Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[Bunyip]

Cool. No probs...

Which leaves several positions on HJ, basically composed of 'Yes he was' and 'No he wasn't' camps, either side of 'possible'.

I don't think that either 'side' can absolutely defeat the other, which causes this continuing and never-ending debate.

But......... Christ is a totally different proposition, with no historicity, no substance beyond (mostly) Paul's claims and apparently expanded over a couple of centuries in all manner of directions.

My choice is 'Jesus - probably not myth' and 'Christ-definitely myth'.

Agreed. And it is this asinine absurdity of claiming that the historicity of Jesus is somehow certain and that only crazy people, conspiracy theorists and propogandists deny it that I am challenging.

 

[Bunyip]

As I mentioned earlier, and in previous posts. I asked for "contemporaneous evidence" as defined by bunyip. First, it would have to be a document, but I would even settle for any writing on the bust or coins that document that Caesar was a real person.

Please cut the lies. I did not set the standard for evidence. If yo can not participate honestly, go away.

So you got two outs, last batter up.



Clearly, you haven't thought very hard about anything. I have said repeatedly that 100% evidence is impossible for ANYTHING besides direct experience of the thing being questioned, and in the field of mathematics, and even then, you must experience the proof being demonstrated, and agree to all the parameters set for by the field of mathematics.

Right, which is conceeding my point. You are agreeing with my point and apparently failing to grasp that fact at the same time. Yes mate, there is no such thing as certainty in this case - that beong my point all along.

This is especially true for history in general, and especially ancient history since it is impossible for us to directly experience anything that happened back then.

Correct. And again - that is what I have been arguing all along.

So no, I don't want evidence that Jesus was 100% mythological, I want you to explain why we have all the different books of the Bible, which were written by numerous different authors, a reference by Josephus, a reference by Tacitus, and a reference by Lucian.

We have them, because that is all that remains - what is there to explain?

Evidence that he did not exist would look like accounts stating that he did not, in fact, exist. And just so you know, there are accounts of people stating that Jesus did not exist, but since they are not contemporaneous, I guess they don't count right?

LOLThat's just hilarious. UH huh, sure mate - contemporary accounts listing things that don't exist. ROLFMAO?

I can't think of the author off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can find it if you would like.

Yeah sure you can

Concrete evidence would be, first, that someone stated that it did happen, and secondly, that there were more statements stating that the event did not happen.

Dude you're a riot really! More of these contemporary records listing stuff that didn't happen...LOL

If you can show evidence that someone stated that it did happen, and conversely, evidence that someone stated that it didn't happen, then we might be able to have a discussion.

OMG Again? You want that evidence of stuff that didn't happen again? Would that be in the 30AD Jewish Almanac "Things that did not happen in Gallilee this year"? Is it next to "Pliny the Elder's famous list of all the things that didn't happen 1BC - 30AD, the directors cut"?

Were these compilations of non-occurances popular back then?

Why don't you find me a list of things that people say happened during that period, as well as an opposing list where people say that the things mentioned above didn't happen, and we can talk about those.



As I mentioned earlier, you must first have evidence that something happened, then have evidence showing that, in fact, said thing didn't happen. If we don't have any record of something happening in the first place, then the default is that it didn't happen.

And please don't start with the "Well we don't have evidence that Jesus existed" because we have 4 books written from different authors, and at least 3 references outside of those books that say he did.



As mentioned earlier, Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, in that he lived during the same time that Jesus did. He mentions meeting Jesus brother, which implies that Jesus was a real person. Logically, if Jesus wasn't a real person, than Paul couldn't have met his brother right?



Disprove the 4 gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian.



I consider Price and Carrier to be "serious scholars", as I believe they both have Doctorates in Ancient History, and they support mythicism.



Not true, the Jesus myth theory has an ancient account that can be interpreted as a reference to Jesus not physically existing. As far as I know, the "The Ancient Penguin Invasion Theory" does not have such documentation.



It does, because we have evidence for one, and not for the other.



No one is arguing with you that the historicity of Jesus is a best guess. On the contrary I am arguing that everything in life besides of Mathematics and direct experience is a "best guess", and the point of investigation, especially ancient history, is to decipher "the best guess".



See above statement.



Paul, almost all of the gospels save for John, and most of the books of the Bible.

 

[Bunyip]

nash8

Originally Posted by*Bunyip*

The position being argued is not mythicism, it is that the historicity of Jesus is a best guess, not an established fact.

