The Jesus Myth

[sojourner]

Your near absolute knowledge of 1st century CE Judea makes you a rather valuable commodity. Could you tell me how you come to know that "the craftsman class of that time period were [sic] usually not literate"? Also, what can you tell me about nearby Sepphoris and Tiberias during that period?

He was probably wrong.


Cloistered and highly sectarian, i.e.., not the type of group that would likely save, much less produce, the pluriformity of textual variants that characterizes the Qumran scrolls.

All in all, I would recommend more study and less certitude.

Whatever. somehow, I trust his scholarship more than yours. I can't imagine why!!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, that dynamic leads any reasonable person familiar with the process of ancient writing to conclude that the copying makes them more -- not less -- plausible as different stories of the same events.

The writings present Jesus in a highly mythic light. But to do so also makes his existence more, not less, plausible.

Those are both fine personal opinions. I don't mind that you hold them, although they don't seem at all reasonable to me.

 

[fallingblood]

I've voiced very many of them already, but you continue to insist that I've never presented any evidence of the non-historicity of Jesus. It's peculiar. My evidence seems invisible to you, as evidence of evolution is invisible to most creationists.

All I'm asking you then is to list them here. I'm admitting I may have passed over them, or I simply don't remember. So if you have voiced them many times, please just provide a link to where you voiced them, or just list them here. Your avoidance tactics simply are doing nothing to further this discussion.

I'm sorry, but I make my own judgment of you, just as I assume you make yours of me.

That's fine. But your judgement means very little if it is based on a misconception.

See: Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

There are some 364 responses to that thread, which consists of 37 pages. I'm not going to wade through all of that when it is so much easier just for you to restate your position.

Since you cannot present a single piece of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, why do you ask me for counter evidence? All I want is for you to offer one scrap of evidence. That's all. Just one bit of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Why can't you do that?

(An AmbiguousGuy joke, folks. You'll get used to me. Or not.)

You asked, "What are you asking me to do exactly?" I simply answered your question, to provide your evidence. Now, you are just showing one more avoidance tactic.

Also, just so you are aware, the burden of proof is on you. You are voicing an opinion counter to what is generally accepted. If you want that position to stand, you need to support your position.

HeeHee. You're not joking, are you. Yikes.

Anyway, here are two of the solid, irrefutable evidences which I presented to you in the earlier threads, actually numbered so you'll have a harder time proclaiming that they don't exist.

First, you need to look up what irrefutable means. Second, I never said you haven't provided evidence elsewhere, I simply don't remember it. However, after you mention your evidence again, I do remember your position.

1) The synoptic gospels, in which whole blocks of text are copied from the other gospels, leading any reasonable person to conclude that they are rewrites of fictional work, rather than retellings of the same story.

There is one problem with that. You are ignoring the genres that they actually are. We will go back to Luke again, who states very clearly that he is writing history. He tells us that he is using other sources (which you call copying).

More so, plagiarism does not equate fiction. Plagiarism also exists in non-fiction. That fact alone makes your point moot.

2) The human passion for heroes, leading a reasonable person to doubt that Jesus is any more 'historic' than Robin Hood or Merlin.

You need to actually prove this. You never provided any evidence for this as far as I can recall.

More so, the Jews had more than enough heros to look at. If they wanted, they could look back into their pasts to the various prophets and leaders. They could look at any number of the various religious leaders or messianic claimants. And we actually do see that.

The Gentiles had various gods they could look to. There really is no reason to assume that the Jews needed to create a failed Messiah figure in order to be a hero.

As for a hero figure, Jesus simply does not fit into the idea of the Jewish hero. So your point really doesn't work.

Finally, Robin Hood and Merlin are thought to be based off historical figures, or at least it is suspected.

If you want your point to hold any water, you have to show that people do have a passion for a hero, and that would mean they would create one. Especially when many heros are actually historical figures in the first place anyway.

That's a fine personal opinion. I don't think it holds up under scrutiny, but it's a fine personal opinion.

If it doesn't hold up, then show why. Simply dismissing it is not an argument.

He was the only one with the passion to make it work, I think.

You think wrong then. Because we know for a fact that this movement existed in areas that Paul never visited. More so, it existed in forms that Paul had nothing to do with. So no, there is no reason to believe he was the only one who had the passion to make it work. Because other people obviously made it work before him, in places he never visited, and in forms that Paul had nothing to do with.

So you're changing your position? You now agree that Paul created Christianity?

You need to read what I actually say. How can Paul create something that didn't form until after he was dead? Paul was simply continuing a movement, that had been created by Jesus. Later on, this movement would evolve into Christianity.

