AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
OK. Me, I don't believe we can (or should) know such things with any certainty, but each to his own.
-
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!
Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
OK. Me, I don't believe we can (or should) know such things with any certainty, but each to his own.
Why not?
Are we not supposed to understand our own history with any degree of certainty?
Would say that the battle of Waterloo and its results cannot and should not be known with any certainty?
Are you saying that the sacking of Rome in 410AD cannot and should not be known with any certainty?
Should we not know with any certainty that Spartacus, in the decades before Jesus, lead a devastating slave revolt? Are these events, admittedly inductive, nevertheless incapable of arriving at some point certainty over? Some point in which lesson learned can be accurately derived?
With that in mind, this whole Jesus guy thingy, would it not make sense to gather historical facts and bits of evidence and then proclaim the MOST LIKELY case as that one to gather behind?
And when it comes to historical Jesus, the case among period experts is unanimous: there was a Jesus who founded Christianity.
That would include the opinion of skeptics like Dr. Bart Erhman. The criticism of Jesus's nonexistence, or the case that we simply cannot know, rests with non-period amateurs like GA Wells.
So when Ph.D level consensus is generated by experts of multiple faiths, that stands as pretty stark support to at least the historicity of Jesus.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
That depends on what you mean by 'degree of certainty.' Do you mean that "It could not possibly be otherwise"?
Or do you mean, "This is my best guess as to what probably happened"?
As I say, you'll have to define 'any certainty.'
Of course. I myself have proclaimed the mostly likely case, which is that Mark wrote his story as fiction and it was taken up as actual history.
Not unanimous, no. But the majority. So what is your point? Are you declaring that we should all bow to the majority opinion of a bunch of scholars, virtually all of whom entered their field with a pre-existing belief in their conclusion?
Nah. Not unless they can defend it in debate.
So far, I haven't seen that.
Would you like to try?
Well, there is a little something called inductive logic. Its basic the logic of probability, rather than absolute certainty.
Ergo, when the entire body of period experts on a given period in history has a broad consensus about the basic historical narrative of something, that would, in the case of inductive logic, be considered a rather strong case.
The countering case? As we see for GA Wells, that this was somehow just all made up has ALSO been examined by period experts and this is what they have to say about it:
"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."
ww.bede.org.uk/price1.htmScholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth
So if we are going to judge things based on their ability to be supported, then Jesus is about as well supported as he can be. Its quite strong.
The alternate theories are either without evidence at all, or are so weak and bizarre that they are dismissed as exactly that. That would be a inductively WEAK case.
Are you actually going to claim that your position is better supported than the entire body of expertise of period scholars? Including famously skeptical agnostic Dr. Bart Erhman, who recently published ...
ww.bartdehrman.com/books/did_jesus_exist.htm Professor Bart D. Ehrman - Did Jesus Exist?
Just to ensure that these previously mentioned bizarre skeptics did not continue to take his criticisms to untenable positions that could not be supported.
But by all means, as you are interested in proof, lets see you lay out the proof that all the Ph.D guys have it wrong ... and that Jesus and Christianity were forged? That claim, to my knowledge, has exactly zero evidence - and we should expect to find some if indeed such an obvious forgery were passed off as you claim.
Your contention requires support as well, and I frankly dare you to attempt to support it.
Feel free to dig into Wells and other mythers, who have been so fully discredited that, like Dr. Erhman, they had to publish retractions and corrections - essentially admitting that they were wrong. And the rebuttals to these guys are scathing.
But I am sure you have a better grasp at it.
In the mean time, please enjoy:
[ww.jesustheevidence.com/whatsin.html]Jesus]Jesus]Jesus : The Evidence : The Evidence : The Evidence
Feel free to start with the basics.
In fact, as a historical, not of the period admittedly, I have examined the records to at least my satisfaction and I would be utterly fascinated at how anyone, in defiance of not just collected period expertise, but my own examination could arrive at such a starkly odd conclusion given the evidence that is available and doesn't seem to indicate deliberate fabrication of mythery in the slightest.
The idea that Christianity is just a big conspiracy seems ... well, conspiratorial?
Again, I handily invite you to explain the chain of reasoning to drove you to conclude that my faith, and the faith of literally billions more, was just a conspiracy?
And yes, the consensus is unanimous. the dissenters are all, to a man, non-period amateurs. Wells has a Ph.D in German, not New Testament History. There is not NT Scholar who makes the claims that you are claiming. Not one.
