Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 04-11-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

According to him people believed his word and he told them to listen to no-one else, "people who taught another christ".

You mean "another Jesus". Just another slip, I suppose. But of course, if you read Paul like that there is no wonder you come to premature conclusions about his timeline to Jesus.

Jiri

J-D · 04-11-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, let me list some of the evidence.

No non-apologetic source that wrote about Judaea in the 1st century mentioned Jesus, his followers, his doctrine or his alleged miracles.
Eusebius in Church History did not mention any writers outside of the disciples that met or saw Jesus.
Christianity did not need a figure of history to have existed, just belief.
The life of Jesus as described in the NT is implausible.
From the trial to the ascension of the supposed Jesus appear to be complete fiction.

Absence of Evidence is Mandatory to show that non-existence is very likely. It is extremely critical that no evidence be found for Jesus in the 1st century to provide a compelling case that he was likely fabricated. I absolutely need silence. Without silence I have no case. These conditions have been met in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Theophilus and Athenogoras. No evidence can be found in any extant non-apologetic source to support Jesus.

If a person claimed that unicorns do not exist, then it is mandatory that no-one can find evidence anywhere for such a creature. Absence of evidence is a must to support non-existence. Silence is critical.

It is indeed a critical precondition, but it's not affirmative evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once it can be shown that there are or were religions whose deities are now considered mythical or to have never existed,

The mere fact that it's possible that Jesus did not exist is not affirmative evidence for the assertion that he did not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

or there were Christians who had no knowledge of Jesus at all,

Were there? Who?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

then these facts are very helpful is augmenting the case for non-existence.

The implausibilty of the life of any entity strenghtens the case for non-existence. It is extremely helpful when the entity under investigation is described as the son of a Holy Ghost and was last seen flying through the clouds on his way to heaven.

The fact that obviously ficititious stories are told about somebody has no value as affirmative evidence for that person's non-existence. Obviously fictitious stories have been told about many people who unquestionably existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The fifth point is not evidence, but assertion.

When seemingly plausible events about Jesus turn out to be unrealistic, like his trial where Pilate finds him not guilty and allows Jesus to be crucified, when the women go to anoint the body of Jesus after he was buried contrary to Jewish custom, when his body vanishes and then re-appears as though he was never dead, all these events add up and indicate to me that it is more likely that Jesus did not exist and was fabricated fiction.

And further the history of the Church as written by Eusebius with respect to Jesus can be shown in many instances to be totally erroneous.

See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The case for an HJ is unsupported and baseless, it can only be maintained by faith in the words of Jesus' followers or as a follower of him.

You made two assertions: that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is weak; and that the evidence for his non-existence is strong. The first assertion I understand, but all you have to offer in support of the second is information which really only supports the first.

And despite what you say, some people do maintain a case for a historical Jesus without being followers of him.

J-D · 04-11-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There is a problem in supposing the singularity of the author. What is the basis for that supposition? What makes you think that some one wrote the letters, rather than some two, some three, or some fifty? And if there was more than one, which of them invented Christianity?And even if there was only one person who wrote 'the letters' (which letters do you include in that, anyway?), you still haven't answered the question: what makes it appear to you that that person invented Christianity?

Read my lips. Did I say Paul or whoever it was who wrote the letters necessarily invented christianity? No, of course not, but the logic that you put forward cannot see beyond itself. It needs to see that there is another possibility, then instead of contemplating it as a possibility, it attempts to discount that possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Sheshbazzar's assertion, which I was responding to, is that it appears that Saul of Tarsus invented Christianity. Do you agree with that? If not, who do you think did invent Christianity?

You now confuse messianism in general with a specific one.

spin

I know you didn't say that Paul (or whoever wrote the 'Pauline' epistles) invented Christianity. But Sheshbazzar did say exactly that, and that was the assertion I was discussing. Do you agree with it or not?

J-D · 04-11-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Read what Paul says in Galatians.

spin

I have. It does not give an account of the foundation of Christianity. It begins with Christianity already in existence.

J-D · 04-11-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...
Some people believe the following to be true: that about the fourth decade of the first century, a man called Jesus preached a messianic message of some variety to the Jews of Palestine; that some accepted him as their leader; that they continued to acknowledge his leadership and preach his message after his execution, and gathered more followers; and that from this group progressively evolved (with doctrinal differences developing over time) the various groups subsequently identified as Christian.

I see nothing to make this account impossible. In this respect, it differs both from the account of Christ given in the Gospels and from the account of Christ given in the epistles, both of which contain many elements which could not possibly be true.

On the account just given, I think it would be reasonable to describe the historical Jesus it refers to as the founder of Christianity, although the present doctrines of the various Christian churches may differ to a greater or lesser extent from his original preaching.

If you have a different account to offer of the foundation of Christianity, I would like to see it set out with the same degree of concrete detail, and also to see what reasons you have for it.

