There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[leroy]

No, when I have the burden of proof I supply it. But for you to demand it you must act as an honest interlocutor. You free up others to ignore you when you do not do what you demand of others.

In fact, no

You are expected to support your claims independently on weather if I am being honest or not

Some of your unsupported cliams

1 The gospels where not written by eye witnesses

2 there are other sources (apart from Josephus) that confirms the date of the census

3 Joseph had no reason to go to Bethlehem

+ all the cliams where you said that I am wrong, dishonest falacious etc. (but you fail to quote my atual words)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok So

1 Miracles are a possibility (as you claimed)

2 you have the testimony of well-informed people, that knew the stuff happening during that time/place that reported independently that Jesus resurrected

3 these people where honest (they weren’t making things up and lying intentionally)

What else do you need?

I need better evidence than that that the miracles occurred before believing.

Regarding possibility, remember, I don't know that miracles can actually occur. I just don't know that they can't, which is different, and which may be the case. My inability to rule out the possibility of resurrection doesn't mean it occurred, and it doesn't matter how well-informed or honest people are when they claim they witnessed a miracle - a suspension of the laws of physics. If miracles don't actually occur, then they're wrong. Do you not see that? Resurrection may be impossible.

 

[leroy]

He did not claim that. Why did you misinterpret his post in that manner? Remember what I said about being an honest interlocutor? That means that you need to respond to what was said. Not what you wish was said.

@It Aint Necessarily So
is not arguing that miracles are impossible (therefore they are a possibility)

But he can always correct me, I am not like you , I don’t have problems with admitting my mistakes

No we do not. Where did you get that idea from? You are putting a whole new burden of proof upon yourself.

Well I will simply repeat the argument that you keep ignoring

We know that the authors of the gospels where well informed, because most of the verifiable claims that they make are true.

But we know that some of them were not. That is demonstrable. Some of them clearly made things up. The author of Matthew is well known for it. And this is a claim of yours that again would put a heavy burden of proof upon you. You cannot claim to have that evidence if you cannot support it.

Sounds like you have another opportunity to support your claims. (read the big letters)

The argument that I provided in support of the claim that the authors are being honest is that they are reporting events and stuff that went against their motives and agenda (criteria of embarrassment)

 

[leroy]

I need better evidence than that that the miracles occurred before believing.

Regarding possibility, remember, I don't know that miracles can actually occur. I just don't know that they can't, which is different, and which may be the case. My inability to rule out the possibility of resurrection doesn't mean it occurred, and it doesn't matter how well-informed or honest people are when they claim they witnessed a miracle - a suspension of the laws of physics. If miracles don't actually occur, then they're wrong. Do you not see that? Resurrection may be impossible.

You inability to rule out miracles, forces you to consider them as a possibility.

So why isn’t the evidence hat we have good enough

“multiple testimonies of well-informed people that where not intentionally lying?”

Why isn’t this good enough?


If different *well informed* people tell you that Saudi Arabia defeated Argentina in the last world soccer cup, would you accept that as good convincing evidence?

 

[leroy]

Pretty much anything is possible. Is it probable, is the better question.

Well in that case, the person that affirms that miracles are not probable, has to justify that possition

We don't even have eyewitness testimony. We have hearsay reports. Never mind that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Never mind that we don't even have that. Never mind that we don't even know the identity of the people providing these reports. Never mind that we can't even interview the people providing these so-called reports. Never mind that some of them copied large swaths of this "reporting" from other so-called witnesses. Never mind that just because someone is able to identify a location that existed at the time they existed, doesn't mean that every single other thing they say is accurate and true. You still seem to be arguing the Spider Man defence on that one.

However none of that refutes the claim that the authors where well informed,

This conclusion is grounded on the fact that most verifiable claims are true

How do you know "these people were honest" and weren't "making things up and lying intentionally?"

Because the gospels are full of embarrassing details, things that made promoting Christianity harder.

If someone is just lying and making up stories, that person is unlikely to invent lies that would go against their purpose.