No one is arguing with you that the historicity of Jesus is a best guess. On the contrary I am arguing that everything in life besides of Mathematics and direct experience is a "best guess", and the point of investigation, especially ancient history, is to decipher "the best guess".

Well what are you arguing about? That was my position from the beginning - you clearly agree with it - so what are you complaining about and what on earth do you think you are disagreeing with?

You mentioned Jesus brother - he had no brother, you must mean his half brother right? Or are you conceeding that Jesus was the son of Joseph and not God?

 

[Prophet]

Well yes, that is a crazy conspracy theory of yours. I also did not place any 'stature of limitations on evidence', that is just another flat out lie.

You actually did. You're the liar right now when you call me a liar. And what's more you are a hypocrite.

Taking somebody to task for the views you imagine I hold is as dishonest as it is pathetic.

You present no reasonable counter rationale for your discounting evidence on the historical Jesus side. You just listen to my rationale, and complain about it. You have every opportunity to explain why your arguments and stated beliefs represent two dramatically different stances. You don't bother with that and just call me a liar based upon the honest impression I draw from the apparent conflict I see, which is that I believe you are a closeted myther.

 

[Prophet]

For god's sake kate - tha4 postwas gibberish.

I have backed ky assertions, and both you and Prophet have conceeded my points, get over yourself.

.The assertions that I have not supported are the ones that I have not actually made, you just pretend that I have.

It was actually genius and your inability to recognize it as such makes you a moron. Whatever you spent your 10,000 hours becoming great at, I hope it wasn't this. You are bush league. I'm not sure why Legion or I bother with you beyond the sheer egoic power rush that a professional boxer might feel in pounding an amateur.

 

[Sapiens]

Most of the time this is stated it is due to overall lack of knowledge, and interpretation of evidence.


No reason to think people would not, within a decade and half of death, generate massive amounts of scripture ALL revolving around a martyred man at Passover.

Paul was not the first to write. he was ONE of the first collected by later followers who found value in his epistles.

Paul tells us of other scripture.


How do you deal with the evidence of scripture within 15 years of death all about a real person martyred at Passover?

Produce the other scripture, document its provenience and we'll talk about it. Till then it's just vaporware.

You are being disingenuous. Your intention in bringing up Caesar in anthread is transparently to draw an unfair comparison. What else could it be?! You have been continually grilled whether such documentation SHOULD be expected to be available for a ancient peasant as it might be for an ancient VIP at which point you pretend to be innocent of the unfair comparison as above.

Read the thread, I was doing no such thing, I was answering a specific challange to document a person from that time, any person, so I chose what I knew would be the easiest. I've told you this repeatedly, I'm sure everyone (except you) is tired of reading it.

 

[Bunyip]

You actually did. You're the liar right now when you call me a liar. And what's more you are a hypocrite.

Prove it! I made no such statement. If you can not participate honestly - don't.

You present no reasonable counter rationale for your discounting evidence on the historical Jesus side.

I have not discounted any of it.

You just listen to my rationale, and complain about it. You have every opportunity to explain why your arguments and stated beliefs represent two dramatically different stances.

They don't, my arguments and stated beliefs are consistent.

You don't bother with that and just call me a liar based upon the honest impression I draw from the apparent conflict I see, which is that I believe you are a closeted myther.

I called you a liar because you are making false accusations. If you don't like it, don't do it. You, like Prophet are insulting me over what you IMAGINE my position to be - which is ridiculous.

 

[Bunyip]

It was actually genius and your inability to recognize it as such makes you a moron. Whatever you spent your 10,000 hours becoming great at, I hope it wasn't this. You are bush league. I'm not sure why Legion or I bother with you beyond the sheer egoic power rush that a professional boxer might feel in pounding an amateur.

You lost mate, don't make a bigger fool of yourself by flinging more insults.

 

[outhouse]

Produce the other scripture, document its provenience and we'll talk about it. Till then it's just vaporware.

.

Come on, I expect more from you.


we only have a fracture of what once was

 

[nash8]

Do you think it is fair to compare a political figure running an empire, to a obscure Galilean peasant, who's mythology grew to rival the Emperor over hundreds of years

You are being disingenuous. Your intention in bringing up Caesar in a myther thread is transparently to draw an unfair comparison. What else could it be?! You have been continually grilled whether such documentation SHOULD be expected to be available for a ancient peasant as it might be for an ancient VIP at which point you pretend to be innocent of the unfair comparison as above.