Here's one possibility: Around the middle of the first century, a marginal Jew named Paul had visions of a Savior figure, and started preaching about this savior to his fellow Jews and god fearers, some of whom also had visions. After the Jewish War and the fall of the Temple, the followers of these original preachers got more organized, and someone (call him Mark) wrote a story casting the Savior as a preacher who taught in Galilee a few generations before. This story proved to be a good recruiting device, and eventually it was taken as historical fact.

Here's another possibility: After the fall of the Temple, there was a lot of turmoil and disruption. Jews tried to figure out what happened and what to do next, and a few adopted some earlier preaching about a Savior, and created a historical figure. After another generation, the story was assumed to be fact.

The second account is deficient in concrete detail. (Where does the 'earlier preaching about a Saviour' come from? And how does it help the Jews 'figure out what happened'?0 The first is a possibility. Do you have any reason to prefer it?

J-D · 04-11-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Can you offer a single confirmed historical example of a religion that originated without a founder?

All religions have founder(s).
But, the issue is whether the central focus of worship was historical or not.

There are many religions based on beings who do not exist -

Mithraism.

Hinduism (Vishnu/Krishna)

The Greek mysteries centered on Demeter.

The cults of Dionysos
and Bacchus,
and Attys
etc.

Roman household gods.

Pagan cults of fairy-folk etc.

The Ebionites.

Scientology (Xenu)

The Jedi religion (Luke Skywalker)

Judaism (mostly myths.)

Iasion

OK, so where do you go from there? I don't see that these observations shed any light on whether there was a historical Jesus who founded Christianity.

J-D · 04-11-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Absence of evidence that would be expected given existence is necessary to argue for non-existence but we cannot pretend this is anything more than an argument from silence (the strength of which corresponds directly with the expectation) and we cannot pretend that such an argument is not inherently logically problematic.

With regard to the character depicted in the Gospels, a fairly strong argument from silence can be made.

With regard to a relatively unknown rural preacher making tremendous initial impact on a few which, subsequent to the post-death creation of legends/myths/religious beliefs about him, grew exponentially, that argument is weakened along with the expectation of anyone else noticing the guy while he lived.

The guy called Jesus in the NT had thousands of followers, was believed to be the son of the God of the Jews and was known among all men, throughout the region and even far away from Judaea. That is the guy that cannot be found in the history books of the 1st century, not even in the history of the Church as written by Eusebius.

There is no rural unknown preacher in the NT named Jesus, whether or not you believed he did miracles or was the son of the God of the Jews.

And if something does not exist, I expect SILENCE, NO EVIDENCE, or ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. SILENCE is an absolutely needed primary element in a case for non-existence and there is nothing on Jesus of the NT, absolute SILENCE compounded with blatant FORGERIES in the 1st century.

Once again, you seem to be relying on the false dichotomy between 'everything it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true' and 'nothing it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true'. Maybe your interest in the subject only extends to demonstrating the falsity of 'everything it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true', and maybe you have no interest in discussing the subject beyond the point where that is agreed. But that is no reason why other people shouldn't.

aa5874 · 04-11-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The guy called Jesus in the NT had thousands of followers, was believed to be the son of the God of the Jews and was known among all men, throughout the region and even far away from Judaea. That is the guy that cannot be found in the history books of the 1st century, not even in the history of the Church as written by Eusebius.

There is no rural unknown preacher in the NT named Jesus, whether or not you believed he did miracles or was the son of the God of the Jews.

And if something does not exist, I expect SILENCE, NO EVIDENCE, or ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. SILENCE is an absolutely needed primary element in a case for non-existence and there is nothing on Jesus of the NT, absolute SILENCE compounded with blatant FORGERIES in the 1st century.

Once again, you seem to be relying on the false dichotomy between 'everything it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true' and 'nothing it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true'. Maybe your interest in the subject only extends to demonstrating the falsity of 'everything it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true', and maybe you have no interest in discussing the subject beyond the point where that is agreed. But that is no reason why other people shouldn't.

I have no interest in dealing with people's imagination, I deal with the information in the NT, the early Church fathers and non-apologetic sources.

Once again, I have claimed that there is no evidence or information from non-apologetic sources about Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century except for forgeries. And that his birth, temptation by the devil, the miracles, the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension appear to be fiction, and further that his trial by Pilate appear to be unrealistic, since Pilate found "no fault in him", yet still allowed him to be crucified.

Even, after his so-called burial, the the authors of the NT claimed those who came to visit the body never saw it again, but later he appeared unto his disciples unharmed and in perfect health. This story appears to me to be outrageous or just plain fiction.

You need to read my post carefully. I do not deal with imagination, I deal with the texts as it is presented.

lpetrich · 04-11-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

And the more philosophical sort of Buddhists tend to think of his teachings as what is important, not necessarily the literal truth of his biography, miracles and all.

And I would say that the more philosophical sort of Christians tend to think of Christ's teachings as what is important, not necessarily the literal truth of his biography, miracles and all.

Who might those be? It's hard to find any of them.