For example Jews form that time expected messiah to be a warrior, a strong leader that would free them form their enemies (rome)-……….. so anyone making up stories would have invented a “warrior-hero messiah” not a crucified messiah.

How do you know that they weren't just recording some story they heard from a guy who heard from a guy?

I am pretty sure they did………………if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with nearly all ancient history, because everything we “know” about ancient history is things that a guy told another guy.

How do you know every aspect of their story is accurate?

Well I don’t know if every aspect is accurate, but the fact that most of the verifiable claims are ture, strongly suggest that most of the story is correct.

Imagine that you find a list with the results of every game in the last world cup.

Then imagine that out of the 20 games that you saw, the list is reporting the correct result.

You don’t know the other results because you didn’t watch the other games.

But given that the list is correct in the small sample of games that you can verify, can conclude that the whole list is probably correct

 

[SkepticThinker]

@It Aint Necessarily So
is not arguing that miracles are impossible (therefore they are a possibility)

But he can always correct me, I am not like you , I don’t have problems with admitting my mistakes



Well I will simply repeat the argument that you keep ignoring

We know that the authors of the gospels where well informed, because most of the verifiable claims that they make are true.


Sounds like you have another opportunity to support your claims. (read the big letters)

The argument that I provided in support of the claim that the authors are being honest is that they are reporting events and stuff that went against their motives and agenda (criteria of embarrassment)

I'm sorry but this "criteria for embarrassment" is itself, an embarrassment. It's not a good argument and it's basically almost exclusively used to by people trying to convince themselves that the fantastical claims of the Bible are true.

"Misusing the tools of historical inquiry​

Scot McKnight (who is, I am sure, a believer in the historical Jesus) has written about the fallacy of “criteriology” as used by HJ scholars. (Scot McKnight’s Lament and Historical Facts)

The criterion of embarrassment is normally used as a tool for historians (nonbiblical) to interpret facts and evidence. As far as I am aware only biblical scholars attempt to use it to create facts, to establish what is a historical fact itself.

But a number of biblical scholars know very well that these criteria are too subjective (even circular) to truly establish objective (existential) facts (pp. 42-44 of Scot McKnight’s Jesus and His Death). Jim West (Refreshing Honesty) and Dale C. Allison (Clarity about Circularity) both concede that HJ (historical Jesus) studies rest on circular arguments.

Mythicists are on/wp-admin/post.php?post=16195&action=edit&message=1ly repeating the arguments that are found in the scholarly literature when they reject the use of the criterion of embarrassment (on grounds of its circularity and subjectivity) as a means of establishing the historicity of the baptism of Jesus. The difference is that the mythicists take the arguments to their logical conclusions and apply them more rigorously than many HJ scholars do."

Embarrassing failure of the criterion of embarrassment

So I hear from commenters that a new foray into demolishing mythicism has been launched by James McGrath with yet one more account of the "criterion of embarrassment". The curious -- yet tedious -- thing about this is that while McGrath in particular has faulted mythicists for (supposedly) failing t

vridar.org

Criterion of embarrassment

Criterion of embarrassment: The Baptism of Jesus The criterion of embarrassment, also known as criterion of dissimilarity, is a critical analysis of historical accounts in which accounts embarrassing to the author are presumed to be true because…

en-academic.com

Criticizing the Criterion of Embarrassment in Historical Jesus studies

Both Loren Rosson and Doug Chaplin comment on my recent NT Pod 60: The Criterion of Embarrassment and they make some excellent points. ...

ntweblog.blogspot.com

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well in that case, the person that affirms that miracles are not probable, has to justify that possition

You are declaring that they are probable, are you not? That's your claim and your burden of proof.

However none of that refutes the claim that the authors where well informed,

None of it supports it.
You need to support the claim that they were well informed. Rather than just declaring it to be true. I gave a long list of things to consider which you appear to have completely ignored.

This conclusion is grounded on the fact that most verifiable claims are true

What?

Because the gospels are full of embarrassing details, things that made promoting Christianity harder.

So what? Why do you think "embarrassing details" in a story lend credence to the veracity of the claims made within the story?

If someone is just lying and making up stories, that person is unlikely to invent lies that would go against their purpose.