As stated previously, Bart Erhman, in "Did Jesus Exist," makes in painfully clear that he is disavowing exactly what you are claiming.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
No, not in the case of biblical studies. That field is different in kind from all others. As I say, virtually no young man or woman enters the field without a worldview which is religious. Even if not, they have grown up under the assumption that the sky is blue, the moon is round, and Jesus was an historical person.
But after studying the issue for some time now, it seems to me that the emperor really may be naked, despite the opposing opinion of all those courtiers who have dedicated their lives to studying his wardrobe and whose well-being depends on the existence and maintenance of that wardrobe.
How desperately they wail against the one who sees with an innocent child's eyes. How terrifying the thought of a naked emperor.
Bow to the courtiers if that's your wont. Me, I try to point out various details of the emperor's anatomy and ask the courtiers, "Why, if he is clothed, can we see his weewee like that?"
Oh, how they howl. They call me ignorant. They proclaim that the Congress of Courtiers has unanimously declared that the emperor is indeed clothed and that any other opinion is bizarre!!!
It's odd, their behavior.
Of course the Congress of Courtiers has dismissed all contrary theories as weak and bizarre. It is the behavior we would expect from them, isn't it?
I'm claiming that no one yet has been able to make a good case against my theory. Mostly they just call me ignorant and point desperately at the Congress of Courtiers, demanding that I go ahead and bow.
I decline their invitations.
Forged? What on earth are you talking about? If you want to debate my theory, you can't make up a theory, claim that it's mine, and then fight against it. In the debate business, we call that a StrawMan Fallacy.
What contention? What are you talking about?
Thanks, but I don't read HJ/MJ material. That would be unfair of me.
See what I mean? Every HJer I've ever encountered begins with disdainful claims of my ignorance. I'm pretty sure that's not the position of people who are confident in their beliefs. It’s fearful behavior.
I ask again: Would you like to debate the HJ with me?
I have no idea what you are talking about. You want me to defend a theory which I don't believe?
I do love to debate, but if you want me to defend a Jesus Theory which I don't believe, you'll have to describe the theory for me first, in some detail. If I think it's defensible, I'll be glad to defend it, if just for fun.
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
A little two-part challenge for you:
1) define 'biblical period scholar' or whatever group you believe to hold a unanimous opinion about the HJ. Define them in such a way as to have no wiggle room. Then let me ask you questions about whether my preacher is one or whether a secular scholar of the Middle East is one or whether X is one.
2) concoct a statement of at least 100 words about the existence of the Historical Jesus. Then see if you can get all 'biblical period scholars' to assent to your statement. Or at least convince me that they all would likely assent to it. Give me the opportunity to check with some of them.
If you can do that, I might begin to accept your claim that 'the consensus is unanimous'.
Bart Ehrman is a true believer but that's beside the point because opinions about the authors themselves is not a reason to know your history. What argument does Erhman bring to the table that makes his conclusion any better than G.A. Wells and vice versa?
outhouse
Atheistically
You will only notice dancing and dodging around that topic.
There MO is to attack the messenger due to the weakness of their case.
I have hammered them for a replecement hypothesis, and all they do attack the messenger with more vigor.
That and Inane questions just trying to derail providing a replacement hypothesis. They laughably try and steer the debate away from them actually having to do any work.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
AmbigGuy's Replacement Hypothesis: Jesus is a fictional character created by the writer of gMark or one of his immediate predecessors. The character upon whom Jesus was based most probably lived sometime in the 1st century BCE, if at all. Proto-Christianity already existed during the time that Jesus is purported to have lived.
(Although I have no idea what hypothesis I'm replacing, I assume it's "outhouse's favorite hypothesis" or something like that.)
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I'm confused about Ehrman. It seems I've heard him used by both sides as their champion.
Must be some subtlety to his work, I'm guessing.
Apparently some of his books are better than others. Most everyone that praises Erhman found Did Jesus Exist to be a major disappointment.
outhouse
Atheistically
That is not a hypothesis.
It is unsubstantiated and already refuted with 100% certainty. Paul wrote before Mark was started.
Yet you have nothing at all to substantiate your position.
Yet you have no evidence at all this happened.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
So does he think Jesus existed in 30CE Jerusalem? Or no?
I too am a little confused about whose hypotheses is to be replaced. Must find out who is at the centre of the universe and what their hypotheses is before proceeding.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Since you won't offer a replacement hypothesis, nor any evidence against mine... I WIN!!!!!!
Oh, I am so happy.
Oh, so very discouraged now....
Yeah. Thank you for presenting my evidence for me. Paul knew nothing of a 30CE Jesus. (It's because Mark hadn't created him yet.)
