• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
This is a false dichotomy fallacy. We can actually not be sure and establish historicity at the same time. History, in particular ancient history, has always acknowledged uncertainty in its findings. Historicity is established on grounds which Alt Thinker has already clearly established his understanding of:
Calling something a false dichotomy is neither an argument nor does it make it one.
If Bunyip were to apply consistently stringent standards, he would, at very least, white out large swathes of history to no end aside from aggrandizing the reasonability of his biases.



The mass of ancient history is "similarly fragile" when we apply Bunyip's scientific standards to their legitimacy. This is why serious historians...



...while Bunyip asserts that we should look at the evidence and throw up our hands. The utter incongruence between methods actual historians use and those prescribed by Bunyip, a self-claimed historian, is Bunyip's getting roundly exposed across two threads as a false authority.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Are we talking about Jesus? My position from the beginning in this thread and others is that it is more likely than not that Jesus existed – those exact words - and I gave arguments to that effect. I have never said or implied that historicity has been established.

On the other hand my position (“more likely than not”) is a lot more meaningful than your position of “WE CAN NOT BE SURE”. That could mean anything from: it is extremely unlikely because of a total lack of evidence but “WE CAN NOT BE SURE”, to: it is highly likely because of a mountain of evidence but “WE CAN NOT BE SURE”. As I have pointed out several times it is possibly to come to a conclusion when there are strong reasons to do so. Knowledge is what we have very good reason to conclude. But it is also possible to form opinions about likelihood without claiming a definite conclusion.

But in the event we are talking about Hercules, my position, stated several times, is that there is no reason based on either evidence or argumentation to think there was ever a historic Hercules. We do not even see any indication that followers of the Hercules cults thought there was. In this case it is reasonable to say that a historic Hercules never existed.

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I have been saying. I suggest you go back and read my posts again.

In fact I will help you.








My position has always been that we can have knowledge without having to have absolute certainty about every detail because we are not able to explore every detail. What we call evidence is an abstraction from the real world, fitting what we uncover into categories that we have invented. When we have reached a point that one potential conclusion is highly favored over any other, it is reasonable to say that this is knowledge. It is possible that new evidence or argumentation of a stronger nature might arise in the future but if due diligence has been applied to uncovering such before coming to a conclusion, we can reasonably say that we have knowledge

Go back and read what I have been saying. Your ‘rebuttals’ are against a position I have never taken.

And the best explanation about the historicity of Jesus that I have been arguing (and no one seems to be addressing) is that it is more likely than not.

But you can not know that. You have no way to calculate the relative probabilities. You have a guess pretending to be knowledge. How could you possibly establish that it is more likely than not? Why on earth would 'more likely than not' be more useful than 'we don't know'? The latter is more accurate.
 
Last edited:

Alt Thinker

Older than the hills
But you can not know that. You have no way to calculate the relative probabilities. You have a guess pretending to be knowledge. How could you possibly establish that it is more likely than not? Why on earth would 'more likely than not' be more useful than 'we don't know'? The latter is more accurate.

I can establish what is more likely than not via arguments based on available evidence. These arguments are indirect and therefore not conclusive. However counter-arguments such as the supposed origin of the Jesus story in pagan myth fail under analysis. The arguments pro are more convincing than the arguments con. Therefore it is more likely that there was a historic Jesus than that there was not.

To instead throw up one's hands and say 'we don't know' period the end suggests an attitude of not wanting to look at the arguments. Which BTW seems to be your attitude since you have gone off on a tangent about knowing and not knowing instead of addressing the arguments I presented.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
I can establish what is more likely than not via arguments based on available evidence. These arguments are indirect and therefore not conclusive. However counter-arguments such as the supposed origin of the Jesus story in pagan myth fail under analysis. The arguments pro are more convincing than the arguments con. Therefore it is more likely that there was a historic Jesus than that there was not.

To instead throw up one's hands and say 'we don't know' period the end suggests an attitude of not wanting to look at the arguments. Which BTW seems to be your attitude since you have gone off on a tangent about knowing and not knowing instead of addressing the arguments I presented.
From my perspective the problem is that the likelihood of the whole shebang, regardless of the position you advocate, is so passing small that getting all hot an bothered about it is an abysmal waste of time. It's like arguing about who won a match race between two horses, both of whom fell dead within millimeters of each other in the first furlong.
 