What if they were just writing down a story for entertainment purposes?
What if they thought they were telling the truth, but actually weren't?
What if their purpose isn't what you think it is?
What if they're simply mistaken?

For example Jews form that time expected messiah to be a warrior, a strong leader that would free them form their enemies (rome)-……….. so anyone making up stories would have invented a “warrior-hero messiah” not a crucified messiah.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I am pretty sure they did………………if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with nearly all ancient history, because everything we “know” about ancient history is things that a guy told another guy.

Well, if they did, that's called hearsay. And it means that they were not recording eyewitness testimony. Those are two different things.

No, everything we "know" about ancient history aren't "things that a guy told another guy."

Well I don’t know if every aspect is accurate, but the fact that most of the verifiable claims are ture, strongly suggest that most of the story is correct.

You do claim that though. That's what this whole thing is about here. You are claiming that because the writers knew place names and some names of some leaders at the time, then that means everything else they "reported" is most likely to be true as well.

Imagine that you find a list with the results of every game in the last world cup.

Then imagine that out of the 20 games that you saw, the list is reporting the correct result.

You don’t know the other results because you didn’t watch the other games.

But given that the list is correct in the small sample of games that you can verify, can conclude that the whole list is probably correct

Nope.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your inability to rule out miracles, forces you to consider them as a possibility.

Yes. It's also true that your inability to rule them in should force you to consider that they may be impossible.

So why isn’t the evidence that we have good enough

“multiple testimonies of well-informed people that where not intentionally lying?”

Why isn’t this good enough?

For starters, we don't have even that. I don't know that anybody at all claimed to witness a resurrection. Nor do I know that these people never lied. But that's irrelevant to my argument. Let's stipulate to both of those. A dozen honest people said they saw a dead person revivify. That doesn't mean it happened. Why is this elusive to you? It seems that you can't conceive of them being incorrect. They can be. All it takes if for there to have been no resurrection - just an illusion.

How many would swear to Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear if they weren't told it was an illusion and thought that he was a priest rather than a magician? What if I told you they all the witnesses had been educated in schools, all were up on current events and pop culture (well-informed), and that they all passed polygraphs and had impeccable reputations for honesty? Would you believe that they were correct then? I wouldn't, and I dare say that you wouldn't either.

If different *well informed* people tell you that Saudi Arabia defeated Argentina in the last world soccer cup, would you accept that as good convincing evidence?

No, but it seems you would if they were well-informed and not known to be liars. That's not good enough for a critical thinker.

If someone is just lying and making up stories, that person is unlikely to invent lies that would go against their purpose.

Disagree. A smart liar commonly does that. If you want to cheat on your income taxes, make sure to add a few lies that cost taxes not actually owed to show the auditor down the road if it becomes necessary to "prove" that you are prone to honest errors.

For example Jews form that time expected messiah to be a warrior, a strong leader that would free them form their enemies (rome)-……….. so anyone making up stories would have invented a “warrior-hero messiah” not a crucified messiah.

Paul didn't have a warrior messiah. Nobody in his day fit the OT description. You have to work with the would-be messiah you have, not the one you wish you had, and you can trust that future generations will overlook the discrepancies once they have chosen to believe.

the fact that most of the verifiable claims are true, strongly suggest that most of the story is correct.

That's irrelevant because it's not enough. We need the claims of miracles verified, not that Nazareth or Pilate actually existed.

 

[leroy]

I'm sorry but this "criteria for embarrassment" is itself, an embarrassment. It's not a good argument and it's basically almost exclusively used to by people trying to convince themselves that the fantastical claims of the Bible are true.

​

My best bet is that you are missundertanding the criteria of embarasment, I am pretty sure you even use it in your daily life.

All the criteria says is that usually when someone lies in a testimony, they would lie for the sake of their own benefit or the benefit of their case.

People are unlikelly to lie, if such a lis is counterproductive and goes agaisnt their purpose.

For example if you find some headphones for sale on Ebay, and the publisher is telling you that the product is a little bit broken and that the sound doesn’t work on one side, you might conclude that the publisher is an honest seller, because he is including stuff in his descripition that makes the product harder to sale.