Fairness does not enter into it, I'm not trying to compare anyone, if you need to knock yourself out. I am answering a specific claim that such documentation is unavailable ... for anyone. I have shown that for Caesar it is available, nothing more, nothing less.

With respect to Jesus, that proves nothing, he may have been an obscure, unknown or he may never have existed. But ... as a result his historicity is open to serious question and the evidence presented is horse pucky.

Yeah as he said, he was answering a direct challenge from me, not just randomly making statements regarding Caesar out of the middle of nowhere. And, he did beat my challenge, barely. We shall meet in the field of battle again sapiens, and I shall emerge victorious... mwha... mwhahahahahaha.

Please cut the lies. I did not set the standard for evidence. If yo can not participate honestly, go away.

Wait until I go back and find that quote.

Right, which is conceeding my point. You are agreeing with my point and apparently failing to grasp that fact at the same time. Yes mate, there is no such thing as certainty in this case - that beong my point all along.

No, it just didn't seem to me that you have been arguing that point all along. It seems to me that you were arguing the point that the evidence that we have for Jesus' historicity is extremely weak, and that it morphed into the argument that we can't be 100% certain regarding Jesus' historicity. The former argument I disagree with, the latter I totally agree with.

Correct. And again - that is what I have been arguing all along.

That's not how I perceived it to be, but if you say so then I agree with you that Jesus historicity is not 100% certain.

We have them, because that is all that remains - what is there to explain?

Why do we have them?

LOLThat's just hilarious. UH huh, sure mate - contemporary accounts listing things that don't exist. ROLFMAO?

Actually, I said that they weren't contemporary so they don't count in your view, but they were within the 2nd century. If I recall correctly, it was either a Greek or Roman philosopher/political official. I could be wrong though. And if I am not also mistaken, I believe one of the early Church fathers wrote a response to it, or that it was a response to something one of the early church fathers wrote.

I can't believe google is letting me down with this one. A member on here, steeltoes possibly, brought it up in another thread. Maybe Outhouse or Legion remembers who it was.

Yeah sure you can

Dude you're a riot really! More of these contemporary records listing stuff that didn't happen...LOL

As I said earlier, I said it was not contemporary, but it was written in the early to middle 2nd century if I recall correctly. It was, or was very close to being written within a century after the "actual" events took place.

OMG Again? You want that evidence of stuff that didn't happen again? Would that be in the 30AD Jewish Almanac "Things that did not happen in Gallilee this year"? Is it next to "Pliny the Elder's famous list of all the things that didn't happen 1BC - 30AD, the directors cut"?

Yes, I want people saying an event didn't happen, while others say the event did happen. People say events did not happen all the time. The Holocaust deniers are one example that I can think of off the top of my head. There's also that "John" religion that started in the Islands somewhere. There are people that say this "John" was a real person, and there are people that say he was not. Do you need me to find more examples of people denying that certain things happened?

Were these compilations of non-occurances popular back then?

I would assume they would have appeared just as much "back then" as they do now. I listed 2 events off the top of my head that people said didn't actually occur. Why would they not happen around the turn of the millennia as well?

nash8

Well what are you arguing about? That was my position from the beginning - you clearly agree with it - so what are you complaining about and what on earth do you think you are disagreeing with?

That's not why I took your argument to be from the beginning as I stated earlier. But if it is indeed your argument, that Jesus' historicity can not be 100% certain than I agree with you.

You mentioned Jesus brother - he had no brother, you must mean his half brother right? Or are you conceeding that Jesus was the son of Joseph and not God?

There are numerous things wrong with this statement, concerning my perspective.
1. Who says God couldn't of had two sons, why couldn't he of knocked up Marry twice? He's Omnipotent after all (get it, omniPOTENT HAHA)

2.I never argued that Jesus was the son of God, but personally I believe he was, but just because he was the son of God doesn't mean that he wasn't Joseph's son as well. I would say the same thing Jesus said to the Pharisees when they asked him about claiming to be the son of God: Is it not written in your own scripture that you, yourselves are the children of God? Why then, do you accuse me of being something that your own scripture says you and I both are.

That is, of course, paraphrased, but the point being. That I consider everyone to be children of God (Pan(en)theistic viewpoint), and as such, strictly by that qualification, that makes Jesus no more special than me or you. And him being the son of God, in no way precludes him from having a brother.

Read the thread, I was doing no such thing, I was answering a specific challange to document a person from that time, any person, so I chose what I knew would be the easiest. I've told you this repeatedly, I'm sure everyone (except you) is tired of reading it.

