ApostateAbe

Introduction

Someone in another thread (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....44#post6991844) commented on the title of Ehrman's delayed e-book arguing for the human existence of Jesus:
"Why, afterall, would you need to make an argument if the evidence was good enough?"

I think this is an essential point, because it reflects the way of thinking among many of us, and it seems to be a misleading way of thinking. The seeming fallacy is to think about ancient textual evidence purely in terms of whether or not we should trust the ancient claims.

Evidence vs. arguments

Of course, Bart Ehrman's primary evidence would be the New Testament, and it is the same evidence that everyone already knows about, so a supporter of the theory that Jesus existed would place focus on the argument, not merely the evidence. To make a scientific case, normally all it takes is to present the evidence, and one side clearly wins. That isn't always how it works, however. Sometimes, everyone has the same evidence, but there are two or more different ways to interpret the evidence. Further, even in such cases, it isn't always a matter of reasonable uncertainty, because sometimes one party of the debate has far better arguments than all other parties. In such cases, the difference in explanations is most often attributable to differences in the underlying methods of thinking, as I have alluded to.

Misleading methods of thinking

The underlying methods of thinking are as relevant as either the evidence or the arguments, because the methods of thinking fundamentally influence one's conclusions, for better or for worse. Among atheists who believe or suspect Jesus never existed, they tend to judge the quality of the arguments based on the historical reliability of the ancient texts. This means they think it is a matter of whether or not we should trust the ancient texts. If that is how the debate is framed, then of course they win the debate, because we can't trust the ancient texts. We get in this mode of thought because we are critical thinkers and we argue against the claims of religion so much. When arguing against Christians, this mode of thought really works. They trust in the ancient texts, and we think there is good reason NOT to trust in the ancient texts. The mentality of distrust is designed to correct the mentality of trust.

Despite its utility, there is a limitation to this way of thinking. It is appropriate for criticizing faith beliefs, but we need to upgrade this way of thought if we are to decide on the most probable explanations. For example, some of the most relevant information concerning Alexander the Great is inferred from texts sourced from ancient myths, and the myths are not historically reliable. The ancient myths claim (among many other things) that Alexander the Great was fathered by Zeus. It does not follow, however, that no knowledge about Alexander the Great should be inferred from such myths. The myths are our only sources of the stories of Bucephalas, the name of a heroic horse and a city that Alexander apparently named in its honor.

Explaining ancient myths vs. judging ancient myths

The myths about this super-horse and its taming by Alexander are various and extraordinary, so how do we explain the existence and contents of those myths? We can speculate that maybe Bucephalas was just a fictional invention by a general of Alexander, and we really would accept that hypothesis if the hypothesis had plausibility and explanatory power. Alternatively, Alexander rode into battle on a horse named Bucephalas that he liked, and the tales about this horse became taller with more retellings. That hypothesis seems to have the most plausibility and explanatory power, so that is the explanation I accept, even if I have to depend entirely on unreliable myths. It does not take faith to think this way. It is a sound way of reasoning.

I am not saying that Jesus is exactly analogous, and I am not saying that all evidence for Bucephalas or Alexander is mythical or untrustworthy. Don't miss the point. I am saying we need a better way to think about evidence than purely in terms of whether or not we should trust the ancient claims.

It is well and good to be conscious of the historical unreliability of the textual evidence, but it shouldn't be all about that. I advocate a different mode of thought. For me, it is neither about trusting nor about distrusting the claims found within the evidence. Instead, it is about best explaining the evidence.

Two criteria: Explanatory power and plausibility

How strongly does the theory expect the evidence? That is explanatory power (related to induction). And, how strongly does the evidence expect the theory? That is plausibility (aka abduction). The theory should expect the evidence and the evidence should expect the theory.

As an example, the evidences of birds, dinosaurs and archeopteryx strongly expect the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution strongly expects the evidences of birds, dinosaurs and archeopteryx. No such expectations exist for creationism. The criteria of explanatory power and plausibility are both fulfilled by the theory of evolution and not by creationism. Therefore, the theory of evolution is a more probable explanation for these evidences than creationism.

Ancient myths explained with Jesus the doomsday cult leader

My theory of the historical Jesus is that he was a human doomsday cult leader, and I arrive at this theory by best explaining (not trusting) the earliest Christian writings. Again, it is not about trusting the New Testament, nor is it distrusting the New Testament. I am just trying to explain with the greatest probability how the contents of the New Testament came to exist as they do.

