Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

[Oberon]

Everyone knows he was a historian, but his writings were definitely "messed" with to come up with what little "hearsay" evidence exists for the supposed Jesus. Josephus was also known to go into great detail about the most minor events in history, yet included no important detail whatsoever about this supposed Jesus.

Have you ever read josephus? 1) There are plenty of things Josephus mentions only in passing. 2) There is no indication that anyone was trying to supply or create evidence that Jesus existed, because there is no indication that anyone thought he was mythica. The earliest christians wanted people to believe Jesus was the messiah, not that he was historical. 3) Virtually all writings from the ancient world have been tampered with in one way or another. That's why we have textual critics.

 

[dogsgod]

It's rather obvious that someone tried to supply or create evidence that Jesus existed when reading the Testimonium Flavianum. It's the stupidest forgery ever and abbreviating it doesn't make it any less stupid, the biblical inspired words still shine through.

 

[Oberon]

It's rather obvious that someone tried to supply or create evidence that Jesus existed when reading the Testimonium Flavianum. It's the stupidest forgery ever and abbreviating it doesn't make it any less stupid, the biblical inspired words still shine through.

The reason it is obvious the longer passaqge has been tampered with is not because it gives evidence for a historical Jesus but for the risen Messiah. It is distinctly Christian, and s not designed to provide evidence that Jesus existed, which no one was denying, but that he was the Christ.

 

[dogsgod]

The fact that it's known the Testimonium Flavianum was tampered with forces Antiquities of the Jews to be viewed with suspicion and for good reasons.


"There are too many anomalies in this situation to allow us to cavalierly assume, regardless of the reference to Jesus, that this James is to be equated with the Christian James the Just. And there is yet one more. It is not only James who has been tried and executed, but “together with some others.” Although not clearly stated, it would seem that those others are associates of James; one would think at least that they were all accused of the same thing. (Otherwise, we seem to have a High Priest consumed with blood lust rounding up random citizens for execution.) But if James is the Christian James the Just, then those “others” are almost certainly Christian. Josephus would then be telling us of a significant pogrom against the Christian Church in Jerusalem, instigated by the High Priest no less and opposed by Jewish citizens, something that is not in the slightest witnessed to in Christian tradition or anywhere else. Even those traditions relating to the death of James the Just, as we shall see, do not square with the situation outlined by Josephus in Antiquities 20."

"If, on the other hand, a different James and some like-minded others, perhaps associates, have been targeted by Ananus for political reasons, with this James being the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, the situation makes much more sense. James is identified by his brother rather than by his father because that brother Jesus figures in the story, namely as the successor to the deposed Ananus in the high priesthood, and perhaps in previous ways not stated. The fact that Jesus is given the high priesthood after Ananus’ downfall suggests a political subtext of rival factions behind the frustratingly little which Josephus tells us about the situation." Josephus on the Rocks.

 

[Oberon]

The fact that it's known the Testimonium Flavianum was tampered with forces Antiquities of the Jews to be viewed with suspicion and for good reasons.

No, it doesn't. Virtually all ancient texts contain errors, some deliberate, some not. Which is why textual critics have methods for sorting out these problems.

"There are too many anomalies

Like what?

It is not only James who has been tried and executed, but “together with some others.”

Yes, some heterous or companions.

But if James is the Christian James the Just, then those “others” are almost certainly Christian.

At this stage in christian development it is unlikely that the followers of Jesus differentiated themselves clearly from other Jews in that they belonged to a different religion (any more than pharisees and sadducees did).

something that is not in the slightest witnessed to in Christian tradition or anywhere else.

Which isn't suprising. After all, Nero blamed the fire on the christians, and that isn't in the christian tradition either, despite many being executed.

with this James being the brother of Jesus son of Damneus

Which would make the greek all wrong.

Josephus on the Rocks

Oh, of course. Earl Doherty. Whose specialty is what, exactly?

 

[dogsgod]

Just a side note as it refers to Josephus on Jesus.

If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected.


Non the less, they can both be picked apart just the same.

 

[tigrers99]

Let's start out with the obvious. The sources you're using are even weaker than the Testimonium Flavianum. The Talmud was written a few centuries after the supposed facts so this does not help your case.






I'm not sure where you've been for that last decade or so but that shroud has been proven to be a hoax.

So again, you don't seem to have much in the way of evidence for a historical Jesus considering the sources you're using were written centuries later or proven hoaxes......

Let's be objective. Even if the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds were written in the 2nd century, it makes no difference. The information passed down to these Jewish writers from their predecessors confirms that Jesus did exist.


As for the Shroud of Turin, it has never been proven to be a hoax. Every charge of the skeptics has been shown to be untrue. The one that has continued to be pressed upon the public is that it was 'paint' made to look like blood. When the researchers had long ago proved that it was definitely not paint.....it is actual blood.

Where have YOU been for the last decade or so?