Alt Thinker

Older than the hills
From my perspective the problem is that the likelihood of the whole shebang, regardless of the position you advocate, is so passing small that getting all hot an bothered about it is an abysmal waste of time. It's like arguing about who won a match race between two horses, both of whom fell dead within millimeters of each other in the first furlong.

Have you read my arguments? Do you care enough to bother or would that be an abysmal waste of time?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Have you read my arguments? Do you care enough to bother or would that be an abysmal waste of time?

Typical mythicist.

lack of education and full of conclusions.


Not one has a replacement hypothesis that explains the evidence we do have.


So far they are all like broken records, repeating the same junk over and over ad nauseam
 

Alt Thinker

Older than the hills
Typical mythicist.

lack of education and full of conclusions.


Not one has a replacement hypothesis that explains the evidence we do have.


So far they are all like broken records, repeating the same junk over and over ad nauseam

Are you referring to ME as a typical mythicist? :shrug: If that is the case, I see that you have not been reading any of my posts. I am neither a mythicist nor (as can be plainly seen by anyone who reads my posts on the subject) am I very typical at all.
 

Alt Thinker

Older than the hills
Realistically, what probability does the existing evidence raise any of the possibilities up to?

The way I see it there are reasonable arguments for and no reasonable arguments against. That makes it more likely than not. Are you interested in reading my arguments or do you just want to divert this into a numbers game? If you are, I will post links. If not ...
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I can establish what is more likely than not via arguments based on available evidence. These arguments are indirect and therefore not conclusive. However counter-arguments such as the supposed origin of the Jesus story in pagan myth fail under analysis. The arguments pro are more convincing than the arguments con. Therefore it is more likely that there was a historic Jesus than that there was not.

A bold claim indeed. Please do so - but forget about the so called 'counter arguments', just try to prove your claim please.
To instead throw up one's hands and say 'we don't know' period the end suggests an attitude of not wanting to look at the arguments. Which BTW seems to be your attitude since you have gone off on a tangent about knowing and not knowing instead of addressing the arguments I presented.

Please answer the question - how is 'I don't know' both the most accurate position and somehow according to you 'useless' and suggestive of 'not looking at the arguments'? I know the arguments and the evidence well.

I did address your argument, several times. Please re read my responses to you. I addressed your rebuttals specifically and you ignored my responses.

As far as I can see the only argument you have here is simplistic denialism - you accept that 'I do not know' is the most accurate position, but dismiss it on the most fatuous possible grounds; because although it is the truth, it is for some magical reason 'useless', or because of my 'attitude' etc etc.
 
Last edited:

Alt Thinker

Older than the hills
A bold claim indeed. Please do so - but forget about the so called 'counter arguments', just try to prove your claim please.

Please answer the question - how is 'I don't know' both the most accurate position and somehow according to you 'useless' and suggestive of 'not looking at the arguments'? I know the arguments and the evidence well.

I did address your argument, several times. Please re read my responses to you. I addressed your rebuttals specifically and you ignored my responses.

As far as I can see the only argument you have here is simplistic denialism - you accept that 'I do not know' is the most accurate position, but dismiss it on the most fatuous possible grounds; because although it is the truth, it is for some magical reason 'useless', or because of my 'attitude' etc etc.

I do not see how you have addressed the set of arguments I presented earlier concerning my contention that a historic Jesus is more likely than not. Rather than link to it I am reproducing the set of arguments in a subsequent post. If you have addressed this, show me where. If not, do so now.

‘I do not know’ as the most accurate answer prevents any form of progress. Knowledge progresses by presentation of evidence based arguments and critiques of those arguments by others. Saying ‘I do not know’ and refusing to go further ends progress toward increased knowledge. That is why it is useless. It is you that are guilty of denialism, denial that knowledge is possible.
 

Alt Thinker

Older than the hills
As promised, here is my earlier set of arguments that a historic Jesus is more likely than not. As before, it is in two posts to stay within 10000 characters.

Credible Historical Context

The Gospels describe an environment that existed in Jerusalem and its vicinity somewhere around 30 CE. Pilate is prefect of Judaea. The Second Temple still stands and the Sadducees are in charge. Many Jews make the Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The House of Shammai, with its emphasis on strict observance of rules, is the dominant Pharisee sect.