In all of human society past and present, all known cults with a reputed-human founder have an actual-human founder. When the cult founder dies, the cult typically disbands. But, in a significant minority of cases, the cult lives on, evolves, diversifies, becomes a religion, and the founding leader of the cult becomes the figurehead of the religion. That is what happened with Islam, Rastafari movement and Mormonism. In all cults we know about, the reputedly-human central figurehead was the actual-human founder of the cult. So, given the seeming universal pattern of cults, we strongly expect the reputedly-human figurehead of Christianity to be the actual-human founder of Christianity. The evidence strongly expects the theory, so the theory fulfills the criterion of plausibility.

Conversely, the New Testament writings are very much what we expect from the theory that Jesus was a human founder of Christianity. All early sources revere Jesus as the leader and founder of their religion, attributing miracles to him. All sources claim that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah, again expected if Jesus was the cult founder. We have teachings of Jesus strongly reminiscent of a cult founder, such as absolute adherence, separation and hatred of one's family, division with the world, radical teachings and doomsday predictions. And we have positive spins of otherwise-embarrassing details of the life Jesus in our early texts, such as his hometown of Nazareth, his baptism by John the Baptist, his division with his family, his betrayal by one of his own twelve, and his crucifixion. The evidence is what we expect if Jesus was the human doomsday cult founder of Christianity. If Jesus was NOT the human doomsday cult founder of Christianity, then we would NOT expect these evidences. The theory fulfills the criterion of explanatory power.

Doomsdayism is not found in all or even most cults, but there remains a close relationship between doomsdayism and cults, and that is what we see in Mormonism ("...Latter-day Saints"). The imminent doomsdayism of early Christianity is found all throughout the earliest Christian writings--the writings of Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-52), the gospel of Mark (Mark 8-9:1 and Mark 13), and the gospel of Q (via Luke 3:7, Luke 13:22-25 and Luke 12:40). Mark and Q attribute imminent doomsday prophecies to Jesus. This reinforces the explanatory power of the theory that Jesus was a doomsday cult leader. We strongly expect the evidence with this theory.

The theory expects the evidence and the evidence expects the theory. Therefore, Jesus was a human doomsday cult leader.

Concluding remarks

If any theory in any field is considerably stronger than all competing explanations in both of the criteria of plausibility and explanatory power, then I think that is all it takes. I don't think that the position that Jesus never existed has much if any advantage in either of those criteria. I think it follows only from the perspective that judging explanations should be purely about judging the accuracy of the claims within the evidence.

Not that we shouldn't be skeptical. When another theory comes along and explains the evidence with even greater plausibility and explanatory power, then the theory that Jesus was the doomsday cult founder of Christianity should be put to the side.

aa5874

We have been through your erroneous claim several times. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was a doomsday cult leader.

We can go through the Canonised Gospels word by word and it will show that Jesus of the Gospels did NOT ever tell Jews of an apocalypse and that Jesus was NOT a cult leader.

Jesus did NOT start any new religion, did NOT want the Jews to understand him, deliberately spoke to Jews so that they would be confused and would NOT be converted.

Jesus of the earliest Gospels could NOT ever be a doomsday cult leader or tell the Jews that there would be an apocalypse since the words of the prophets would NOT be fulfilled.

Jesus of the earliest Gospel, gMark, had a PRIVATE conversation with 4 disciples about the signs of the Apocalypse and did NOT preach publicly of any doomsday.


Jesus of gMathew, had a PRIVATE discussion with his disciples about the end of time and did NOT Preach about an apocalypse to the Jews.
Again, in order to fulfill prophecy in the ealiest JESUS stories, gMark and gMatthew, the Jesus character could NOT ever be a doomsday preacher.

The Jews were NOT ever supposed to know of the Apocalypse until it happened based on the earliest Jesus stories.

ApostateAbe

I typically don't communicate with aa5874 and I have him on my ignore list, so, if by some fluke he makes an argument or assertion that you agree with, please repeat it. Thanks!

aa5874

You don't have me on any "ignore list". You just PROVED IT.

You are merely spreading propaganda.

I can go through gMark chapter by chapter and show that Jesus in gMark did NOT ever warn the Jews of any apocalypse, did NOT start any new religion, did NOT want the Jews to be converted, did NOT want the Jews to know he was Christ, and PRIVATELY discussed the apocalypse with James, John, Peter and Andrew.

See Mark 13.3. The apocalypse discussion was PRIVATE with 4 disciples.