 

[dogsgod]

Let's be objective. Even if the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds were written in the 2nd century, it makes no difference. The information passed down to these Jewish writers from their predecessors confirms that Jesus did exist.


As for the Shroud of Turin, it has never been proven to be a hoax. Every charge of the skeptics has been shown to be untrue. The one that has continued to be pressed upon the public is that it was 'paint' made to look like blood. When the researchers had long ago proved that it was definitely not paint.....it is actual blood.

Where have YOU been for the last decade or so?

What information in the Talmud leads you to believe it references to the Jesus of the gospels?

I think the shroud is the best evidence for an historical Jesus but unfortunately it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Oberon]

Just a side note as it refers to Josephus on Jesus.

If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected.


Non the less, they can both be picked apart just the same.

Courts which subscribe to the practices you describe (not all do) are not designed to simply find the truth. They are designed to protect the innocent at the risk of letting the guilty go free. Historical reconstructions don't have to worry about such things. You are comparing apples and oranges. These are two very different realms for two very different purposes.

We possess virtually no texts from the ancient world free of errors, interpolations, missing sections, etc. Yet, somehow, classicists like Carrier make use of these texts anyway.

 

[dogsgod]

Was that supposed to be some kind of rebuttal, or was that just another really sad appeal to have tampered with evidence accepted as if we all care to be as credulous as Christians? My apologies to Christians, but no one other than a few Christians wrote about this Son of God in the first century, and that should come as no surprise.

 

[Oberon]

Was that supposed to be some kind of rebuttal, or was that just another really sad appeal to have tampered with evidence accepted as if we all care to be as credulous as Christians?

Here's your argument:

Courts don't accept evidence that has been tampered with. Therefore neither should historians.

That is neither a sound nor a valid argument to make. If you want to make an argument as to what sorts of evidence historians of early christianity ought to use, you should base it not on the practices of totally different areas (such as the US legal system) but interact with the wider field of history in general in order to maybe start to make sense or have a point.

My apologies to Christians, but no one other than a few Christians wrote about this Son of God in the first century, and that should come as no surprise.

I love the fact that to someone like you all those who find compelling evidence that Jesus was historical are christian. Nevermind that one of the many good studies about the longer and altered reference to Jesus in Josephus (which demonstrated that it was originally about Jesus even before alteration) was written by a Jewish scholar. Nevermind the various atheists, agnostics, etcs, within biblical scholarship. Nevermind the massive amounts of scholarship in this field you've never read because you find whatever you can dig up on the internet so compelling. It's so much easier if, rather than having to confront evidence, all you have to do is accuse all of those who have read and studied this far longer than you as being credulous christians.

Whatever works, right?

 

[dogsgod]

The abbreviated version of the longer reference is no less stupid than the full version. Appeals to authority is an even more stupid attempt to support these gospel inspired words poorly crafted into the works of Josephus.

 

[dogsgod]

And for those that need glasses, have tunnel vision, or for those that read with blinders on, I will re submit with the same disclaimer as before, except high lighted and underlined this time,:

If a prosecution lawyer in a court case tried to introduce evidence that had been tampered with by prosecution witnesses, that evidence would be rejected.


Non the less, they can both be picked apart just the same.

 

[Oberon]

The abbreviated version of the longer reference is no less stupid than the full version. Appeals to authority is an even more stupid attempt to support these gospel inspired words poorly crafted into the works of Josephus.

Great argument. At least you dropped the court references. But I wasn't appealing to authority. Let me explain to you something about that particularl logical fallacy:

For some time now, I have seen many posters respond to particular points by citing classical logical fallacies like the argument from authority or bandwagon fallacy (argumentum ad polulum). The problem is, these appeals to logical fallacies are frequently misused. Most frequently, I have seen these fallacies appealled to when scholarly consensus or unanimity is cited in support for an argument.

For example, the question on whether Jesus existed or not has come up again and again on this forum. In every thread, at least once, someone (myself included) notes that virtually all experts agree that Jesus existed. The response is often for someone to shout "argument from authority!!!" or "bandwagon theory!!!"

Both of these are incorrect appeals.

The argument from authority and the bandwagon fallacy are sometimes both referred to as argumentum ad populum, although there are differences. The argument from authority basically says just because an authority says X doesn't make X true. The bandwagon fallacy simply means just because a lot of people believe X doesn't make X true.

Now, it is certainly true that citing scholarly consensus doesn't make one correct, as the consensus can (and has been) wrong.

However, there is an important difference between the above fallacies and citing scholarly consensus.

Consensus is not just a lot of people (or even a lot of experts) saying X is true. It is built on accumulated knowledge and arguments which go through an extensive testing process:

1) Professor Y researches X topic in great detail and determines A, B, & C.
2) Professor Y submits his work to a peer-reviewed journal or academic press.
3) His work is reviewed by other people who are experts in that field.
4) If it is up to snuff, it becomes part of scholarly literature.