Everyone gets so heated in these Jesus debates, funny thing is that no one here is even close to a traditional Christian LOL. Real or not, the guys got some serious staying power.

 

[Sapiens]

Jesus has close to zero evidence of existence and his staying power is solely the result of zealots (so to speak) who can not see that in their god-blindness.

 

[Bunyip]

Yeah as he said, he was answering a direct challenge from me, not just randomly making statements regarding Caesar out of the middle of nowhere. And, he did beat my challenge, barely. We shall meet in the field of battle again sapiens, and I shall emerge victorious... mwha... mwhahahahahaha.

Wait until I go back and find that quote.

Good luck with that - it doesn't exist. I said that there was no contemporary evidence of Jesus - which resulted in a huge whining rant from Legion about what 'contemporary'means. So far no such evidence has been presented. I never 'set the standard', I just said that there was no contemporary evidence.

No, it just didn't seem to me that you have been arguing that point all along. It seems to me that you were arguing the point that the evidence that we have for Jesus' historicity is extremely weak, and that it morphed into the argument that we can't be 100% certain regarding Jesus' historicity. The former argument I disagree with, the latter I totally agree with.

Both points are factual. And have yet to be countered with any evidence - just a lot of posturing and tantrums.

That's not how I perceived it to be, but if you say so then I agree with you that Jesus historicity is not 100% certain.

Fantastic. So we agree.

Why do we have them?

What do you mean? We have them because they were preserved - what are you asking?

Actually, I said that they weren't contemporary so they don't count in your view, but they were within the 2nd century. If I recall correctly, it was either a Greek or Roman philosopher/political official. I could be wrong though. And if I am not also mistaken, I believe one of the early Church fathers wrote a response to it, or that it was a response to something one of the early church fathers wrote.

You are misrepresenting my position again. I did not say that later documents do not count as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. All I said was that there are no CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS. The later (2nd century) documents do count as evidence for historicity - just not very persuasive or reliable evidence. Few if any of them are of known origin.

I can't believe google is letting me down with this one. A member on here, steeltoes possibly, brought it up in another thread. Maybe Outhouse or Legion remembers who it was.

As I said earlier, I said it was not contemporary, but it was written in the early to middle 2nd century if I recall correctly. It was, or was very close to being written within a century after the "actual" events took place.

Yes there are several such later references, none of which I have either denied or said did not count.

Yes, I want people saying an event didn't happen, while others say the event did happen. People say events did not happen all the time. The Holocaust deniers are one example that I can think of off the top of my head. There's also that "John" religion that started in the Islands somewhere. There are people that say this "John" was a real person, and there are people that say he was not. Do you need me to find more examples of people denying that certain things happened?

LOL Yes please, that would be hilarious.Maybe you will find an ancient anti-historian, you know - one who recorded all of the things that didn't happen whilst the sane historians recorded things that did.

So sure - there are no contemporary references to say that this stuff did happen - but you demand contemporary evidence that it didn't happen. So you can not prove that it did happen - but for some presumably magical reason I must prove a negative where you can not evidence the positive.

I would assume they would have appeared just as much "back then" as they do now. I listed 2 events off the top of my head that people said didn't actually occur. Why would they not happen around the turn of the millennia as well?

nash8



That's not why I took your argument to be from the beginning as I stated earlier. But if it is indeed your argument, that Jesus' historicity can not be 100% certain than I agree with you.

About time you actually read what I was claiming.

There are numerous things wrong with this statement, concerning my perspective.
1. Who says God couldn't of had two sons, why couldn't he of knocked up Marry twice? He's Omnipotent after all (get it, omniPOTENT HAHA)

Ermm.....
2 sons of god?

2.I never argued that Jesus was the son of God, but personally I believe he was, but just because he was the son of God doesn't mean that he wasn't Joseph's son as well.

No if he was the son of god through a virgin birth, he can not also be the son of Joseph.

I would say the same thing Jesus said to the Pharisees when they asked him about claiming to be the son of God: Is it not written in your own scripture that you, yourselves are the children of God? Why then, do you accuse me of being something that your own scripture says you and I both are.

That is, of course, paraphrased, but the point being. That I consider everyone to be children of God (Pan(en)theistic viewpoint), and as such, strictly by that qualification, that makes Jesus no more special than me or you. And him being the son of God, in no way precludes him from having a brother.



Everyone gets so heated in these Jesus debates, funny thing is that no one here is even close to a traditional Christian LOL. Real or not, the guys got some serious staying power.