Jesus of the earliest Gospel could NOT be a doomsday preacher since the words of the prophet Isaiah would NOT be fulfilled.

Toto

We have been through this before. You have a number of cults or religions which involve a human founder who was in "contact" with a higher spiritual being, a god, or an angel.

If you are going to look for patterns in cults, you could say that the human founder comparable to Joseph Smith or Mohammed was either Peter or Paul; Jesus is then comparable to the Angel Moroni, or god himself.

I think this is where your argument falls flat on its face, and looks improbable compared to a different theory. If a human Jesus were the founder, one would expect to have early writings from this human Jesus, or at least about him. One would expect more of his lineage, his place in society. One would expect to know if he was married.

Instead, what we have is what we would expect if the Christian movement had invented a founder for itself and backdated him. We find the earliest writings with very few details, and later writings supplying the missing human element. We find that Jesus is consistently portrayed as divine or supernatural, that he can't be clearly located in time or space (when was he born? where? when was he crucified? These details were clearly not important.)

mountainman

Your theory makes no mention of the gnostic heretics and the entire corpus of noncanonical "Early Christian writings", manuscripts and the contents thereof. This is not called explaining the historical evidence, its called jumping aboard the Canonical Express Bandwaggon. To do this you usually simply buy a hypothetical ticket called "The noncanonical writings are the fiction of heretics", which is the standard fare, but I'd like you to be explicit in your assumptions about the evidence you are not addressing.


And if you are comitted to not explaining the US-THEM DIALECTIC between the non canonical gnostics and the canonical orthodox heresiologists, your history of the orthodoxy cannot conclude until after the death of Emperor Julian, since the earliest canonlist is dated c.367 CE. Those who wish to either exercise their trust or distrust of all the evidence items which are to be explained must necessary explain all the items availble between the 1st century (unless you are going for a BCE chronology) and the year c.367 CE.

Completeness is essential to any reasonable theory. You need to address Constantine and Nicaea and the Gnostic heresies, even if only briefly and perhaps dismissively, and explain how a certain set of canonical books were selected as the canon list, which were different from the canon list as reconstructed in the earliest Greek codices such as Vaticanus et al. And finally you should address the relatively recent mss discoveries such as the Nag Hammadi codices and the gJudas. I will look forward to the reading these extentions of your theory, or alternatively, why you think this Gnostic evidence and the events of the 4th century need no, or little, explanation.

Sheshbazzar

Or if the 'christian movement' was invented, originated, and orchestrated by subversive 'disinformation' propaganda' produced by anonymous Jewish authors.

... give 'em a rope,
And leave it to them to hang themselves.

mountainman

Was the historical Jesus in fact therefore born in a limited hangout and not a manger?



Sounds like how the heresiologists censored the public opinion of heretics and the public opinion about heresies. Burn them! Destroy them! Demolish them! Anathemetize them! This seems to support the idea that the historical Jesus was in fact therefore born in a limited hangout and not a manger.

Steven Carr

'That is what happened with Islam, Rastafari movement and Mormonism.'

Haile Selassie founded the Rastafari movement? What is this?

The Haile Selassie of Rastafarianism is a myth who never existed. The real Selassie even belonged to a different religion.

Did Sherlock Holmes found the Sherlock Holmes fan club? No.

Was Sherlock Holmes based on a real person? Yes.

Being based on a real person is not the same as being historical.

Did Ned Ludd exist to found the Luddite movement?

Did William Tell exist?

How can we explain Paul claiming Jews can't be expected to have heard of Jesus until Christians were sent to preach about him?

How can we explain Paul claiming that Jesus was the image of God and the agent through whom God created the world and through whom all life was sustained?

Steven Carr

'And we have positive spins of otherwise-embarrassing details of the life Jesus in our early texts, such as his hometown of Nazareth, his baptism by John the Baptist, his division with his family, his betrayal by one of his own twelve, and his crucifixion. The evidence is what we expect if Jesus was the human doomsday cult founder of Christianity. If Jesus was NOT the human doomsday cult founder of Christianity, then we would NOT expect these evidences. '

All of course entirely missing from the earliest layers of Christian writings.

Apart from the crucifixion where Paul claims the Romans were God's agents sent to punish wrongdoers, and who held no terror for the innocent and who did not bear the sword for nothing.

As soon as I hear Al-Qaeeda claiming the American's are God's agents sent to punish wrongdoers and who hold no terror for the innocent, I will convert to Abe's position that the Romans crucifed somebody Paul claimed was the Son of God.