Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Redbeard The Pink]

What makes you qualified to decide what "hard evidence" means as opposed to actual serious historians like Ehrman?

When a historian says there is hard evidence, and he is qualified to make such a statement; then I'm inclined to believe there is hard evidence. Just like I believe Finkelstein in matters pertaining to ancient Palestine. I don't go and look for the crackpots at the extremes and then go and side with them when they claim that the evidence that the serious respected historians have is rubbish. If that's your argument then it's meaningless. If your argument really is that you think that the evidence that serious historians are interested in iss meaningless then perhaps tell me where I might find the hard evidence for the existence of Ned Kelly? Yes, OK they found his remains a few years ago and reburied them a couple of years ago, and they have a bust of him. Everything else is a written record. So that's just two pieces of what you would claim is "hard evidence" - and he only died 130 years ago. Perhaps you could tell me please what "hard evidence" we have that Shakespeare existed? What "hard evidence" do we have that Newton existed?

You aren't a qualified historian, and you aren't qualified to provide an answer for that. I'm not qualified either - all I'm qualified to do is quote the experts that are; and as I've shown you, they say there is hard evidence.

Ehrman is the guy stammering all over himself in that Youtube clip you played, right? I heard him say things like "you have to consider historical evidence," and "I think there is evidence to support the existence of Jesus," but he didn't really present very much if any of that, and his arguments were pretty dodgy and unreasonable. He sounded exactly like an apologist, actually. He just kind of said, "You have to consider the historical evidence, and there is historical evidence," and mostly left it at that. He may not have had time to go into more detail, but he barely went into any detail at all, really, which comes off as either not having the evidence or not knowing of any. He just kind of pussy-foots around what the actual evidence is and keeps using the "Well, why don't you just deny ALL historical claims?" argument.

In this vein, his mention of Abraham Lincoln is completely absurd and a false equivocation, as there is a significant difference in the kind and quality of the historical and physical evidence that Abraham Lincoln existed. There are photographs of Lincoln, people wrote about and recorded him while he was actually alive, we can theoretically go dig up his body and examine it to see if it's the remains likely belong to the man from the photos...it's just a whole different ballgame. He would have been better off sticking with older historical figures; Socrates comes up a lot in these debates, but he honestly has slightly more historicity than Jesus, as is true with many historical figures from both before and after Christ. Shakespeare, Newton...they both produced writings while they lived, people wrote about them and made images of them while they were supposed to have lived. There's also the annoying little fact that none of those people were said to have magic powers and resultantly were deified by roughly 30% of the globe, which immediately puts Jesus in an entirely different class than other alleged historical figures.

I also notice that historicists tend to throw the word "apostle" around as if ANY of the twelve disciples have any more historicity than Jesus, but it turns out they basically don't. Go figure.

[robvalue]

Bart Errrrrrrrman?

[Aractus]

Ehrman is the guy stammering all over himself in that Youtube clip you played, right? I heard him say things like "you have to consider historical evidence," and "I think there is evidence to support the existence of Jesus," but he didn't really present very much if any of that, and his arguments were pretty dodgy and unreasonable. He sounded exactly like an apologist, actually.  He just kind of said, "You have to consider the historical evidence, and there is historical evidence," and mostly left it at that. He may not have had time to go into more detail, but he barely went into any detail at all, really, which comes off as either not having the evidence or not knowing of any. He just kind of pussy-foots around what the actual evidence is and keeps using the "Well, why don't you just deny ALL historical claims?" argument.

In this vein, his mention of Abraham Lincoln is completely absurd and a false equivocation, as there is a significant difference in the kind and quality of the historical and physical evidence that Abraham Lincoln existed. There are photographs of Lincoln, people wrote about and recorded him while he was actually alive, we can theoretically go dig up his body and examine it to see if it's the remains likely belong to the man from the photos...it's just a whole different ballgame. He would have been better off sticking with older historical figures; Socrates comes up a lot in these debates, but he honestly has slightly more historicity than Jesus, as is true with many historical figures from both before and after Christ. Shakespeare, Newton...they both produced writings while they lived, people wrote about them and made images of them while they were supposed to have lived. There's also the annoying little fact that none of those people were said to have magic powers and resultantly were deified by roughly 30% of the globe, which immediately puts Jesus in an entirely different class than other alleged historical figures.

I also notice that historicists tend to throw the word "apostle" around as if ANY of the twelve disciples have any more historicity than Jesus, but it turns out they basically don't. Go figure.

Redbeard, with respect you've offered me no evidence, you haven't even pointed me to academic literature which would support your wild allegations.

Let's see if I can think of another example of trashing real history with unsubstantiated claims - ah yes. The internet has been buzzing with people everywhere saying that Adolf Hitler escaped the bunker and then fled on a submarine to Argentina. And they say that declassified FBI files prove it. In fact do a search on it and you will hear just about everyone on the internet saying "I think it's very likely that Hitler escaped", you can barely find any sceptics talking about why they think he might not have escaped.