Quote:

So Jesus Christ was irreligious?

Not just irreligious, but anti-religious.

LOL :rolling:

Quote:

And No Robots, you are demonstrating appalling ignorance of evolutionary biology. It is not some grandiose and villainous ideology, but a description of the history of the Earth's biota.

I disagree.

Why don't you go to some site like http://evolution.berkeley.edu and learn about what mainstream biologists consider "evolution" some time? I'll give you a hint: it's a description of certain parts of the world we live in, NOT a moral philosophy.

Quote:

Would you like it if someone demonstrated similar ignorance about your heroes? Seriously.

But, my dear fellow, my claim is that you are guilty of ignorance with regard to your own heroes, from Darwin to Dawkins. Not one of the great biologists would embrace the kind of narrow, reductionist, wholly materialist approach that is standard fare around here.

What makes you so sure? Can you quote chapter and verse from Richard Dawkins's writings?

And what do you mean by a "narrow, reductionist, wholly materialist approach"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I suggest making a list of purported events in Jesus Christ's life and then trying to find out what the consensus is on each event. You may have to create two lists, one for the Synoptic Gospels and one for John, but that shouldn't be too difficult. That would clear up a lot of the clutter in the discussion here.

There is a similar sort of controversy about Socrates, called not surprisingly the "Socrates problem", about how much is fact and how much is fiction about him. Though Socrates most likely existed, we don't know much more than that about him. Plato used him as a literary sockpuppet, Xenophon could have been copying from Plato, and Aristophanes could have been trying to satirize philosophers in general.

That's very interesting. I never heard of the 'Socrates problem' before. Why do people believe that he existed?

There are some additional, but short, references to Socrates by various contemporaries or near-contemporaries, like Aeschines (Against Timarchus) and Aristotle. They might possibly have been dependent on Plato, however; I haven't studied this issue.

Also, Socrates is not a fundamentally implausible figure; he would have been one of many philosophers, and he wouldn't score very high on the Lord Raglan Mythic-Hero scale.

For an interesting perspective on Socrates, see I.F. Stone Breaks the Socrates Story: An old muckraker sheds fresh light on the 2,500-year-old mystery and reveals some Athenian political realities that Plato did his best to hide. Bertrand Russell also mentions Socrates's and Plato's aristocratic sympathies.

eheffa · 04-11-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Once again, you seem to be relying on the false dichotomy between 'everything it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true' and 'nothing it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true'. Maybe your interest in the subject only extends to demonstrating the falsity of 'everything it says about Jesus in the New Testament is true', and maybe you have no interest in discussing the subject beyond the point where that is agreed. But that is no reason why other people shouldn't.

The reason that one might drift towards either extreme in a dichotomous fashion is because the Gospel accounts don't make room for a nice middle ground compromise. The Gospels describe a famous wonder worker, who makes extraordinary claims about himself. He attracts large crowds & his fame spreads throughout the land of Palestine & Jerusalem. He's so famous that even the High Priests and the Romans e.g. Pilate's wife know all about him. He attracts controversy and causes a great stir in the land. He performed miracles that became famous and raises the dead to life who wander the streets of Jerusalem. He is executed and there is an earthquake of huge proportions, the sun goes black and a great fear seizes the city of Jerusalem. He rises from the dead & is seen by more than 500 witnesses. He ascends to heaven in broad daylight in view of many others. His followers who are left behind are imbued with great oratorical power & the christian movement grows in leaps & bounds provoking a backlash of persecution by both the Jewish establishment and the Roman authorities.

We know all this from the (inerrant) Gospel accounts and the Book of Acts.

We go looking for the corroborative documentation from Jewish opponents, the historians & observers of the day, expecting that this controversial figure of history, (Jesus the Christ) would have provoked a wide spectrum of responses to his bold, outrageous words and deeds. We look expectantly and what do we find?

NOTHING... a big fat ZERO :huh:

This is not just an argument from silence - this is deafening silence. There is nothing here. NO controversy, no argument, NOTHING.

Did the Gospel writers faithfully record history but no-one else noticed? Did they engage in a little exaggeration when maybe their Jesus was a little more
ordinary? To even do half of what is claimed about him & still maintain the essentials of the Gospel story ( Healing, Preaching, Crucifixion, Resurrection) one would expect he would have been noticed by someone literate & able to write but what do we find....nothing.

If the Gospel writers were writing about a real person of History who was otherwise so ordinary and unremarkable in his preaching or deeds that he didn't warrant any notice, then he was not the Jesus of the Gospels & is therefore irrelevant for us & anyone else. If so then he was a real historical person but very ordinary. Just another one of those First Century Jesus guys...

This is a very significant silence and to me represents a very good reason to regard the gospels as fabrications. Who cares whether there was a "real historical Jesus" if all he was was just another apocalyptic schizophrenic messianic wannabe?

What is the simplest explanation for this significant silence?

- Jesus of Nazareth is a fictitious mythical character.
(Kind of disappointing eh?)

-evan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.