Did Jesus exist?

[athrock]

The empty tomb is easily explainable. They never would have put him a tomb in the first place. They'd have thrown him in a ditch after they were done killing a god.

Questions for you (with answers since you don't know them):

1. Do you have any historical evidence that indicates this was what was done with the body of Jesus? (NO.)
   
2. What did the Jewish leaders claim had happened to the body? (THAT IT WAS STOLEN BY THE DISCIPLES - NOT EATEN BY DOGS.)
   
3. And even if Jesus' body WAS thrown into a ditch and eaten by dogs or birds, how does this account for the appearances of Jesus as well as the conversions of many who were skeptical or even opposed to him BEFORE his death? (IT CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THESE THINGS.)
   

Your silly belief is an inadequate explanation of all of the information that is known about Jesus and the rise of the early Church. It lacks explanatory depth and scope.

[athrock]

This is the embarrassing details defense.  It seems important, informative.  The trouble is that it isn't.  It makes several fallacious appeals while begging the question.  Not only -do- people include embarrassing details, we don;t really know what those particular people would consider embarrassing, and none of this means anything unless we assume that some portions of this narrative are historical in the first place...precisely what we are trying to determine.

Proponents of mj and lj don't have a problem with an -anyman- around which detail was built.  That's a historical anyman, though, John Doe...not Historical Jesus.

I think we're close to understanding one another.  

As Irrational explained, the 'embarrassing details' defense is an indicator that the writers of the Gospels probably wouldn't have accepted certain details of the story, given that they changed so many other details as they saw fit.  It's not a matter of "they included it, but didn't have to, therefore it's history"  it's not even "they all included it, despite the fact they changed other details where they saw fit, therefore it's history".  It's "They all included it, despite the fact they changed other details where they saw fit, therefore they probably had some historical details they felt they couldn't change."  Now it's certainly possible that they didn't have any historical details at all.  It's not something we'll likely ever know.

What I'm suggesting is the -anyman- Jesus would be historical Jesus.  The Gospels are not historical.  They all have contradicting accounts (which is why it's believed that they probably were working with -some- historical details.  They contradicted each other, changed it as they saw fit.)  Now that doesn't mean Jesus the -anyman- is a Historical Fact (or that I think he is)  If there were an -anyman- Jesus then it's unlikely anyone would have wrote about him.  As stated earlier, he'd have basically been Harold Camping and Benny Hinn rolled into one.

As for the slaves of Egypt bit... it's possible that they were in fact slaves of Egypt at one point.  Or that some of them were, which is where the stories -- the myths -- came from.

Just like with Jesus -- them being slaves does not prove Exodus.  Nor does Jesus being crucified prove him to have done any of the claimed miracles.  Those would require much more proof, because they are things that would have certainly been written about.  All the first born sons of Egypt dying?  That would have been a significant event that someone would have recorded by other than whoever wrote down the stories of the Old Testament.   And certainly at least from an Egyptian Perspective.  There also would have been effects from it seen in History as well.

How about, "They included it because that's what actually happened"?

What is meant by the criterion of embarrassment?

It means that a potentially embarrassing or damaging detail is included (not because it benefits the case being made) but because it is true.

And you're right - the crucifixion doesn't prove that he performed miracles. The resurrection moves us toward belief that he did them. Provided that he really rose from the dead, of course.

[The Grand Nudger]

Now...wait a minute......what about "It really happened".......?

"Really" is too confident. "Likely" is a more pleasing word to my ears ... or eyes ...

You don't have a valid means of inference for either "really" or "likely" (and I still haven't seen any math....).......that's been the problem from the word go, and it's the only thing that you haven't addressed...despite spending plenty of time addressing irrelevancies.  All that you've suggested is that I loosen my standards and allow you to call an invalid inference "historical jesus".

What we have is a story, derided in it's own time as a superstition of the remarkably credulous, and subsequently discovered to be nothing less or more. There may be a man in there somewhere - or even many-, under all of that, but neither you nor anyone else has -ever- figured out a way to determine who or what that man was, they've simply coalesced around what they see as the least controversial set of claims they could make about a potential man. "Historical jesus" is a placeholder for nothing, no man, or anyman. Unless one of you HJers finds a way to make it otherwise, there's no difference in what you're doing than in discussing the "historicity" of a "possible personage" upon whom the character of darth vader was formed. Triumphantly declaring him "Historical Anakin".

Let me suggest that this, just like arguing the position by invalid inferences, falls well below the standards of history.

[athrock]

Maybe the authors deliberately included what may look like "embarresing details" in order to try and sneakily add credibility.

But I agree, I don't see how anyone can claim to know what would embarress an unknown author. And even if it did embarress them, I still don't see it as much of an argument. We're then assuming they are being dishonest enough to miss stuff out, to try and establish that they are actually being honest and we should believe what they say. Except, you know, they talk about a load of ridiculous shit that didn't happen as well. Kind of blows anyone's credibility for me, and I'd stick to what could actually be verified. I wouldn't take their word for squat.

The gospel writers were stupid enough to believe in fairy tales but smart enough to build in some embarrassing details to convince the rest of us?