When the Gospels were written sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem, this world no longer existed. Pilate is gone for decades, the Temple is destroyed, there are no more pilgrimages, the Sadducees and Shammai Pharisees are virtually extinct – wiped out at Jerusalem. The Pharisees in the Gospel writing age are of the House of Hillel, having refused to fight the Romans and leaving Jerusalem before the end.

This aspect of the Gospels – this accurately detailed portrayal of an earlier time – suggests a tradition handed down from that time.

Credible Original Message of Jesus in the Context of the Times

The original concept of death we see in the Jewish scriptures was that it was permanent, the end. But as the people of Israel continued to suffer indignity after indignity at the hands of oppressors, external and internal, the question arose: How can God be just if the righteous suffer while the unrighteous prosper? The concept of a future resurrection and judgment appeared, wherein all who ever lived would be raised from the dead to be rewarded or punished according to how they had lived their lives. The idea of a judgment after death was certainly not new in the word but it was new to Judaism. But a general future resurrection was I believe unique. Paganism had other non-worldly realms in which spirits dwelt for better or worse but to Jews life necessarily meant a body. The only clear reference to an expected future resurrection in canonical Jewish scriptures (Ezekiel 35) has it as definitely physical in nature.

According to the tradition of apocalypticism (in Ehrman’s phrase) God would send a judge to mete out the rewards and punishments. Or maybe being brought back to life in a more perfect world was the reward and the punishment was to stay dead. Opinions varied. There were also varying notions about this person God would send. On the one hand he was a human being descended from David. But Daniel depicts a supernatural (if human-like) being descending from heaven.

At the putative time of Jesus there was much discontent with Roman rule. The Zealots were not going to wait for any Messiah. They were going to throw out the Romans themselves, possibly justifying themselves worthy of God’s assistance. Others chose a less active stance, hoping for God to send someone to save Israel from oppression. Messianic fervor was in the air, in one form or another.

A young man of around thirty years in the time of Pilate (as Luke has it anyway) would have been growing up when Hillel was head of the Sanhedrin. Hillel was more interested in the spirit of the Law than in fine attention to all the plethora of rules and regulations. His successor Shammai was the opposite, concentrating on strict literal adherence to the letter of the Law.

The message that we see the Jesus of the Gospels preaching is that of a return to true righteousness to thereby create the messianic age by justifying Israel in the sight of God as worthy of a Messiah. His quarrel with the Shammai Pharisees is that they were concerned with man-made rituals whereas they should have been concerned with obeying the Laws that God gave directly. And not just the letter of the Law but its spirit. This message is exactly that of the prophets of old such as Isaiah and especially Amos.

We can imagine a young man,
influenced by Hillel in his youth,
who has studied the Law and the Prophets and the apocalyptic writings of the age,
upset by the misplaced literalness and resulting hypocrisy of the Pharisees
and the ostentatiousness (and money-grubbing) of the Sadducees,​
who is inspired to offer a more spiritual answer to the pressing problem of evil, an answer different and more traditional than the violence of the Zealots, an answer that would in turn inspire the oppressed classes. An entirely believable scenario.
 
Last edited:

Alt Thinker

Older than the hills
And here is part 2

Paul’s Efforts to Explain the Death of Jesus

It is also a believable scenario that such a person would run afoul of the powers that be and end up nailed to a cross. For those who thought of him as the Messiah or something like that this would have been a disaster. What happened to the Kingdom of God? And what about the Romans?

I see Paul going to great lengths to turn this disaster on its head and make it a victory instead. He grabs bits and pieces from here and there to turn the death of the supposed Messiah into an intentional self-sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus is the blood sacrifice to forgive sins, Jesus is the Passover Lamb sacrifice, Jesus is the first fruits sacrifice.

However:

The blood sacrifice in Exodus 29 is for consecration of a priest. The blood sacrifice in Leviticus 4 is for the forgiveness of unintentional violation of one of the many mitzvoth. Both are performed by a priest according to very precise ritual. Nether involves a male lamb.