 

[Sapiens]

Some people are writing that they are not 100% sure of the historicity if Jesus. So I am curious, what percent sure of the historicity of Jesus are you?

 

[outhouse]

Jesus has close to zero evidence of existence .

You can have any opinion you like.

Unfortunately your wrong, as Paul is evidence he existed.


Don't need any gospels which are more evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus has close to zero evidence of existence

That's the point........ few historians could disagree with that 'close to zero'. But..... most insist that there was a Jesus, and that he was baptised, did demonstrate and picket in the Temple and did get executed. That's it...... close to zero, which of course is a positive result. I accept that some, like nash, do not accept that J was executed, and I still ponder on that point.

.... and his staying power is solely the result of zealots (so to speak) who can not see that in their god-blindness.

No...... a majority of historians who accept J's baptisism, demo and execution as true are either agnostic or atheist, and a few of us pro-HJers here are agnostic or atheist.

If you exchange 'Jesus' for 'Christ' in the above then you're bang-on the money.

 

[Sapiens]

I guess I do not really understand the idea of putting a percentage value on a binary phenomena, either he was ... or he wasn't. I have trouble dealing with the statistical expected value of Jesus' little toe having existed ... but nothing else.

 

[oldbadger]

I guess I do not really understand the idea of putting a percentage value on a binary phenomena, either he was ... or he wasn't.

Fair enough...... I was only responding to your 'close-to-zero' figure, which didn't remind me of binary options.

I have trouble dealing with the statistical expected value of Jesus' little toe having existed ... but nothing else.

...I expect that there were a few of J's toes kept in churches all over Europe in past ages. Chips from the cross itself. A nail or two, and the odd shroud.

HJ, as passed down through oral tradition...... and then spun into Xianity probably did live in my opinion, but I can no-longer bring myself to either read or write the pages of waffle that try to persuade us further, either for or against. My interest now, such as it is, is with the committed and dedicated 'No HJ' enthusiasts ...... and wondering why they linger in the HJ threads so long, some for years now.

 

[Bunyip]

You can have any opinion you like.

Unfortunately your wrong, as Paul is evidence he existed.


Don't need any gospels which are more evidence.

How is Paul evidence for historicity? He dreamed of Jesus, but never met him.
Is dreaming of dragons evidence for the historicity of dragons? A: No.

 

[Bunyip]

That's the point........ few historians could disagree with that 'close to zero'. But..... most insist that there was a Jesus, and that he was baptised, did demonstrate and picket in the Temple and did get executed. That's it...... close to zero, which of course is a positive result. I accept that some, like nash, do not accept that J was executed, and I still ponder on that point.


No...... a majority of historians who accept J's baptisism, demo and execution as true are either agnostic or atheist, and a few of us pro-HJers here are agnostic or atheist.

If you exchange 'Jesus' for 'Christ' in the above then you're bang-on the money.

I don't think that to be the case. If you read the Christian writers on the historicity of Jesus their rhetoric is full of overly optimistic claims - that there is more evidence of Jesus than for any other figure in ancient history (which is false), that most scholars believe that the historiity of Jesus has been evidentially established (which is also false) and that only madman doubt the historicity of Jesus etc etc etc.

What you find in secular texts on the subject are none of the above exagerations and instead claims like; Most scholars agree that a historical Jesus is the most plausible explanation of the available data. THAT is what most scholars agree with - not the silly claims about there being more evidence than for any other historical figure, or that the case has somehow been closed in favour of historicity.

What 'most scholars' actually agree with is recorded in most of the Christian sources also - that the historicity of Jesus is an inference to the best explanation ie, the most plausible guess, the most likely explanation.
Now that is a very different proposal than the claim that the historicity of Jesus has been evidentially established to the point where only madmen disagree and beyond the level of proof applied to any other ancient person.

 

[Prophet]

Produce the other scripture, document its provenience and we'll talk about it. Till then it's just vaporware.

Read the thread, I was doing no such thing, I was answering a specific challange to document a person from that time, any person, so I chose what I knew would be the easiest. I've told you this repeatedly, I'm sure everyone (except you) is tired of reading it.

You are CLEARLY justifying your aforementioned bureaucratic approach to ruling out evidence that supports the historical Jesus. Real historians take any and all evidence into account with no contemporaneous requirements. You proudly named Caesar as someone who you might be able to fulfill your insane two contemporaneous source requirements for, as if that were impressive for the most powerful, famous man in the world.

Why don't you just end the charade and tell everyone you won't accept Jesus as historical until we produce a photo ID?