Amigos:

My apologies for another thread on this, but they keep closing the other ones.

It is not the case that the scholarly consensus on Jesus's existence is the result of pro-Christian bias amongst academic historians, as has been claimed on the board. As RFM poster Jane Eliot pointed out the other day, academic historians have every incentive to do good, solid research. From many different walks of life, they come to the same conclusion about the existence of Jesus simply because that is what the evidence indicates.

For yet another summary of that evidence by an academic historian, e.g., http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

HOWEVER:

Since it seems to be (inexplicably) important to a number of RFM posters here to believe that Jesus did *not* exist, even though that requires ignoring crucial evidence with a kind of David Irving-like fervour, impugning pretty much every historian on the planet, rejecting all of our most reliable methods of assessing historical evidence, and positing the most implausible historical scenarios...go ahead.

After all, most people need myths to live by (and by "myth", I mean here "a belief about the world which, despite its demonstrable falsity, for some reason or other, helps meet someone's need for meaning and identity"). Those are nothing to shake a stick at. It very well might be - actually, it clearly is - just as important for someone here to believe that the existence of Jesus was a kind of mass, waking hallucination, or the result of a huge 1st century conspiracy between Roman historians, Galileans, and anti-Christian Jews, as it is for Jim and Jenny Jensen of the Murrayville 832nd Ward to believe that "The Book of Mormon is true!".

So...believe it then.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 04:02PM by Tal Bachman.

Major straw argument, Tal.

It's not about believing that there was no historical Josh Josephson, it's about acknowledging that the evidence at hand is just not sufficient to justify a belief in the existence of a historical jesus.

I, personally, am reserving judgment until something compelling shows up other than the arguments from ignorance I keep seeing like, "where else would the stories have come from?", or "there would be no christian religion without a christ character", or "who were all these people writing about then?"

So far all the arguments I've seen for a historical Josh Josephson would require me to believe in Hercules too...

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It's not about believing that there was no
> historical Josh Josephson, it's about
> acknowledging that the evidence at hand is just
> not sufficient to justify a belief in the
> existence of a historical jesus.

Well, kind of. Actually it's both. Some posters assert a lack of belief based on the evidence, but other posters assert an alternative theory for the rise of Christianity, the "mythicists" if you will.

That is two different things and best kept separate.

Kolobian: As the article indicates, there is sufficient evidence that Jesus was a real guy.

Deny it if you want, if that's your thing.

Agreed and it is ridiculous that uninformed posters with no background in history can mock world renowned scholars and assert they are all biased Christian apologists with not one iota of proof. On top of that, not one of them offers a plausible theory of the origins of Christianity. Hell, some of them still think believing Jesus existed means he was divine or that if he wasnt divine, he wasnt important.Hell, you dont have to be divine to influence history. As Tal said, believe what you want, but your lies, assumptions and mockery of scholarship makes you look like ignorant yahoos.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 06:20PM by bona dea.

I take no position on Jesus as a historical figure, other than that as an atheist I REALLY doubt he had any special powers. Therefore if there IS an original Jesus figure I doubt he's much like he's portrayed.

I am pointing out that an alternative explanation for the origins of Christianity isn't necessary---just like we don't have to account for where every line of the Book of Mormon came from to throw it out.

If you have the minority postion and this , you have the burden of proof. Having an alternative theory would help. Occam's razor, anyone?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 06:20PM by bona dea.

The burden of proof falls to the person making a claim, not the minority position.

I will agree that a more likely explanation (invoking Occam's razor) can be useful, but it's not necessary to prove something untrue. (Note I don't claim to have proved anything untrue; I'm objecting to you saying it must be true until a better explanation is provided.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 05:16PM by Xyandro.

Mythicists are
making a claim and a very fringe claim at that and they therefore have the burden of proof. r

What claim exactly am I making? (If you'll look back, you'll see "I take no position on Jesus as a historical figure".)

That there may or may not have been a man (now called Jesus) who was the foundation of the Christian religion? Not much of a claim.

Or was it my claim that he likely didn't have super powers? There are billions on people, past and present, none of them have EVER proved they have super powers. Saying he had no powers isn't much of a claim either.

What am I supposed to prove?

Edit to add:

Your position that "Mythicists" have to prove Christ DIDN'T exist is illogical. It's the same as telling ex-Mormons to prove Smith DIDN'T see God. Can't be done.

Also, trying to dismiss them as a "fringe claim" is an appeal to popularity.

People who believe in a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. To their credit, they've uncovered multiple things that could be evidence. I've yet to review them because I simply don't care: even if they can prove he existed, I really doubt they'll prove he was magical.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 05:45PM by Xyandro.

I said mythicists, not Xyandro



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 06:21PM by bona dea.

Oh, ok. In that case, ignore the stuff that was about me personally, and only read the "Edit to add" part.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed and itnis ridiculous that uninformed
> posters with no background in history can mock
> world renowned scholars...