True Story

In the early days of Mormonism, one of its leaders (Brigham Young, possibly), actually taught that the moon was inhabited by men who were six feet tall and dressed like Quakers. More recently, of course, astronomy and a few landings on the moon have demonstrated that to be false.

Confronted by the scientific evidence that the moon is not inhabited in the way his church leader had once taught, a modern-day Mormon actually suggested that perhaps the moon's inhabitants are living underground.

Pretty desperate, huh? But that's the kind of mental gymnastics people will perform to reduce the cognitive dissonance they feel when two things they believe to be true conflict.

You're doing the same thing, rob. 

Confronted by things in the gospels that meet the criterion of embarrassment, you desperately spin elaborate explanations to avoid the obvious possibility that the authors were simply telling what they knew to be true. But you can't admit that, because you've decided that the gospels are false and nothing will convince you otherwise.

So, while you claim to be for reason, logic, science, evidence and so forth, the fact of the matter is that you are so biased against the Bible and Christianity that you cannot possibly consider anything that goes counter to what you have already decided upon. Anything counter to your belief must be false.

Which is not exactly how good science is done, is it?

Pretty desperate, huh?

[athrock]

You might infer that the author was embarrassed by the contents, I'm being very generous...but what does that have to do with the historicity of the contents?

The criterion of embarrassment is one of the things that historians look for in order to ESTABLISH the historicity of the contents.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's nice.  And? Would -you- care to take a crack at how that's done in the case of jesus?

[Minimalist]

Aegon, your first mistake is assuming that Min is able to engage in rational discussion. I'm sure at least once in your lifetime you've seen those obnoxious Bible thumpers who stand on street corners, holding a microphone so as to talk louder than everyone with the goal that no one can penetrate their utterly dense and idiotic thoughts (They usually succeed at that too). Well, Min is sort of like an online atheist version - a male Chanty Binx. Among the few we have here, you'll observe that he's by far the worst.

We should all pray for him. Oh...wait...

We should all send warm thoughts his way.

Fuck you and your prayers.....asshole.

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

Kind of portrays him as just another lying politician.  Sure you want to go there?

[athrock]

That's nice.  And?  Would -you- care to take a crack at how that's done in the case of jesus?

You want me to reproduce a list of all the examples of embarrasing details contained in the gospels which might suggest that the authors were telling the truth without sugar-coating or glossing over the less than flattering bits?

Is this because you don't know them? Or do you want to see if I do?

[Aegon]

That's nice.  And?  Would -you- care to take a crack at how that's done in the case of jesus?

What specifically are you looking for? I've read a few pages in this thread now of how embarrassment is very present in the documents discussed and in the story of Jesus. What is it you want instead? Also...

Let me suggest that this, just like arguing the position by invalid inferences, falls well below the standards of history.

They do not. I've been saying this since the beginning. Standard of evidence for ancient historians is lower than you and everyone else supporting you realize. And when I finally beat that into someone's head, that person (I forgot who, may have been Min) then said, "Great, we don't know if [fabricated facetous name] may or may not have existed. Who cares!" But it matters, it matters a lot. Comparing Historical Jesus to other accepted historical figures without contemporary sources (Hannibal springs to mind) is crucial. I understand where that person is coming from; they think that the historicity of Jesus is more important than these other people I've spoken about so it demands more evidence. But that's not true. From an historical point of view it's a level playing field.  

I still have a lot to learn as a person. I'm still a student. But it's worth nothing that my undergraduate degree will be in History and I interact with historians every day, and I'm working on my undergraduate thesis with an historian. I've been taught how to think like an historian. That's why it's so frustrating to me to see people have these double standards with evidence. You're approaching it wrong. I have no desire to repeat why, because I've written longer posts earlier in the thread and I have no reason to try and say it all again. 

In the end, does it really matter? Would him existing versus him not existing make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things? No. Christians would still believe, atheists would continue not believing, and the world will continue spinning. But for historians whose concentration is in the Ancient Near East, yes, it matters quite a bit. And over the course of hundreds of years, the best scholars to come out of that area have gone on record saying that it adds up: there was most likely a preacher named Jesus who was executed. The details about him do not match any mythology concerning the Jewish Messiah. This is evidence from an historian's point of view and that's how history should be approached. This argument hasn't ever really been "Does Jesus exist?" but rather "Should we accept the prevailing theory concerning the historical Jesus?" And the evidence accepted by the scholarly community says: yes! But you and a few others disagree.

I will again compare historiography with scientific study. Historians have their practices and their standards of evidence. Scientists have their practices and their standards of evidence. Those two things are fundamentally different, but the irony is if you decide to look at the dissenting opinions in the scientific community about man-made global warming, funny enough you'll find arguments very similar to the ones presented in this thread against Historical Jesus. A couple of arguments such as...

-Even if there is a scientific consensus, questions are not decided by "consensus." (Argumentum ad Populum?)

-95 percent of climate change models proving global warming have been false* (your historical sources are bullshit?)

*http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz2t4gPo8iJ

So realize that you sound to me like climate change deniers sound to you.

With all that being said, I think I'm done with this topic. Please respond though, I will read your response and consider it, but I have no interest in posting on this topic any longer.

[Minimalist]

Historians must evaluate their sources.  If they know they have been edited how can they possibly trust them?