fleetmouse

I assume he had a human father because that's how babies are made.

ApostateAbe

Good points. Arguing with mythers would strike most people as a complete waste of time. It is a big waste of time, but not completely. It has caused me to develop a perspective, a philosophy of belief, that I could not have gained by arguing with Christian apologists. For example, mythers often speak in terms of quantity or quality of evidence. This means, if there is little evidence for a proposition, or if the evidence is of poor quality, then we don't believe the proposition. In fact, that is a perfectly normal way to judge propositions, the way most people think when arguing about anything. It is the perspective that mythers have, and I don't hold it against them, but I realized there is a problem with that. The quantity and quality of evidence for almost any proposition concerning the ancient world has low values--we have hardly anything left--but the quantity or quality of the evidence is not actually the most relevant concern. The most relevant concern is the ranking of probabilities of all competing propositions. More evidence or better evidence serves only to change the probabilities of one proposition relative to another.

The evidence for the historical existence of Jesus is not in low supply, but it is of low quality--we can't simply trust the earliest accounts about Jesus. However, the most relevant concern is the probability of the existence of Jesus, not merely the quality or quantity of the evidence. The most formidable competing explanation (there are others explanations) is that Jesus was merely a product of myth. The proposition that Jesus existed as a human being must be judged against the proposition that Jesus was merely myth, but this competing explanation likewise lacks high-quality evidence.

Depending only on the evidence we have and not the evidence we wish he had, the evidence is very much expected from the position that Jesus of the gospels was based on a historical human (given direct historical attestations to James the brother of Jesus and awkward myths about Jesus including failed prophecies, Nazareth, baptism by John, betrayal by a disciple and crucifixion), and the proposition is historically plausible. The best competing explanation has neither plausibility (we have no other example of a merely-mythical allegedly-human cult founder) nor explanatory power (it cannot explain the evidence without great difficulty). The quantity or quality of the evidence should be seen as relevant only when ranking the probabilities of all of the best explanations. The case for a historical Jesus is therefore a slam dunk.

ApostateAbe

Oh, I forgot to tell you, I simply ignore aa5874. I think of him like just a noisy forum parakeet.

aa5874

Ok. At least you are honest. You admit no evidence just assumptions.

Your lack of familiarity of Virgin Births in Greek/Roman mythology has been Exposed.

Perseus was born of a Virgin in Greek/Roman Mythology.

Dialogue with Trypho LXVII The NT is a compilation of Greek/Roman Myth Fables of a Son of a God called Jesus.

That's all.

Jesus is no different to Perseus--All Mythology.

Toto

That's why the mythicism argument is not a good debate tactic. Richard Carrier, who thinks that a mythical Jesus is the best explanation of the available evidence, tends to avoid claiming that in debates with Christians.

But that doesn't change the state of the evidence. The more you try to work with the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus, the more difficulties you see.

And Christian apologists seem to think that the only thing they need is a concession that there was a historical Jesus (which is proven by the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed.) If you grant them a historical Jesus, they will go on to ask, why would the disciples die for a lie? He must have been the Messiah! That argument will not work with you, but it will tend to keep some of their converts in line. (But what if it's true? You are risking your immortal soul!)

Toto

Unfortunately, you started out with the assumption that mythicists were wrong, and you invented reasons to hold to your belief.

When the quality and quantity of evidence is low, there is no reason to be more than agnostic.

We've gone through this before, and you have learned nothing. The earliest accounts about Jesus are not very early, and are worthless as historical sources.

Only if you refuse to read the actual evidence.

and how did that principle work for Donald Rumsfeld? It got him into a disastrous unwinnable war. Take heed.

You have made subjective evaluations of the evidence and turned a marginal case into a slam dunk.

Let's not go over this ground again. Wait for Richard Carrier's book for a professional evaluation of the evidence and probabilities.

ApostateAbe

Toto, sorry, what is the high-quality evidence that Jesus was merely myth?

Toto

The evidence is not "high quality" but it is of the same quality or better than the evidence for the historical Jesus. Earl Doherty has written a few books on it.

Or you could just read the gospels as they are written, without assuming that they reflected real historical events and throwing out the mythical elements.

ApostateAbe

Gotcha. I thought you disagreed with me when I said that "...this competing explanation likewise lacks high-quality evidence," but you actually seem to agree.

outhouse

+1