Thank you for informing me of proper logic. It's a loving thing to do. However, from what I've seen so far, my logic seems a bit fuller than your own. Nothing personal, of course.

Yes, lots of individuals have created and continue to create Christianity, every day. But some do more than others, like the Pauls of Christianity and of Starbucks.

You need to look up the word create. Because if you did, you would realize that one can not create something that has already been created. It is impossible to create something that has already been created.

Instead of trying to make a witty retort, you may spend that time supporting your position though.

 

[fallingblood]

We see things differently. I don't think conservative Islam will be able to tolerate the liberal branches which you agree will arise.

Then support your opinion.

 

[fallingblood]

Those are both fine personal opinions. I don't mind that you hold them, although they don't seem at all reasonable to me.

Why? Instead of just saying I don't agree and then dismissing the other person, you may want to support your position.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then support your opinion.

You're the one who claims there'll be no trouble between western and mideastern Muslims.

Can you support your opinion on that.

I'd be very, very curious to see you attempt it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Whatever. somehow, I trust his scholarship more than yours. I can't imagine why!!

Because it conforms to your presuppositions. (And I seriously doubt that you've accurately reflected anything that could pass for scholarship.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why? Instead of just saying I don't agree and then dismissing the other person, you may want to support your position.

Since you can't support your own position and won't even attempt it, why do you insist that I do so?

 

[fallingblood]

Since you can't support your own position and won't even attempt it, why do you insist that I do so?

You were the one who made a claim. Thus, you need to support your position. And since your position is one that is not generally accepted, you have the burden of proof.

All I need to support my position is the existence of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and Josephus (and really, Josephus is not technically needed, but I like throwing it in).

 

[fallingblood]

You're the one who claims there'll be no trouble between western and mideastern Muslims.

Can you support your opinion on that.

I'd be very, very curious to see you attempt it.

It's not that hard to do so. As a religion ages, it generally becomes more liberal. We can see this with any number of religions.

As of right now, Middle Eastern Muslims and American Muslims get along well enough. And even now, we see American Muslims becoming more liberal; however, that evidently isn't causing serious problems. Why would this change in 50 years? I see no reason why.

Even Muslims in the Middle East, Muslims are becoming more liberal to a point (yes, there are extremists, but those numbers are even dwindling). So again, I don't see what 50 years will do in order to change things so drastically.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

All in all, I would recommend more study and less certitude.

Speaking, of course, of no particular debater here, I would be gloriously happy with just less certitude -- even without more study.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You were the one who made a claim. Thus, you need to support your position. And since your position is one that is not generally accepted, you have the burden of proof.

Nah. The guy who is absolutely certain of his position -- that'd be you -- is the one who should have at least a bit of evidence and argumentation to back up his certainty. Therefore, the burden is on you.

So can you prove your position? Or even argue it?

All I need to support my position is the existence of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and Josephus (and really, Josephus is not technically needed, but I like throwing it in).

Sorry, but I've already claimed those items as support of my own position. You'll have to find something else.

Can you support your position?

 

[fallingblood]

Nah. The guy who is absolutely certain of his position -- that'd be you -- is the one who should have at least a bit of evidence and argumentation to back up his certainty. Therefore, the burden is on you.

So can you prove your position? Or even argue it?

You need to look up what burden of proof means.

Sorry, but I've already claimed those items as support of my own position. You'll have to find something else.

Can you support your position?

That simply is ridiculous and it clearly shows you have no interest in actual logical debate.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

All I'm asking you then is to list them here. I'm admitting I may have passed over them, or I simply don't remember. So if you have voiced them many times, please just provide a link to where you voiced them, or just list them here.

3) The local Jews didn't seem to notice Jesus, even though he supposedly had masses of followers and made quite a stir.

4) The existence of many gospels, pointing to a gospel-writing industry, pointing to a fictional character like Dracula about whom everyone seemed to want to do a rewrite.

5) No reports from any of Jesus' enemies.

6) No contemporary reports as to his personal appearance. Strange ommission, don't you agree? It would be right up there on top of the list if people had actually known him.

7) I could go on and on, but this is probably enough for this message.

Your avoidance tactics simply are doing nothing to further this discussion.

I've met you before. My reticence to engage you has to do with that.

Also, just so you are aware, the burden of proof is on you. You are voicing an opinion counter to what is generally accepted. If you want that position to stand, you need to support your position.

OK. Now that I have yet again posted irrefutable proof of my position, you are finally ready to convert?

There is one problem with that. You are ignoring the genres that they actually are. We will go back to Luke again, who states very clearly that he is writing history. He tells us that he is using other sources (which you call copying).

