Horatio Parker

Plato and Socrates were historical, but his dialogues were not historical events.

JonA

Not precisely. There is no evidence that the followers were even around at the time Jesus would have been executed. And the killing of individual 'prophets' serves as the lead up to what became the all-out war of the Jewish revolt in the latter part of the first century.

As far as can be discerned, the Jesus movement was indistinguishable from Judaism in its earliest years. Being inconspicuous his hardly evidence for fabrication: inconspicuousness is rather what we'd expect from any start-up religious movement.

Of course any explanation will leave questions to be answered. The issue is whether it answers more of the important questions than another explanation, and whether it is more or less probable.

The Jesus myth hypothesis leaves plenty unexplained itself, such as the cause behind the Messianic-mindset redefinition of the early sect. In my opinion, and in that of many scholars, this is a question that is far too great to ignore, and one for which the best answer is: failed messiah.

Oh no; that would be ridiculous. As a miracle, whether it happened or not, there would be little way to actually address the matter from an historical perspective. I personally don't think the resurrection is at all important to the matter of an historical Jesus, however; for me, the most important defining criteria for an historical Jesus are:

• Preacher/teacher/etc., likely apocalyptic, whose followers believed him to be the Messiah during his lifetime
• A 100% absolute failure to live up to the Messianic expectations (executed by the Romans)

I believe there is much more we can say about Jesus, but understand that this is just icing on the cake for the issue of an actual historical Jesus or not.

This is one of those things that I mentioned in the post above. There are a lot of 'your argument just isn't good' claims in this thread, but there aren't many attempts to point out why that is the case. And I believe that both sides of the discussion have been guilty of this.

So, I have to ask: What are the things I am balancing, and what are the things you think I should be balancing, and why?

Not a statistician here, but if it comes to the library I may read it.

Still tackling your other link.

Jon

ApostateAbe

I think 90% is a very low estimate, actually. We really do have only a trifling few texts from that period, the bulk of it being the Christian writings. There were plenty of other writings--some people made a living by writing--but the problem was that ancient papyrus was not like the paper of today. It decayed quickly. Anything contained on papyrus would be lost within a small number of years, unless it was (1) copied, (2) quoted or (3) preserved through burial. If it was quoted or copied, then of course just one copy is not enough--it took many continuous generations of copyists lasting through the centuries. And, of course, the only such inter-generational institutions that would do such a thing are the Christian churches. Other institutions in some time periods also contributed, such as Islam. It is not as though Christians actively excluded writings they didn't like in order to maliciously rewrite history. It was a passive thing. They copied the writings that they wanted to preserve, filled with their myths and biases, of course, and almost all of the other writings perished because the next generation didn't care enough about them. So, instead of 90% (all but 1 in 10), I would say more on the order of 99.99% (all but 1 in 10000) of all writings from the first century were lost. Not that we can possibly have more than a wild guess.
That would seem to be a very optimistic estimate, in my opinion. If it can be shown that historicity really is clearly the most probable conclusion, I figure it would take an eternity to convince the lion's share of Jesus-minimalists. And Richard Carrier's proposed method of getting there certainly gives me no hope. Bayes' theorem requires numerical probability values, and it is absolutely useless for historical decision-making where all of the evidences are by their nature subjectively-interpreted and the arguments are necessarily subjectively-evaluated. The best we can do is to say that one theory is better than another, but Bayes' Theorem does not have more than or less than statements. It has merely statements of equality, and it requires each premise to have a numerical probability ratio. How do you estimate the numerical probability of what an ancient author had in mind when he wrote any given thing? Richard Carrier is trying to walk to India, and, unfortunately, he is starting on that long odyssey with a shovel and pickaxe. It makes sense to Carrier because it is the way to travel along the shortest distance.

dog-on

Jon, how many of the Hebrew prophecies, viewed as Messianic by Christians are veiwed as Messianic by Jews?

Perhaps you can start with Isaiah, since he's a Christian favorite.

Doug Shaver

I'm pretty sure I've summarized my defense of ahistoricity in this forum a few times over the years. And, there is nothing exotic about my argument. If you have been paying attention to what your adversaries here have been saying, then you know my reasons, even if you don't know for certain that they are the same reasons I use.