But just because there are thousands of mindless unqualified quacks sharing their wild opinions on it doesn't mean diddly shit - you need to hear from actual bonafide WWII historians. And not a single one has come forward to say that Hitler might have escaped. Before the FBI files were declassified and released, WWII historians unanimously said absolutely no possibility that he escaped. They trashed the talk of him escaping as nonsense and not worth their efforts to discuss because the people making that claim aren't serious credible historians. And they still say the same thing.

The people making the claim do have a piece of evidence of course, it's just not nearly enough to convince anyone qualified that the claim is credible.

Now as for your argument about the historicity of the disciples - yes Jesus undoubtedly called disciples, but exactly who they were is well up to debate.

[Pizza]

http://boingboing.net/2015/02/25/tom-the...first.html
"And I have a scientist historian who disputes your theory."
"So it's really a toss up."

[Aractus]

Nice cartoon. Psst: historians can be scientists, and usually are since they follow the scientific process.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Nice cartoon. Psst: historians can be scientists, and usually are since they follow the scientific process.

Unless they're dealing with the existence of an ancient character, and then the paradigm seems to be to assume someone existed as long as someone wrote about them as if they existed. When the question is then raised as to whether that's a good way to determine if an ancient person existed, the cry immediately becomes, "What, are you just gonna deny ALL historical evidence for EVERYTHING? Do you think Hitler escaped and the Holocaust didn't happen, too? Are you just some conspiracy theorist quack? ARE YOU STUPID?!" That is some apologist, ad hominem, well-poisoning bullshit. If I wanted to listen to that, I'd track down Brother Micah's Open Air Campus Ministry and try to have a logical discussion with that loud-ass mother fucker.

I already said that my evidence is at least partly the same evidence that you're giving me. You have already seen my evidence, and you are accepting the consensus interpretation of that evidence mostly (from what I can tell) because it's the consensus claim. If the consensus claim were arrived at through anything resembling actual science (and if historicist atheists didn't instantly morph into apologists when the question of Jesus' historicity is raised), then I would have no problem with that. In this instance, that is not the case.

Besides, if you're even passingly familiar with Richard Carrier, then you're already more or less familiar with my take on this and how I arrived at my conclusion. There's an early non-canonical gospel called "The Ascension of Isaiah" whose earliest redactions seem to lack Jesus' visit to earth; his death and resurrection happen instead in the heavens and hells off in outer space somewhere. Looking at the handful of undisputed Epistles and Hebrews (which, again, was likely written by somebody who at least knew Paul), there is some indication that the story being referred to is this one and not the one with Jesus of Nazareth in it. There are some passages that challenge this theory, but those passages can also be interpreted to mean something other than what they're claimed to. "Brothers of the Lord" is a favorite of historicists, for instance, and yet they're forgetting that even still today, all Christian believers are often labeled as "brothers and sisters of/in Christ." That moniker is not new.

Jesus of Nazareth, as written in the Bible, very obviously did not exist and could not exist in a Universe governed by the physics we know. His magical powers preclude him from it. Because of this, he has to be either an original, fictional composition, or he must be based on a character that came before himself. There are roughly equivalent levels of evidence for the claims that he was based on an earlier fictional character, that he was based on one guy, and (maybe, again haven't looked deeply into it) that he was based on a handful of guys or a type of apocalyptic preacher. Until historicists have better evidence than any I've seen, it is perfectly reasonable for me to hold a position of non-belief concerning the historical existence of the Jesus of Nazareth character, just as it's perfectly reasonable for me to hold a position of non-belief concerning his invisible sky-daddy.

I don't really count books or journals as evidence. Those are presentations of and conclusions drawn from evidence, but they themselves are evidence only of the fact that the consensus among historians is for historicity, and as I've already stated for reasons I've already stated, I do not accept the consensus claim. Jesus doesn't get to hang with Julius Caesar and Socrates just because he was passed off as history during a time period when it was much easier to do that.

[Pizza]

I'd like to you mythicists actually defend your methodology.

[Minimalist]

The only evidence that the BJ or HJ crowd has are the self-serving...including edited/forged...writings of early believers.

That is worth next to nothing.

[Mudhammam]

The only evidence that the BJ or HJ crowd has are the self-serving...including edited/forged...writings of early believers.

That is worth next to nothing.

Well, not only is that false but you seem to have invented your own unscientific method for studying history. So, it's also ignorant.