The Passover sacrifice, the strongest of Paul’s images, is not a sin atonement sacrifice

Sacrifices of any kind can only be performed by a priest who follows certain precise rules. They are performed in the Temple and must be painless and not involve mutilation.

Human sacrifice is strictly forbidden. So is cannibalism. So is drinking any kind of blood.​

If Paul were introducing the idea that Jesus was crucified and that this was a sin atonement sacrifice, his audience would have thought he was insane. But if they already knew that Jesus was crucified and were troubled by it, Paul’s explanation would have been welcomed, as improbable as it might sound to anyone else.

If there had not been an unexpected and disastrous crucifixion of a real historic Jesus, why would any explanation at all be needed, and why would such a collection of lame excuses be so taken to heart?

The Empty Tomb

All the Gospels, even individualist John, agree that the tomb in which Jesus was laid was found to be empty and that stranger(s) said that Jesus rose from the dead and went someplace. They all have creatively divergent versions of what happened next, each according to his own agenda. But if the empty tomb were just a story, why such an unimaginative and suspicious sounding one? A risen Jesus would be proof that such a thing is possible and that the apocalyptic expectations of an imminent eschaton were justified. If the story were woven from whole cloth why not a really dramatic resurrection event with lots of witnesses? Later apocryphal accounts do offer such elaborate stories. But those nearest in time to the alleged event do not. When Jesus rising from the dead would take some of the sting out of Jesus getting killed, an empty tomb and a stranger’s strange story would not be all that surprising.

The Evolution of Parousia

Paul, and Jesus followers in general, seem to expect the eschaton to happen any day now. By the time Mark wrote his Gospel sometime after 70 CE, people were worried. If we take the death of Jesus to be about 30 CE and Mark writing not too long after 70 CE, those who heard Jesus would be getting old.
Mark introduces the idea that the appearance of Daniel’s Son of Man and the universal judgment would happen within the lifetime of some of the people who heard the living Jesus speak. He then has the destruction of Jerusalem be the signal that the Son of Man was about to arrive. In this way he revives hope in that fading expectation.

Matthew, writing 80 CE or so, continues Mark’s Olivet Discourse / immediate Son of Man meme but hedges his bet a little by adding that no one knows just when that will be. Luke, writing even after that, also includes the Olivet Discourse but adds his own hedge in the form of the parable of the king who has traveled to a far land and not yet returned. When he returns those who were unfaithful to him are killed, surprisingly bloodthirsty for the usually mild mannered Luke. Luke also introduces an idea not clearly presented in prior Gospels, that of reward or punishment immediately after death as in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

John omits the Olivet Discourse entirely and makes no mention of any immediate expectations. Jesus will return but when? John subtly shifts the emphasis from a horizontal timeline to a vertical viewpoint – Jesus re-joining his Father in heaven from whence he came. John’s Gospel seems to end with chapter 20. Chapter 21 appears to even be presented as additional material. It refers to the previous story as originating from the ‘beloved disciple’ (traditionally called John) who has apparently died. The idea of Jesus returning before his last hearer passed away is turned inside out. It turns out Jesus never said any such thing. It was a misunderstanding!

Luke in Acts, written sometime down the road, has an even cleverer explanation. It is not that Jesus himself will return soon but the Holy Spirit will endow the church with heavenly authority. In Acts this happens on Pentecost a matter of months after Jesus is crucified. Jesus is off the hook timeline-wise and can stay away as long as he wants. That Luke in his own Gospel ties the highly visible return of Jesus in the clouds with angels to the same timeframe expectations as Mark and Matthew does not seem to bother him at all.

John of Patmos, author of Revelation, wants to reinstate the original short timeline belief. But instead of just mentioning it almost in passing, he builds an elaborate and exotic prophesy about the end of the world with the signs of its immediate arrival being veiled references to events that have already happened. His conscious adoption of the style and framework of Daniel, the origin of the Son of Man meme brings immediate apocalyptic expectations back around full circle.

This ongoing evolution of presentation makes sense if it is intended to explain and re-explain the passage of time since what was perceived as a historic event at a certain point in time.



The credible historic context, the credible original message of Jesus in the context of the times, Paul’s efforts to explain the death of Jesus, the empty tomb and the evolution of parousia all suggest to me that a real historic Jesus is more likely than not.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I do not see how you have addressed the set of arguments I presented earlier concerning my contention that a historic Jesus is more likely than not. Rather than link to it I am reproducing the set of arguments in a subsequent post. If you have addressed this, show me where. If not, do so now.