¿why would someone invent that the product is broken, why would a seller lie about it?

This is almost a tautology, ofcouse one would not lie if such a lie harms his case and his purposes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@It Aint Necessarily So
is not arguing that miracles are impossible (therefore they are a possibility)

But he can always correct me, I am not like you , I don’t have problems with admitting my mistakes

No, he is merely not arguing that miracles are impossible. That is not the same thing at all as claiming that they are possible. We do not even know if they are possible or not. But there is a problem with using miracles in an argument. A miracle is an event that is seen as such a low possibility (and yes, zero could be a how possible that a miracle is, that any natural explanation beats it. "It had to be a miracle" is a very very poor argument to use.

Well I will simply repeat the argument that you keep ignoring

We know that the authors of the gospels where well informed, because most of the verifiable claims that they make are true.

No I am not ignoring that. I have never ignored that. That is a claim of yours. The burden of proof is upon you and all that you have been able to show is that that is not the case. You do not "know" that. You only believe that. To claim to know it you would need to be able to demonstrate it.

Sounds like you have another opportunity to support your claims. (read the big letters)

The argument that I provided in support of the claim that the authors are being honest is that they are reporting events and stuff that went against their motives and agenda (criteria of embarrassment)

Wrong again. You are forgetting how badly you lost the debate about the two different birth dates of Jesus in the two Nativity myths. I supported my claims, you had no answers except for "what ifs". That is not a refutation to a rational argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My best bet is that you are missundertanding the criteria of embarasment, I am pretty sure you even use it in your daily life.

All the criteria says is that usually when someone lies in a testimony, they would lie for the sake of their own benefit or the benefit of their case.

People are unlikelly to lie, if such a lis is counterproductive and goes agaisnt their purpose.

For example if you find some headphones for sale on Ebay, and the publisher is telling you that the product is a little bit broken and that the sound doesn’t work on one side, you might conclude that the publisher is an honest seller, because he is including stuff in his descripition that makes the product harder to sale.

¿why would someone invent that the product is broken, why would a seller lie about it?

This is almost a tautology, ofcouse one would not lie if such a lie harms his case and his purposes.

No, the "criteria of embarrassment" only shows that people trying to defend the Gospels do not even have a clue as to what makes a good story.

It is one of the weakest arguments that believer can use since it only shows that they are almost illiterate.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Why do Christians hate the truth so much?

I don't see it this way.

Some accept that the concept is fuzzy at best when speaking on things of faith. Their inner 'truths' need not align with others' subjective truths.
Other's try to postulate that the only truth is within the scripture and the truth is only found through the individual this thread is about.
Then there are the few who would use the scripture as a hammer and a skewed concept of truth as justification for malevolent deeds.

It would seem they are quite willing to accept the truth, if you would ask me.

 

[timothy1027]

Religions worldwide are all based on evidence-free ancient mythology which is obsolete & unverifiable. I think that humanity societies would be improved if all religions were replaced with logic, reason, and critical thinking.

 

[leroy]

No, he is merely not arguing that miracles are impossible. That is not the same thing at all as claiming that they are possible. We do not even know if they are possible or not. But there is a problem with using miracles in an argument. A miracle is an event that is seen as such a low possibility (and yes, zero could be a how possible that a miracle is, that any natural explanation beats it. "It had to be a miracle" is a very very poor argument to use.

well
Concerning the low probabilities of miracles I would like to comment/ask 3 things

1 what exactly do you mean by “low” 49% 1% .000000000000001% I am not expecting an exact number, just a rage, so that I have an idea of what you mean by low

2 how do you know that the probability is “low”

3 well any intrinsic low probability can be trumped with sufficient evidence.

No I am not ignoring that. I have never ignored that. That is a claim of yours. The burden of proof is upon you and all that you have been able to show is that that is not the case. You do not "know" that. You only believe that. To claim to know it you would need to be able to demonstrate it.

Welll take for example the case of John the Baptist……….. all the verifiable claims that the gospels make about this guy are true.