Furthermore, if you have trouble distinguishing between the reasons employed by myself and most ahistoricists, and the nonsense spouted by the likes of mountainman and aa5874, then one thing you have not been doing is paying attention to your adversaries.

About 10 years ago, I posted an article on my Web site -- http://dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor/ahistor1.htm -- arguing against Jesus' historical existence. I have tweaked it a couple of times since then, but it now needs an extensive revision in light of additional research I have done over the past decade. Nevertheless, in overall substance it is still consistent with my thinking, and so I'm leaving it as it is until I get around to doing the revision.

Toto

There's no actual evidence that Jesus existed or that he had followers, but if you assume the bare bones of the Christian story, Jesus had a lot of followers, came to Jerusalem, did something in the Temple, and then was arrested and put on trial. If the Romans had wanted to arrest him, the easiest way would have been after he caused a riot at the Temple, which would have allowed them to take in a lot of followers, or more likely, slaughter them. The gospel story has the disciples separated from Jesus from his arrest until after the crucifixion, but I suspect most scholars would not stand up for the historicity of that part of the story.

Are you claiming that has something to do with the Jesus story?

As someone said, the invisible and the non-existent look a lot alike.


This assumes that some Jews were originally looking for a Messiah, found Jesus, and then when he failed, they redefined the concept of a Messiah. This assumes the problem that it solves.

You were the one who brought up balancing, as if you had to give up some probability to gain explanatory power. I don't see a need for balance at all.

ApostateAbe

Great, thanks. I will review it and write about it, and that may help to guide your revisions.

aa5874

Please, do not even think of mentioning my name. You don't even know what you are talking about.

I just don't ACCEPT the NONSENSE you BELIEVE. I DON'T ACCEPT the SUB-LUNAR theory.

Jesus was MYTH because he was described as a MYTH in Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1-12 and 1 Cor 15.

It makes FAR MORE sense to USE the ACTUAL evidence that describes Jesus as MYTH than to claim Jesus was crucified in the SUB-LUNAR when the Child of the Holy Ghost was crucified on earth, in Jerusalem, in the very same NT Canon.

I ONLY SPOUT the evidence provided by the CANON of the Church and in the very Canon Jesus, the Child of a Ghost, was CRUCIFIED on earth.

Now, tell me what do YOU SPOUT? Sub-lunar?

Mt 1:18 - Mr 15:1 - I deal with ACTUAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE PRESENTED by the CANON of the CHURCH.

You appear to be SPOUTING Opinions of the Sub-lunar.

In the NT CANON, Jesus, the Child of the Ghost was NOT crucified in the Sub-lunar that is why it is claimed some one even carried the CROSS.

Mt 27:32 - Again, a SUB-LUNAR crucifixion of Jesus is HERESY and cannot be found in the NON-HERETICAL writings of the CANON.

Please use the actual written evidence from the Canon which describes Jesus as a the Child of a Ghost and the actual written evidence where ACTED as a Ghost instead of SPOUTING OPINIONS of the Sub-lunar in your "AHISTORICITY of Jesus"

MY theory that Jesus was MYTH is SOLIDLY supported by an ABUNDANCE of ACTUAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE from Antiquity not from hypothetical "Q" or supposed evidence that has NEVER been found.

mountainman

Hi Doug,

If Jesus was not historical then what's the problem with him being invented for the sake of the unity of Constantine's 4th century Roman Empire? The evidence seems to fit the conjecture.


Who was buried as the 13th apostle?
Who considered himself to be Bishop of Bishops?
Who first published the bible widely to the "Gentiles"?
Who legislated laws on behalf of the religion?
Who's army fought for the religion?
Who burned Plato and Euclid while replicating the bible?
Who got rid of the opposition religious influences?


Happy revising.
Best wishes,


Pete

JonA

I can't think of any. Perhaps there are ones that Christians view as being fulfilled at the 'second coming'; but none that I'm aware of relating to the historical Jesus.

I don't think Jesus fulfilled any of the Messianic prophecies. As messiahs go, Jesus was a total failure.

Jon