[Aractus]

Unless they're dealing with the existence of an ancient character, and then the paradigm seems to be to assume someone existed as long as someone wrote about them as if they existed. When the question is then raised as to whether that's a good way to determine if an ancient person existed, the cry immediately becomes, "What, are you just gonna deny ALL historical evidence for EVERYTHING? Do you think Hitler escaped and the Holocaust didn't happen, too? Are you just some conspiracy theorist quack? ARE YOU STUPID?!" That is some apologist, ad hominem, well-poisoning bullshit. If I wanted to listen to that, I'd track down Brother Micah's Open Air Campus Ministry and try to have a logical discussion with that loud-ass mother fucker.

Um, do a Google search. Every man and his dog is claiming they think Hitler escaped - everyone is saying it all over the internet - everyone except the actual credible WWII historians that is. By comparison there is hardly anyone who's supporting the multiple-Jesus or Jesus-myth hypothesis... and all the credible historians are saying there was a single historical Jesus.

I already said that my evidence is at least partly the same evidence that you're giving me. You have already seen my evidence, and you are accepting the consensus interpretation of that evidence mostly (from what I can tell) because it's the consensus claim. If the consensus claim were arrived at through anything resembling actual science (and if historicist atheists didn't instantly morph into apologists when the question of Jesus' historicity is raised), then I would have no problem with that. In this instance, that is not the case.

There isn't a consensus on ancient history, and I don't think I ever used that word in this thread. There are however accepted facts. Things that historians feel have been demonstrated beyond doubt and on which most if not all of their peers agree upon. There are not very many facts that historians do agree upon - and even concerning the New Testament there are not very many things they agree upon. They agree that Jesus existed, that he was baptised by John, that he called disciples, and that he died by crucifixion. They also agree that Paul lived in the first century, that he knew the family of Jesus and that he wrote at least 6 letters.

You seem to claim that Scholars have a more specific scenario in mind, upon which to reach their consensus. And of course many do, however as it stands there isn't a consensus on much beyond the existence of Jesus and Paul, and a few other things as I mentioned above.

The historicity of Jesus fits within the broader domain of the historicity of the New Testament. To answer that question scholars consider the internal and external contiguity and consistency of the texts as well as determining (usually through textual criticism) whether the text was likely to have been written in the first century or not, and who could have written them. As you well know a handful of the 27 NT books are believed to have been written later in the second century. The example of Luke-Acts for instances demonstrates a two volume work by a single author - we don't know for certain that it's Luke, but it's a single author and written in the first century. From Acts 15 on the story switches to a contemporary narrative - the language changes and causes scholars to believe the author was indeed a contemporary to the events and probably a witness to many of them. In terms of historicity that would make Acts 15-28 more likely to be more accurate. But me the interesting thing is that Acts 28 ends in c. 62AD. It doesn't record a single interesting event that happens after 62AD. It has nothing to say about the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD. It doesn't say anything about the deaths of Paul, Peter, or James. As I mentioned before, Josephus does tell us that James is stoned to death right around 62AD - but Acts leaves it out. By no means is there a consensus on when Acts was written, other than to say it was certainly a fist century work.

Jesus of Nazareth, as written in the Bible, very obviously did not exist and could not exist in a Universe governed by the physics we know. His magical powers preclude him from it. Because of this, he has to be either an original, fictional composition, or he must be based on a character that came before himself. There are roughly equivalent levels of evidence for the claims that he was based on an earlier fictional character, that he was based on one guy, and (maybe, again haven't looked deeply into it) that he was based on a handful of guys or a type of apocalyptic preacher. Until historicists have better evidence than any I've seen, it is perfectly reasonable for me to hold a position of non-belief concerning the historical existence of the Jesus of Nazareth character, just as it's perfectly reasonable for me to hold a position of non-belief concerning his invisible sky-daddy.

I don't really count books or journals as evidence. Those are presentations of and conclusions drawn from evidence, but they themselves are evidence only of the fact that the consensus among historians is for historicity, and as I've already stated for reasons I've already stated, I do not accept the consensus claim. Jesus doesn't get to hang with Julius Caesar and Socrates just because he was passed off as history during a time period when it was much easier to do that.

That's a false argument. Just because he was said to have legendary abilities doesn't mean he himself as a human being didn't exist. As for your thing about "I don't really count books or journals as evidence." Good for you. Everyone else counts academic publications as evidence, which is why there was the controversy there was when the Wakefield et. al. 1998 article was published - since it became evidence for other researches to cite from. Of course it was fraudulent and 12 years later was retracted by the Journal, and anyone in the field worth their salt would know that - but anyone accessing the original Journal article out of ignorance would still think that it's credible evidence. FYI Dr Wakefield defends his position to this day:

http://youtu.be/RNPSP3K8X34

And note you just proved my point by saying that:


This is the evidence that you have:

1. The Gospels and Book of Acts.
2. The Writings of Paul.
3. The other New Testament writings with clear multiple authors from the first century.
4. The so-called heretical writings about Jesus.
5. Other non-church writings from the likes of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.
6. Modern academic publications including peer-review publications, and academic books and chapters.
6. Books published of questionable academic quality.