I did supported my claim, I gave you a list of such claims. and I showed that Josephus makes the exact same cliams,

According to the gosples
1 John had a father named Zachariah
2 John was killed at the order of Herod
3 he was called "the baptis"
4 he was in prision

all this facts are confirmed independnently in josephus

so is that enough to convince you that the authors of the gosples where well informed about the life of John the Baptist?

if not, what else do you want?

Wrong again. You are forgetting how badly you lost the debate about the two different birth dates of Jesus in the two Nativity myths. I supported my claims, you had no answers except for "what ifs". That is not a refutation to a rational argument.

You haven’t supported your claim that there are other sources (apart form josephus) that confirm the date of the census.

You haven’t explained why should we trust Josephus over Luke

But even more important, even if you show that there are 2 or 3 mistakes in the gospels, it is still true that the gospels are correct in most of the verifiable claims that they make.


BTW I love the irony that you are supporting the 6AD date with a source that was not written by a witness and that claims miracles as real historical events.

So by your standards Josephus is not a valid source-.

 

[leroy]

No, the "criteria of embarrassment" only shows that people trying to defend the Gospels do not even have a clue as to what makes a good story.

It is one of the weakest arguments that believer can use since it only shows that they are almost illiterate.

How do you know that the criteria of embarrassment is weak if you clearly don’t understand it?

It is one of the weakest arguments that believer can use since it only shows that they are almost illiterate.

well, why do you say that?

 

[leroy]

Yes. It's also true that your inability to rule them in should force you to consider that they may be impossible.

For starters, we don't have even that. I don't know that anybody at all claimed to witness a resurrection. Nor do I know that these people never lied. But that's irrelevant to my argument. Let's stipulate to both of those. A dozen honest people said they saw a dead person revivify. That doesn't mean it happened. Why is this elusive to you? It seems that you can't conceive of them being incorrect. They can be. All it takes if for there to have been no resurrection - just an illusion.

Yes an illusion is a possibility among any others............. the question is amoung all the possibilities , which is the best explanation

I would argue that “a real resurrection” is a better explanation for the evidence that “illusions” if you disagree we can have a discussion on that……….. such that you try show that Illusions are a better explanation than “a real resurection” and do the opposite, (each accepting his part of the burden proof)

Disagree. A smart liar commonly does that. If you want to cheat on your income taxes, make sure to add a few lies that cost taxes not actually owed to show the auditor down the road if it becomes necessary to "prove" that you are prone to honest errors.

Excelent example

If your goal is to pay less taxes, why would you lie, and claim that you earned $10,000usd if in reality you only earned $5,000?

why woudl you lie about having a car if you dont have any? (assuming that you have to pay taxes for owinig a car as in mexico)

If you are doing your taxes there are 2 possibilities

1 you will tell the truth and pay as much as you should

2 lie so that you would pay less

…. Nobody would lie to pay more. Or at least it is unlikely

That is the criteria of embarrassment, people are unlikely to lie if this lie goes against your purpose

Paul didn't have a warrior messiah. Nobody in his day fit the OT description. You have to work with the would-be messiah you have, not the one you wish you had, and you can trust that future generations will overlook the discrepancies once they have chosen to believe.

Yeeeeeeeeeeessssss that is exacly my point,

If Paul would have been liar and make things up, he would have had described the messiah such that he fits perfectly with the OT and messianic expectations.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I don't see it this way.

Some accept that the concept is fuzzy at best when speaking on things of faith. Their inner 'truths' need not align with others' subjective truths.
Other's try to postulate that the only truth is within the scripture and the truth is only found through the individual this thread is about.
Then there are the few who would use the scripture as a hammer and a skewed concept of truth as justification for malevolent deeds.

It would seem they are quite willing to accept the truth, if you would ask me.

I don't think they are. Their propensity it seems to me is to run away from facts like 1. there is no historical evidence for Jesus 2. the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses 3. the Bible is riddled with serious flaws that no God would allow to happen who wanted people to believe his son was the savior of mankind.

What's your response to these three facts?

