Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

[outhouse]

There just is no reliable information on Jesus's existence,

More then you will ever know.

From cultural and social anthropology, to the factual evidence in the NT

this is what the evidence says.

Well your dead wrong.

If Jesus was real then please provide the evidence.

Paul is all we need, but add the gospels and Josephus and that is quite a lot of evidence.

So far Christians have not.

Christians do not determine history

Thus the conclusion is,

.

No that is your conclusion from doing no real credible study on the subject.

Jesus did not exist at all or was an embellished story

Now we are getting somewhere.

No historian claims the story is not heavily embellished, they know it is.

They state it factually is, and mythology layered on mythology.


But that does not negate a historical core.



The problem here is everyone who claims 100% myth, not only builds a laughable case, and does not explain why we have the evidence we do.

Without a replacement hypothesis that explains why Paul wrote what he did and why he did, and then the gospels with credibility, Jesus historicity stands intact.

 

[outhouse]

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]

 

[outhouse]

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.[5][7][8][46][47] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[9][51] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[9]

 

[Bunyip]

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.[5][7][8][46][47] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[9][51] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[9]

Yes, and of course James Dunn is talking nonsense, there is no certainty when it comes to historical research into the ancient world.

 

[outhouse]

The further you go the more both exhibit denial of evidence, rejection of scholarship, finding outer fringe scholars or even non-scholars masquerading as experts and listening only to them... they both are representative of the same mental processes, the same primitive biases run in both packs.

So true.

Both are forced to appeal to ignorance, because all current educated knowledge points to historicity and credibility in science.

 

[Mister Emu]

There just is no reliable information on Jesus's existence, this is what the evidence says.

No, that isn't what the evidence says...

If Jesus was real then please provide the evidence. So far Christians have not.

It isn't Christians providing evidence, it is the historical record... which speaks to a galilean wandering preacher named Jesus who was crucified in the 1st century.

Thus the conclusion is, Jesus did not exist at all or was an embellished story.

There is no or... historically it is the latter.

 

[Bunyip]

The best evidence of the fragility of the case for a historical Jesus is the way that apologists endlessly try to deflect attention away from any real consideration of the evidence by addressing the strawman of mythicism instead.

If there were much evidence for a historical Jesus, there would be no need to invent the rather silly strawman of mythicism - a position that no serious scholar would think even makes sense.

Attacking a strawman does not evidence the historcity of Jesus.

 

[Mister Emu]

The best evidence of the fragility of the case for a historical Jesus is the way that apologists endlessly try to deflect attention away from any real consideration of the evidence by addressing the strawman of mythicism instead.

If there were much evidence for a historical Jesus, there would be no need to invent the rather silly strawman of mythicism - a position that no serious scholar would think even makes sense.

Which is it? Is there not enough evidence to provide a historical Jesus or is there such evidence that the idea of a non-historical Jesus makes no sense to serious scholars?

 

[Bunyip]

Which is it? Is there not enough evidence to provide a historical Jesus or is there such evidence that the idea of a non-historical Jesus makes no sense to serious scholars?

Shifting the burden of proof is pointless - what needs to be evidenced is the case FOR historiity. Demanding the provision of evidence of non-existence is a transparent deflection.

And yes, of course proving a negative makes no sense to serious scholars. As I said, mythicism is a strawman - a strawman that believers endlessly attack rather than engage on the evidence.

Evidence for the historicity of Jesus does exist, but it is by no means sufficient to constitute certainty.

 

[Mister Emu]

Shifting the burden of proof is pointless - what needs to be evidenced is the case FOR historiity. Demanding the privision of evidence of nin-existence is a transparent deflection.

And yes, of course proving a negative makes no sense to serious scholars. As I said, mythicism is a strawman - a strawman that believers endlessly attack rather than engage on the evidence.

That has nothing to do with what I asked...

The problem with the sentence I quoted is that it betrays two conflicting ideas...
1) There is not enough evidence to conclude a historical Jesus
2) The idea of a non-historical Jesus is so removed from scholarship that it makes no sense to serious scholars.

 

[Bunyip]

That has nothing to do with what I asked...

