unsubstantiated statements that your assertions are supported by any combination of evidence and sound reasoning?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes I am familiar with the nature of the evidence. I majored in ancient history.

Fantastic. Now, could you offer some evidence for your assertions? Even with an undergraduate major you are no doubt more than familiar with the nature of supporting citations/references. As we aren't writing peer-reviewed papers, contributing papers to some conference proceedings or edited volume, etc., but simply participating in a thread in a discussion forum, it is that much simpler to provide some indication that your views are supported in scholarship by relevant experts/specialists.

I cite historians whose published works contradict what you've said. You claim what I've cited is inaccurate and support such assertions by....well...asserting. However, given that you've made blanket claims about what historians think, believe, and agree upon, surely you can indicate this by more than appealing to your own authority.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Do yourself a favour and check out wiki's pages on 'inference to the best explanation' (which is the relevant historical tool to the historicity of Jesus), and then look at the page on 'abductive reasoning' (that being the relevant form of logical argument).

Please read them before commenting any further on my scholarly and logical ineptidude. I understand that people make mistakes, and when you look up those two pages you will find that my logical and historical position here is in fact spot on.

Sure, there is a poor case for mythicism, but that does not substantiate the historicity of Jesus - the reality is that the historicity of Jesus suffers the same weaknesses as does the so called 'mythicist' position (which I am not in fact in favour of by the way).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Do yourself a favour and check out wiki's pages on 'inference to the best explanation'

Thanks, but I don't use Wikipedia to understand logic, formal systems, inference, etc. I use it the way most do: when I don't know much about something, I go to Wikipedia. If you'd like to engage in a discussion about inference, fallacies, argumentation, cognition, the philosophy of logic, and related topics I'd be delighted. Referring me to a site designed to be at best just simplistic enough for those who don't know what they are talking about to learn valuable information isn't exactly helpful. There are dozens of popular sources you could have referenced:

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape our Decisions. HarperCollins.

Brandom, R., & Brandom, R. (2009). Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press.

Correia, V. (2011). Biases and fallacies: The role of motivated irrationality in fallacious reasoning. Cogency, 3(1), 107-126.

Cox, R. T. (1961). The Algebra of Probable Inference. Johns Hopkins Press.

Gilovich, T. (2008). How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. Simon and Schuster.

Hansen, H. V. (2002). The Straw Thing of Fallacy Theory: The Standard Definition of 'Fallacy'. Argumentation, 16(2), 133-155.

Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1994). Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds. Wiley.

Pirie, M. (2006). How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. Continuum.

Schlkopf, B., Luo, Z., & Vovk, V. (2013). Empirical Inference: Festschrift in Honor of Vladimir N. Vapnik. Springer.

Tittle, P. (2011). Critical Thinking: An Appeal to Reason. Routledge.


and on, and on, and on. I have to keep up on this mostly because I have to teach undergraduates formal logic, statistical inference, research on the ways in which humans tend to fail consistently when it comes to reasoning, logic, inference, and "rationality" (demonstrated by research in the cognitive sciences), epistemic modality, the logic and algebra of experimental design, etc. For most, it isn't exactly intuitive, but I'd like to think I can teach well enough to get most of the essential concepts across.

and then look at the page on 'abductive reasoning'

Let's imagine that I don't do this for a living and you are capable of supporting your points with more than references an elementary school child is capable of using. Can you then support anything you've asserted using specialist literature? Or are you limited to references to wiki pages you can't really relate well to your argument?

Please read them before commenting any further on my scholarly and logical ineptidude.

You haven't demonstrated any scholarly ineptitude. You've failed to address scholarship entirely. Your apparent lack of familiarity with formal logic and related topics is mostly secondary and largely irrelevant. After all, it doesn't take Gödel to make the leap from claims about what historian think to citing historians rather than wiki pages.

I understand that people make mistakes, and when you look up those two pages you will find that my logical and historical position here is in fact spot on.

You support your view of what historians think by asserting that's what they think, then you address historical methods via reference of logical inferences that apply to all of historiography and thus couldn't matter less, and finally reinforce your inability to support your claims about historians' views on this issue by citing Wikipedia. I am confident you have more you can offer if you would simply spend some time actually trying to defend your position rather than deflect.

 

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by Bunyip View Post
Legion

Do yourself a favour and check out wiki's pages on 'inference to the best explanation'

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The majority viewpoint among scholars is that Jesus existed



Bart Ehrman has claimed that Jesus certainly existed, and that "virtually every competent scholar" agrees with him


Richard A. Burridge has stated that he does not know of any "respectable critical scholar" who still argues that there never was a Jesus at all.


Classical historian Michael Grant said that, in recent years, "no serious scholar" has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.[5][7][8]


Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

 

[steeltoes]

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The majority viewpoint among scholars is that Jesus existed



Bart Ehrman has claimed that Jesus certainly existed, and that "virtually every competent scholar" agrees with him


Richard A. Burridge has stated that he does not know of any "respectable critical scholar" who still argues that there never was a Jesus at all.


Classical historian Michael Grant said that, in recent years, "no serious scholar" has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.[5][7][8]


Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

It continues...

Philip Davies points out that Christians have a stake in the "unanswerable question" of Jesus’ historicity, and that scholars such as Ehrman use "highly emotive and dismissive language" to attack, "ad hominem, as something outrageous" the whole idea of raising this question.