 

[Colt]

“At the time of the writing of the New Testament, the authors not only most profoundly believed in the divinity of the risen Christ, but they also devotedly and sincerely believed in his immediate return to earth to consummate the heavenly kingdom. This strong faith in the Lord’s immediate return had much to do with the tendency to omit from the record those references which portrayed the purely human experiences and attributes of the Master.” UB 1955

 

[Subduction Zone]

well
Concerning the low probabilities of miracles I would like to comment/ask 3 things

1 what exactly do you mean by “low” 49% 1% .000000000000001% I am not expecting an exact number, just a rage, so that I have an idea of what you mean by low

You really have no clue? Then you should not be using that argument. I already explained that to you in that post. Once again, a miracle is something with odds so unlikely that an rational explanation, no matter how weak, beats it. One does not need a numerical value for that.

2 how do you know that the probability is “low”

That would depend upon the supposed miracle.

3 well any intrinsic low probability can be trumped with sufficient evidence.

And strike three and you are out. Remember, you need to act like an honest interlocutor. If you cannot do so simply do not respond.

Welll take for example the case of John the Baptist……….. all the verifiable claims that the gospels make about this guy are true.

So what? That is just the spiderman argument. The "verifiable claims" about him are extraordinarily mundane.

I did supported my claim, I gave you a list of such claims. and I showed that Josephus makes the exact same cliams,

According to the gosples
1 John had a father named Zachariah
2 John was killed at the order of Herod
3 he was called "the baptis"
4 he was in prision

So what. Spider man lives in New York City. He likes the Chrysler building. There are many tall buildings in Manhattan. A LOT of people live there.

all this facts are confirmed independnently in josephus

so is that enough to convince you that the authors of the gosples where well informed about the life of John the Baptist?

if not, what else do you want?

It appears that they only knew of the man. That is not unexpected for a historical figure. You need a much higher standard.

You haven’t supported your claim that there are other sources (apart form josephus) that confirm the date of the census.

Yes, and I explained them to you.

You haven’t explained why should we trust Josephus over Luke

I never did. You are now using a strawman argument. He gave a date and an explanation. That actually makes him more reliable than Luke because the explanation that Luke gave was bogus. And that was explained to you. So actually in this case Josephus was more reliable. Once again, we know the earliest when that census could have taken place. That was explained to you. And that did not rely solely on Josephus. Josephus only explained what was happening from a Jewish perspective. Some Jews rebelled against that census. Do not make the mistake of assuming that the only historian from that time was Josephus, He is trusted when it comes to history because his accounts matched those of others at his time. We do not see that with the author of Luke.

But even more important, even if you show that there are 2 or 3 mistakes in the gospels, it is still true that the gospels are correct in most of the verifiable claims that they make.

No, you cannot assume that because other outrageous claims were not shown to be false that they are true. Logic does not work that way. When it comes to the testable claims the Gospels all fail. If they are tested against each other they fail because they have serious discrepancies they fail since they invoke magic quite often, you could not prove that with Josephus, one possible passage is not "quite often". When tested by an method except for extreme confirmation bias the Gospels fail.

BTW I love the irony that you are supporting the 6AD date with a source that was not written by a witness and that claims miracles as real historical events.

So by your standards Josephus is not a valid source-.

No, you had to scramble to find one such supposed claim. And even worse, you had no link to the source. An inability to debate properly is why you lose debates and remove any need for others to respond to what appear to be dishonest questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that the criteria of embarrassment is weak if you clearly don’t understand it?

LOL!! As usual it is the other way around. If you understood it you would see how bogus it is. You are once again relying on confirmation bias.

well, why do you say that?

Because a literate person will have read quite a bit of fiction. They will know that there is nothing more boring than an invincible hero. We do not see stories of truly invincible heroes lasting the millennia. The best stories have the hero almost failing. In fact often apparently failing, and then somehow overcoming that right at the end. We see it with Harry Potter, We see it with the Jesus story. We see it with Hercules and just about any other great mythic figure. All of those characters had traits which would mee the standard of the argument from embarrassment. The only thing that is embarrassing about that is the argument itself.