Sure, I read them - but you forgot to post any of the stuff about how you actually calculated the likelyhood to be greater than 50%. Please move on to the math.
‘I do not know’ as the most accurate answer prevents any form of progress.

What? That is absolutely false. Our curiosity about things we do not know drives science and progress. Surely you got that backwards - thinking that we know something we don't know would be an impediment to progress?
Knowledge progresses by presentation of evidence based arguments and critiques of those arguments by others. Saying ‘I do not know’ and refusing to go further ends progress toward increased knowledge. That is why it is useless. It is you that are guilty of denialism, denial that knowledge is possible.

Why add the 'refusing to go further' lie? Why can't we have an honest exchange please?
Nor did I deny that knowledge was possible. Please lets stop with the false claims.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Alt Thinker

Your summary of the case was; "The credible historic context, the credible original message of Jesus in the context of the times, Paul’s efforts to explain the death of Jesus, the empty tomb and the evolution of*parousia*all suggest to me that a real historic Jesus is more likely than not."

Mate, credibility within the historical context, Paul's testimony of the post mortem Jesus, the empty tomb are a fragile case for historicity indeed. Nowhere near sufficient. They are suggestive of a historcial Jesus - but how do you get from 'suggestive' to 'more likely than not'?
 

Alt Thinker

Older than the hills
Sure, I read them - but you forgot to post any of the stuff about how yo6 actualoy calculated the likelyhood to be greater than 50%. Please move on to the math.

What? That is absolutely false. Our curiosoty about things we do not know drives science and progress.

Why add the 'refusing to go further' lie? Why can't we have an honest exchange please?
Nor did I deny that knowledge was possible. Please lets stop with the false claims.

Oh so you want to turn this into a numbers game. Nice diversion. If there are multiple reasonable arguments in favor but no reasonable arguments against, then it is more likely than not. Why should this not be the case? Can you show me any other claim about the likelihood of a historic event that included a percentage? Answer yes or no. If you can, give me examples.

You are saying that ‘I don’t know’ is the most accurate answer. Any other answer would therefore be less accurate, right? So why go further? But in reality, having evidence and argumentation in hand, one can propose likely scenarios. So when there is evidence and argumentation based on it has been put forth one can make a judgment about an event. Continuing to say ‘I don’t know’ at that point is simply dumb. One deals with the argumentation that has been put forth. I expect you to do exactly that, in detail, with cogent substantive commentary.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
I expect you to do exactly that, in detail, with cogent substantive commentary.

I would ask you from where do you derive your expectations? A general trust of humanity perhaps? I assume you already know in this case that your trust is highly unwarranted.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Oh so you want to turn this into a numbers game.

No, not at all. On the contrary, I believe that assigning a probability is problematic. That is why I am challenging your claim that the likelyhood is greater than 50%.
Nice diversion.
How is it a diversion? You are the one assignihg probabilities - how am I making a diversion, when only you are claiming to be able to weigh probabilities here?
If there are multiple reasonable arguments in favor but no reasonable arguments against, then it is more likely than not.

How did you figure that? What nonsense! Zero arguments against something does not strengthen the case for it an iota.
Why should this not be the case?

Basic logic, that's why.
Can you show me any other claim about the likelihood of a historic event that included a percentage? Answer yes or no. If you can, give me examples.

Well no, and that is the point. How can you claim greater than 50% likelyhood? Again you are confusing your claim for mine, and then attacking me for it.
You are saying that ‘I don’t know’ is the most accurate answer. Any other answer would therefore be less accurate, right? So why go further

Why go further when we don't know something? Really? Well to find out of course.
But in reality, having evidence and argumentation in hand, one can propose likely scenarios. So when there is evidence and argumentation based on it has been put forth one can make a judgment about an event. Continuing to say ‘I don’t know’ at that point is simply dumb. One deals with the argumentation that has been put forth. I expect you to do exactly that, in detail, with cogent substantive commentary.

So 'I don't know' is dumb now? First it is useless, now it is dumb - and apparently not knowing stuff stops us from looking for some unexplained reason.
 
Top