I'm disgusted by your constant ad-hominems. Your dismissal of anyone who doesn't agree with you as "uninformed" is both fallacious and insulting. It's also false.
And as has been pointed out to you dozens of times, your fallacious appeals to authority are also worthless -- "world renowned scholars" can be and often are wrong, and there is NOTHING wrong with challenging them, their methods, and their conclusions. In fact, many if not most of the "world renowned scholars" you keep referring to but never name *welcome* challenges, debate, and new perspectives.

And I am through with you and your attacks on me. How many have there been over this debate? A lot. I am no longer responding to you and I would appreciate them same from you.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And I am through with you and your attacks on me.
> How many have there been over this debate? A lot.
> I am no longer responding to you and I would
> appreciate them same from you.

There have been no attacks on you, just on your claims.
You are the one who has been calling people names.
Your posts are full of errors, fallacies, personal attacks, and outright lies, then you get angry because people point them out.
At least be honest enough to admit it -- go read your own posts.

This post proves my point. Good bye

Tal: There is sufficient evidence for you and many many others to believe that Jesus was a real guy. There is not sufficient evidence for Kolobian and people like me to believe.

I do not deny the evidence. I just do not find it sufficient to believe in it. It is my thing or in other words I choose to only believe when there is sufficient evidence.

I find taking this position is much different than most of those that believe the Book of Mormon is a historical record. Most that believe the Book of Mormon is historical do so without the knowledge of the facts and evidences that show it is not historical. The position I take is not done in ignorance as you seem to suggest that is the only possible way one could reach such a conclusion.

I am perfectly fine with you and others believing in a historical Jesus. It does not bother me in the least. What does bother me is the dogmatic approach that anyone that does not believe like you is ignorant. It probably bothers me so much because I used to behave this way as a TBM. I may still have streaks of this behavior, but I would like to break it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 05:09PM by dupsterfnuberdork.

We've been dancing around it for weeks, so let's just say it.

Sometimes you can take the boy out of Mormonism, but you just can't take Mormonism out of the boy.

:)

These people sound like Mormons mocking scientists who believe in evolution.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We've been dancing around it for weeks, so let's
> just say it.
>
> Sometimes you can take the boy out of Mormonism,
> but you just can't take Mormonism out of the boy.

This has nothing to do with mormonism.
Rather than address the issues, all you seem to want to do is cast aspersions (implying irrationality because of having been a mormon in this case) on those who disagree with you.

Ad-hominems are fallacies for a reason -- they're worthless, and the last resort of those who don't have any valid arguments.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HOWEVER:
>
> Since it seems to be (inexplicably) important to a
> number of RFM posters here to believe that Jesus
> did *not* exist...

No "belief" is required to not believe those who claim an historical "Jesus" existed.

> even though that requires
> ignoring crucial evidence with a kind of David
> Irving-like fervour

No ignoring of evidence is required, as the "evidence" that is claimed is disputed as to validity *even among those who think an historical "Jesus" is likely. Nor any fervor. Just an honest evaluation of the *claimed* evidence.

> After all, most people need myths to live by...

There's no foundation for *that* claim, either. That many, maybe even most, humans *like* myths, that doesn't indicate any "need," and NOT believing the claims about an historical "Jesus" isn't "believing a myth" anyway.

Once again, all you've done is claim the evidence is overwhelming, when it's not -- and even many of the "historicists" agree that's the case. Then claim that not believing something is a belief, when it isn't. Then call those with rational, informed doubts names.

It seems you're the one with "fervor" here. Why does it bother you so much that people reasonably doubt claims that even YOUR favorite "scholars" agree can't demonstrate any certainty? Why is it SO important to you that we go along with "the scholarly consensus," when there are very good, reasonable reasons to doubt the consensus, the evidence used for it, and the reasoning behind it?

Dupster:

It is interesting you should bring that up, because all I have seen on the board from those championing the "Jesus never actually existed" position is dogmatism in the form of brute denial. That I have seen, no denialist has even properly acknowledged the evidence which has compelled a consensus amongst academic historians, let alone attempted to grapple with it - let alone explained it away successfully.

What we are left with is a bunch of people who seem have a deep-seated need to believe in an extremely implausible, if not demonstrably impossible, proposition - a need so strong that it motivates people to dismiss the relevant evidence prior to conscientious assessment, outrightly mock it without understanding it, and even impugn the scholastic skills and objectivity of virtually every academic historian on earth. The similarities between this approach, and the approach of people who need to keep believing in Mormonism, should be too obvious to mention...

I mention this only to note a curious feature of human psychology, not because I have any personal investment whatsoever in whether Jesus lived or not, or the religion which carries his name.

Most of them.havent even bothered to read it as is apparent from some comments.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For yet another summary of that evidence by an
> academic historian, e.g.,
> http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cu
> ltures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jes
> us-exist/

By the way, that's not a very good choice to link to when claiming "there's no christian bias." Re: Lawrence Mykytiuk:

He works as a librarian, not an historian. His sole published paper appeared in the "Journal of Religious and Theological Information." His degrees are in Theology, Hebrew & Semitic studies (as well as library science). He's an avowed christian, who has stated that he believes that archeology (though he's not an archeologist) "can and does strenghten the claims of historicity of the bible."