However, the process only begins there. Once published, experts from all over review the work and come up with counter arguments or supporting arguments (or both, e.g. supporting A & B but not C). These arguments also go through the above 4 steps in order to become part of scholarly literature.

A consensus not simply from a general agreement among experts but agreement based on these accumulated and intensely reviewed arguments.

In other words, appealing to consensus is NOT appealing to either an authority or many authorities, but an appeal to the accumulated arguments made to form the consensus.

This is a HUGE difference bewteen appealing to consensus and simply saying "X is true because professors A, B, & C say so or "most people believe it to be true (the bandwagon fallacy or the argument from authority).

There is a difference between appealing to scholarly consensus or a particular work of scholarship and appealing to authority. The whole point behind the fallacy of appealing to authority is that the title (king, church, whatever) is the only thing that matters. By citing scholarship one is appealing to arguments built upon more arguments by experts in a field.

You can't read greek, latin , or hebrew. You haven't read the vast majority of the requisite primary sources. You haven't read the vast majority of the secondary sources. Most of what you references comes either from the internet or from other non-experts. The tiny minority of people with some expertise in some field who you reference are 1) with one exception not experts in this field and 2) don't publish works you cite from any academic press or peer-reviewed journal.

Yet somehow, you think that your view of josephus, the gospels, etc, is something that should be considered instead of hundreds or thousands of published experts from any number of religious backgrounds who have written on these subjects?

 

[dogsgod]

Robert M. Price cuts such appeals to authority to pieces, and in fewer words:


As he habitually does throughout this book, McDowell relies here upon the fallacy of appeal to authority, calling in supposed experts whose opinions we are to accept just because McDowell tells us they know what they are talking about.

This is something no careful student in any field of study ever does. Scientific inquiry in any field is ever a matter of scrutinizing and weighing the judgments of one's honored predecessors and colleagues, none of whose opinions are to be accepted except on their own merits, not merely for the sake of their propounders' reputations. McDowell and his minions, religious propagandists with only the most transparent pose of scholarship, seem unacquainted with genuine scholarly work, or they would know this. But why should they when their only goal is to spread the "truth" they feel sure they have lucked into. They have not a thought to seek the truth, since this would be to admit that, as mere mortals, they do not yet have it.

 

[McBell]

Robert M. Price cuts such appeals to authority to pieces, and in fewer words:


As he habitually does throughout this book, McDowell relies here upon the fallacy of appeal to authority, calling in supposed experts whose opinions we are to accept just because McDowell tells us they know what they are talking about.

This is something no careful student in any field of study ever does. Scientific inquiry in any field is ever a matter of scrutinizing and weighing the judgments of one's honored predecessors and colleagues, none of whose opinions are to be accepted except on their own merits, not merely for the sake of their propounders' reputations. McDowell and his minions, religious propagandists with only the most transparent pose of scholarship, seem unacquainted with genuine scholarly work, or they would know this. But why should they when their only goal is to spread the "truth" they feel sure they have lucked into. They have not a thought to seek the truth, since this would be to admit that, as mere mortals, they do not yet have it.

One wonders what Robert M. Price thinks about merely tossing out an experts opinion merely because it doe snot jive with his own?

And are you not doing with Robert M. Price what Robert M. Price is talking about with McDowell?

 

[dogsgod]

One wonders what Robert M. Price thinks about merely tossing out an experts opinion merely because it doe snot jive with his own?

And are you not doing with Robert M. Price what Robert M. Price is talking about with McDowell?

You must not of read Price, he doesn't toss out experts opinions. That's just a cheap shot on your part.

Secondly, I've stated on this board that there very well could be an historical Jesus behind the mythology, but I'm not going to merely assume there is, and I'm certainly not going to accept the appeals to authority that just so happen to coincide with Oberon's beliefs because Oberon says they know what they are talking about.

 

[Oberon]

You must not of read Price, he doesn't toss out experts opinions. That's just a cheap shot on your part.

I have read Price. To quote another expert responding to Price: "Robert M. Price gets Jesus to the vanishing point by the simple expedient of denying all the evidence that makes him visible."

Critical historical Jesus scholarship goes back well over 2 centuries. Why are you only able to reference one person in this field?

I'm certainly not going to accept appeals to authority because Oberon says they know what they are talking about.

1) You can't read the primary sources in their original languages, you haven't read them in translation. and you aren't familiar with the bulk of relevant scholarship. Maybe you ought to start reading some "authorities" simply because they have actually put in the time to know what they are talking about.

2) I don't appeal to simple authority, but to scholarship. You should be able to tell the difference.

 

[javajo]

1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

I think the proof is the Church. From the Christians killed in Rome to the millions killed in the last century.

 

[dogsgod]

1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

I think the proof is the Church. From the Christians killed in Rome to the millions killed in the last century.

Yes, the very Son of God we are discussing, thank you.