Why would I present it if I couldn't defend it?
Anyway, no one has ever offered a replacement hypothesis, so....
Yes, absolutely. He believes the authors believed what they were writing, so must we.
He has indeed been used by atheists as a source. Repeatedly. Its why he published, "Is Jesus Real," wherein he spells out the full weight of evidence regarding Jesus, making his case plain, while still acknowledging interpretative issues with aspects of the evidence that is on hand. Its worth noting that he retains a clarion clarity about the historicity of Jesus.
Its part of a larger trend in atheism, in which, IMHO, there is simple cherry picking going on. For example:
Will Durant, an atheist, writes, "The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine."
Dr Erhman waded into the 'uncertain authorship of some of the Pauline Epistles. Atheists, many of whom, in my experience, haven't actually read these criticisms and have little knowledge of the wider body of evidence, quote his criticisms as proof. As you note, there are plenty of Mythers who quote Erhman, but I have yet to see one list, cite, or even acknowledge Erhman's clarification in, "Is Jesus Real?".
The omission of the last work there would seem odd for those who claim to be experts on Dr. Erhman and his works? Using it to buttress their claims of Mythery.
The same can be said of GA Well, the author of, quite literally, "The Jesus Myth." To be blunt, I only got a little more than half way through the book and then had to stop. The book is a confused compassion of double standards in which the goal, rather than build a cogent narrative or alternate explanation, appears to be little more than an exercise in absurdity - any standard that could possibly be used to ignore or disregard evidence is used, and the result, frankly, was painful.
He's been annihilated be a whole host of NT scholars.
Nevertheless, I see atheists quote many of his disparaging claims. Often, these claims are pulled off of atheist web sites, where they are not properly attributed to Wells. The resulting presentation of the 'evidence' is then done in total ignorance of the origins and ultimate annihilation of the claim. In many cases, having listed the original claim in, "the Jesus Myth," I have found Mythers to be rather shocked at the revelation.
Additionally, I never seen Mythers cite or acknowledge Will Durant - a humanist NT scholar.
I never see the list Michael Grant, an atheist NT scholar.
In fact, I rarely see them mention an actual NT scholar of any religious persuasion, save Dr. Bart Erhman ... and then, as we see above, his clarification of the view is substantial and that clarifications absence from the myther's notes ... telling.
Its why I now, at this point, having debated dozen of mythers, ask them to actually explain the intellectual case that drove them to a conclusion that period scholars, including atheists and Dr Erhman (he's officially agnostic), have dismissed as bizarre?
In my experience, most people of any faith, which is overwhelmingly atheist (but certainly not confined to atheism - hello Michael Grant), haven't actually studied the historical narrative. It becomes rapidly clear when debating them, as they show little knowledge of the actual evidence, make patently false claims like there is no extra-Biblical evidence (there is), and in extreme cases develop the magical ability to Konin Greek in context ... which just happens to come off an atheist web site's interpretation and which the presenter has absolutely no expertise in leveling an opinion on.
So when a case rests upon the magical expertise so solid that it allows an atheist, who cannot speak or read Greek and lacks the contextual understanding of period word usage, to advocate a single word translation error as proof?
That is a true story BTW, an event that has happened several times while debating atheists on the subject.
I think we have a pretty definitive presentation of the meritless claims of the Jesus Myth.
Him being just 'some dude', is a theory without any merit or evidence, and its entire claim appears to based on little more than the blind faith of militant atheists that their least favorite religion is screwed up and therefore is genesis must also be screwed up.
Its an example of how even atheistic views can corrupt solid analysis when faith trumps facts. Admittedly, this is not all atheists or even the majority, but the only community that I have encountered where Jesus Mythery persists is the atheist community.
I for one would rather discredit the atheists like GA Wells, and those who follow him (having rejected actual scholarship to do so), and would rather highlight those actual learned atheists who actually took the time to study and find themselves supporting Will Durant and Michael Grant.
I honestly wonder why atheists themselves do not rebut the Jesus Myth with more vigor? It would be a bit like Christians, IMO, refusing to rebut the Westboro Baptist Church, where, the most polite response you can get on them is, "Yep, they are indeed Christians, but their interpretations are severely out of whack with the larger community. They are not welcome and their interpretation is rebutted fully."
Jesus Mythery would seem to be the atheistic version, IMO, of the Westboro Baptist Church.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I sure wish someone would bring one of those historical-Jesus-book-writing guys here so that we could examine them in person.
I should write a book explaining the real and actual truth of things, except I've got better things to do than study the minutia of it all... as do most skeptical types, I'm guessing.