The problem with the sentence I quoted is that it betrays two conflicting ideas...
1) There is not enough evidence to conclude a historical Jesus
2) The idea of a non-historical Jesus is so removed from scholarship that it makes no sense to serious scholars.

I hold position 1.

Position 2 should read:

The idea of demanding that scholars provide negative evidence is just silly, that's why mythicism is a strawman.

Then there is no conflict.

The idea of a non-historical Jesus is not the issue - it is the notion that scholars must evidence a non-historical Jesus that is laughable.

 

[Sha'irullah]

More then you will ever know.

From cultural and social anthropology, to the factual evidence in the NT



Well your dead wrong.





Paul is all we need, but add the gospels and Josephus and that is quite a lot of evidence.







Christians do not determine history



.

No that is your conclusion from doing no real credible study on the subject.






Now we are getting somewhere.

No historian claims the story is not heavily embellished, they know it is.

They state it factually is, and mythology layered on mythology.


But that does not negate a historical core.



The problem here is everyone who claims 100% myth, not only builds a laughable case, and does not explain why we have the evidence we do.

Without a replacement hypothesis that explains why Paul wrote what he did and why he did, and then the gospels with credibility, Jesus historicity stands intact.

I am utterly confused right now

 

[outhouse]

I am utterly confused right now

Biblical Jesus did not exist as written.


Biblical Jesus is not historical Jesus.



A historical Galilean went to Passover and caused some trouble in the temple at Passover, and he was martyred. This generated the mythology that created Biblical Jesus.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Biblical Jesus did not exist as written.


Biblical Jesus is not historical Jesus.



A historical Galilean went to Passover and caused some trouble in the temple at Passover, and he was martyred. This generated the mythology that created Biblical Jesus.

I know this, but what you kept disagreeing then agreeing with my previous statement which confused me

 

[outhouse]

but what you kept disagreeing then agreeing with my previous statement which confused me

That's because you don't understand the argument your debating.

I agreed with your correct parts, which was very little.


But much needed to be corrected. He has historicity

 

[Sha'irullah]

That's because you don't understand the argument your debating.

I agreed with your correct parts, which was very little.


But much needed to be corrected. He has historicity

You did not read anything I said did you? I never claim Jesus had no historicity. You looked at every piece and went haywire. Please take the time to read other people's post especially if they are short before you go about making false assertions.

 

[outhouse]

You did not read anything I said did you? . .

I clearly addressed every single statement you made.

I never claim Jesus had no historicity

Reiterating his historicity reflected you how?

 

[Sapiens]

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.[5][7][8][46][47] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[9][51] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[9]

So true.

Both are forced to appeal to ignorance, because all current educated knowledge points to historicity and credibility in science.

You keep complaining about people using and appeal to ignorance yet all you ever offer is an appeal to authority.

 

[Desert Snake]

Shifting the burden of proof is pointless - what needs to be evidenced is the case FOR historiity. Demanding the provision of evidence of non-existence is a transparent deflection.

And yes, of course proving a negative makes no sense to serious scholars. As I said, mythicism is a strawman - a strawman that believers endlessly attack rather than engage on the evidence.

Evidence for the historicity of Jesus does exist, but it is by no means sufficient to constitute certainty.

No...not really. There is enough anecdotal and cultural evidence for any real Xian to believe that Jesus existed. That issue was never a problem for Xians, however it seems to be an issue for mythicists, therefore the 'burden of proof' is on them, because they aren't convinced of historical Jesus, for whatever reason.
And yes, I use that wording because it seems to me, the only reason to doubt the existence of Jesus is somehow to cast doubt on Xian beliefs, this is ironically played out by the non-Xian historical Jesusists, as they have to claim various positions of 'historical' and I guess...fiction(?) depending on the particular narrative.

 

[s2a]

The idea that Jesus never existed.

Or more accurately, that Jesus has never been documented as a actual person (divine or not) outside of religious texts and extra-biblical validations.

Scientifically, Jesus may well have "existed". There's just no distinct evidences found to support the allegation that He did.

Just to be clear about that.

So goes the theory...