He's one of the people Michael Dever was referring to when he said:
"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so." From the beginnings of what we call biblical archaeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archaeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archaeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archaeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people."
"Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence. I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information..."


Finally, his arguments in that article ignore critical work, even that which has been accepted as valid by other "historical scholars."

For example, "Tacitus’s terse statement about “Christus” clearly corroborates the New Testament on certain historical details of Jesus’ death." One reason he thinks that is, "Tacitus presents four pieces of accurate knowledge about Jesus: (1) Christus, used by Tacitus to refer to Jesus, was one distinctive way by which some referred to him..." While he admits he doesn't know what Tacitus' sources are, he assumes Tacitus got his "confirming" information from Roman records, because of their "accuracy."

As others have pointed out, though, no Roman records were at all likely to refer to a criminal executed under Pilate by a religious honorific. And at no time in the NT is Pilate told that Jesus went by or should be called "Christus." Roman records would have read Yeshua ben Joseph, or something similar. That Tacitus is shown using "Christus" indicates that either his source was a christian of his time (and he was well known for not checking information given to him by sources), which would mean he's only writing what Christians *believed,* or that the "Christus" is a later addition to what he really did write (and which we don't have). The validity of the Tacitus reference is not "settled," and is debated even among the "historicists," for that and other problems. Notice though, that he mentions none of this in his article -- he just declares Tacitus a valid, reliable source.
Honest, scholarly historians don't skip details and research that cast doubt on a reference -- he does. Whether he did that out of "Christian bias" or just sloppiness, I can't tell.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 06:51PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Not all that argue against the claim that historic Jesus DID exist are claiming that historic Jesus DID NOT exist.

Some are only arguing that the evidence does not support the claim that Historic Jesus did exist.

For EXAMPLE, People bring up Josephus as if what Josephus wrote about Jesus was true. Well, Josephus may have thought what he heard was true, but was what he heard fiction or non-fiction? We simply do not know. Either fiction or non-fiction explain what Josephus claimed so long as Josephus believed it.

Josephus does not give us enough context to determine the validity or his source. Thus, Josephus' unsupported claim proves nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 06:52PM by MJ.

Is the Tacitus quote supposed to be taken as a literal historical account?
To me it sounds like an explanation of why the Christians call themselves "Christian". I would not call this "strong evidence", especially given the time between when Jesus was supposedly executed and Tacitus wrote the account of why Christians got the name.

At best I would call this "hearsay"

Confirmation Bias in action.

I read the link posted on the OP. The journal is a well known apologetic journal which attempts to mitigate the flow of evidence archeology is digging up on biblical topics. The author is a scholar of library science/history, which is not really relevant to his argument, but since historicists love to dismiss mythicist argument on those grounds, i am noting that point.

I looked up his credentials because he didn't address a number of issues which i have seen discussed by actual historians and biblical scholars. Like the distinction between Chrest/Chrestians and Christ/Christians. And that Tacitus was writing in 115 - well after Christian writings were in circulation. All those sources were writing well after the Christian cult was well established with its developing history and writings. Pliny even gives his source as a Christian woman.

Regardless of arguments over Christian interpolation, or interpretation, the late date is suspect unless we know the ancient historian was using an earlier source. Which we don't, for the unambiguous Jesus references.

I suggest this link as a start for anyone genuinely interested in all the arguments, not ones that just support their personal view.
http://vridar.org/2013/11/20/making-of-a-mythicist-ch-17-jesus-in-greco-roman-sources-general-conclusions/
Then go back and follow the series through. It is a review of Thomas Brodies book about his conversion to mythicism (he was a well qualified scholar and Catholic priest)

I personally don't think there is sufficient evidence either way, so your null hypothesis will determine your eventual stance.

Sure - Every single academic historian in the entire world with any interest in this period of time has completely misread and mis-evaluated the sources in precisely the same ways by accident, despite their trainings at many different universities, or is in on the same giant Christian conspiracy, even though most of them are not believing Christians.

Also, even though there is more evidence attesting to the existence of Jesus than there is for other historical figures whose existence no one denies (like Hannibal), that still doesn't constitute good reason to believe Jesus existed. In fact, even though the evidence means that far more leaps of faith and assumptions are necessary to believe that Jesus did *not* exist, than that he did, there is *still* not enough reason to believe he existed.

The game, as it turns out, is easy: when it comes to this question - but this question only - simply refuse to accept the evidence which exists, on grounds it does not meet a completely unrealistic standard which is not required in analogous cases.

Spanner - When I posted a similar summary written up by a devout atheist and member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and Australian Skeptics, that too was dismissed...

See for starters http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Harry Potter actually lived! I have read not just one, but seven books that prove that he actually lived. For some reason the history books of the period don't say much about Harry Potter, although there are a couple of pretty solid references to him. But common people usually don't make it into the history books. There is very little evidence that most people existed.

I do not understand why people are always getting on my case and insisting that Harry Potter did not exist. Why can't they just believe the evidence?