I find it so curious that you absolutely refuse to address my actual point. So I'll ask again: Can you provide any two or three ancient or modern texts in which strings of language are copied verbatim, within the text, in the same way as the gospels do?

It's a simple question. If you can actually provide the evidence, I might begin to shift my position.

Earlier, you hemmed and hawed about 'same sources' in Houdini bios and other works. But you just won't address the actual issue I've raised. Can you show me 3 texts, of the same story, in which parallel strings of words are integrated within the texts of those stories?

Simple challenge, yes?

You need to actually prove this. You never provided any evidence for this as far as I can recall.

Mountains of evidence. Absolute proof. Sorry.

Finally, Robin Hood and Merlin are thought to be based off historical figures, or at least it is suspected.

But can you prove that?

If you want your point to hold any water, you have to show that people do have a passion for a hero, and that would mean they would create one.

I can no more prove that to you than I can prove to you that the moon is round.

All I can say is that if you don't believe that humans crave heroes, then we live in entirely different universes.

You think wrong then. Because we know for a fact that this movement existed in areas that Paul never visited. More so, it existed in forms that Paul had nothing to do with. So no, there is no reason to believe he was the only one who had the passion to make it work. Because other people obviously made it work before him, in places he never visited, and in forms that Paul had nothing to do with.

A bunch of pikers compared to Paul.

You need to read what I actually say. How can Paul create something that didn't form until after he was dead? Paul was simply continuing a movement, that had been created by Jesus.

I don't share your word-worshipping ways. Christianity is no more a 'thing' than honor is a thing.

You need to look up the word create. Because if you did, you would realize that one can not create something that has already been created. It is impossible to create something that has already been created.

You really do believe it, don't you? You think that words and the things at which they try to point are the very same things -- rather than that words are just our feeble, fallible efforts at pointing toward nebulous objects.

It's not how language works. I'll be glad to go over the whole thing with you if you're interested.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That simply is ridiculous and it clearly shows you have no interest in actual logical debate.

How very curious. I repeat back to you the silly argument you've just made... and you see it as evidence that I'm insincere.

Goodness.

 

[ellenjanuary]

14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

I Thessalonians 2:14-15. Noteworthy for being the first book of the NT and for illustrating the relative immaturity of Paul's ministry... to me, this passage tells of the break between Paul and the majority of Jewish scholarship, leading to a new philosophy.

 

[fallingblood]

How very curious. I repeat back to you the silly argument you've just made... and you see it as evidence that I'm insincere.

Goodness.

When you state that I can't use something, because you already have, that is being ridiculous.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When you state that I can't use something, because you already have, that is being ridiculous.

Umm... that part was a joke, Blood. I was trying to out-ridiculous you.

What was ridiculous was your claim that 'the gospels' prove your position.

Really, that's just silly, isn't it?

The gospels prove my own claim. Remember 'synoptic'? I'm still hoping you'll focus on that for me. It's one of my major points.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The local Jews didn't seem to notice Jesus, even though he supposedly had masses of followers and made quite a stir.

I think the bible, specifically the 4 gospels, is a lot of hype. If Yeshua existed then he wasn't all that important or noticeable and certainly not worthy of writing about.

4) The existence of many gospels, pointing to a gospel-writing industry, pointing to a fictional character like Dracula about whom everyone seemed to want to do a rewrite.

That made me chuckle...

5) No reports from any of Jesus' enemies.

Other than the Romans and some local Jews what enemies would he have had? Rome had a way of dealing with its enemies.

6) No contemporary reports as to his personal appearance. Strange ommission, don't you agree? It would be right up there on top of the list if people had actually known him.

To me his existences and what's written about him is circumstantial at best. For some that seems to be enough. But I get it because as soon as you mention Yeshua and the lack of historical evidence some one goes and pulls all manner of supposed historical figures out of their bum to show that Yeshua's lack of historicity is not uncommon. And I would agree, especially when you strip away all the fantastical claims made in what seems to be the largest testimony of his supposed life (e.g. the NT), he doesn't really seem to be all that important to write home about. Hey, maybe he did do some of the things the NT said he did...like turning water into wine....No, I take that back. Maybe they were thinking about some one else when they were attributing that to Yeshua....not sure because I wasn't there..:sad:

 

[fallingblood]

Umm... that part was a joke, Blood. I was trying to out-ridiculous you.

What was ridiculous was your claim that 'the gospels' prove your position.

Really, that's just silly, isn't it?

The gospels prove my own claim. Remember 'synoptic'? I'm still hoping you'll focus on that for me. It's one of my major points.

So, people writing about Jesus isn't evidence that Jesus existed? So people writing about Augustus is not evidence that Augustus existed?