Peter Kirby

Intensity writes: You can start your refutation.

If your arguments were persuasive enough to elicit general conviction, then perhaps you wouldn't have assumed that I would attempt to refute them. Maybe I would have accepted them?

Intensity writes: If "a place in history" entails physical existence, then that will be a NO.

Great, the whole point of the Elvis thing was to make sure that you were using "myth" in its popular sense of the purely imaginary or false. I could attempt to elucidate on other meanings of the word "myth," but you may be either aware of other meanings or not interested in learning about them, and besides it is not exactly crucial to consideration of the idea that there is conclusive evidence that Jesus is a "myth" in the sense that you have used the word.

Intensity writes: That was positive "proof" with physical evidence. (thats what I was referring to when I said one cant prove a negative)

So, you are saying that one can have conclusive evidence for a negative. Maybe you were anticipating the objection that we do not have physical evidence of the non-existence of Jesus to the claim that there is conclusive evidence for such. Is that correct?

Myself, I would not make that objection.

I maintain that the arguments you offer, if they are successful, establish that the existence of Jesus is in doubt. I have not seen any conclusive evidence for the non-existence of any theoretical historical Jesus.

Intensity writes: Christs soteriology and incarnation is similar to that of extant pagan religions during his time, especially the Greek cultic mystery religions.

Many HJ proponents do not believe that Christ was the savior or an incarnated deity.

Intensity writes: The cult deities conquered death in other sublunar realms that were not necessarily earthly.

Some cult deities were thought by some devotees to have died and resurrected on earth. So it is possible that the Christ figure is one of the cult deities that was thought by some to have died on earth.

Intensity writes: The story of the life of christ is written in mythological expressions and starts and ends with events that lack naturalistic(or historical) plausibility.

Many HJ proponents do not believe in the virginal conception or the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Intensity writes: The gospels are the only books that tell the story of Jesus and they were written through midrash and other unreliable means.

It is possible that books other than the gospels tell a story about Jesus. These books could include the Ignatian corpus and the Epistula Apostolorum.

It is possible that events in the life of Jesus were interpreted in the light of scripture, which colored the narration of the events. There may be items in the gospels that were not derived through midrash and could have been obtained through historical channels.

Intensity writes: Mark is the main book and its apparent plagiarism from the OT robs it of authenticity or originality.

If your statement is that an author who lifts material from another work without attribution could not have written anything that is true on the subject, then that statement is false.

Intensity writes: The fact that he is an anonymous figure also makes it impossible to judge his credibility as a historian.

It is odd that you say that his credibility is impossible to judge and then proceed to conclude that his credibility is nil. Moreover, your contention is supposed to be that Mark's narrative about Jesus is not only not credible but also entirely false.

Intensity writes: Historians in the first and second century DO NOT indicate any direct knowledge of the existence of a historical Jesus.

Many men and women have lived and died about whom no direct knowledge has been indicated by historians.

Intensity writes: Numerous books in the New testament also indicate ignorance about the existence of a historical Jesus.

Should your claim read, "do not display knowledge about"? If your claim is that numerous books in the New Testament make actual statements that are incompatible with familiarity with the concept of an earthly physical Jesus, then I would be interested to see the support for that claim.

Intensity writes: The purpose for the existence of Jesus is mythological and supernatural in nature.

This statement is not clear, and taken the wrong way could say that Jesus actually existed in order to fulfil mythological and supernatural purposes, which is certainly not your meaning. Does this decompose into the claim that the existence of Jesus is an invented fantasy and that this fantasy was invented for mythological reasons? If so, then doesn't part of the claim contain the conclusion that the existence of Jesus is a fantasy? Might this not be a case of petitio principii? Perhaps you can lay out your premises and conclusion in a syllogism in order to facilitate better understanding.

Intensity writes: It can be demonstrated that chief founder of christianity (Paul) did not necessarily base his beliefs on the existence of a historical Jesus.

And how does one go from this claim, with the "necessarily" modifier, to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist as a historical person? Should you be making instead the claim that Paul demonstrably did not think of his Jesus as having physical existence?

Intensity writes: Early records indicate Christ was worshippes without any central or common dogma or beliefs.

This might suggest that a historical Jesus, if he existed, did not teach dogmas centered on his own person, which would allow for disagreement among disciples and subsequent followers about who Jesus was. As an argument against the existence of Jesus, it require elaboration.

Intensity writes: There is NO reliable and unquestionable evidence (textual or otherwise) that indicates there existed a historical Jesus as is claimed by the Gospels.

This could lead to doubt about the existence of a historical Jesus.

Intensity writes: Based on the above facts, it can be safely concluded that Jesus DID Not exist as a historical person.

The best of the above claims, if true, would lead us rationally to doubt the existence of Jesus. The conclusion that Jesus did not exist, made from the statements above, is not a safe one in the sense as it does not appear to be based on "reliable and unquestionable evidence."

I wrote: Basically, what I hear you saying is that you have a theory, the entirely non-historical origins of the Jesus story, that you are advancing on the grounds that the theory posits the plausible mechanism of mystical revelation and sublunar incarnation beliefs and on the grounds that the theory's negation, the partially historical origins of the Jesus story, is not supported with (a preponderance of) historical evidence. Chances are that part of that went wrong in communication, so I welcome your correction before I go any further.

Intensity wrote: You are correct.

Recall that my characterization of your conclusive evidence consisted of the facts roughly that the theory has a plausible mechanism and that the theory has no contrary evidence. Do you think that there is any theory that has a plausible mechanism and no contrary evidence that happens to be false?

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Peter Kirby
If your arguments were persuasive enough to elicit general conviction, then perhaps you wouldn't have assumed that I would attempt to refute them. Maybe I would have accepted them?
Nah, I know you a little and I am not that ambitious. You notice I made no attempt to couch my arguments in persuasive phraseology. You accepting Jesus myth arguments would be huge news here - I wouldnt dream of it. I just made the arguments for the sake of discussion (or "eristic refutation" as Tercel would put it) - in the hope that you will expose a weakness of some of the arguments.

You do admit though that that Elvis analogy was off, dont you, unless you had in mind a really outlandish meaning of the word myth?

Maybe you were anticipating the objection that we do not have physical evidence of the non-existence of Jesus to the claim that there is conclusive evidence for such. Is that correct?
Yes

Myself, I would not make that objection.

Well, okay

I have not seen any conclusive evidence for the non-existence of any theoretical historical Jesus.

What kind of evidence would that be?

I think your inclusion of the word "theoretical" in the above sentence needs to be explained. What new meaning does it bring into the discussion?

Have you seen (elsewhere) any conclusive evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?

Many HJ proponents do not believe that Christ was the savior or an incarnated deity.

That belief should be obviated by the idea that they are HJ proponents.
He wouldn't be a savior or an incarnated deity if he is historical now - would he?

Some cult deities were thought by some devotees to have died and resurrected on earth. So it is possible that the Christ figure is one of the cult deities that was thought by some to have died on earth.

kata sarka could allow for that, but many other reasons offer Doherty's argument more explanatory power and makes his argument more plausible compared to the hitherto literal (and dare I say ad-hoc) interpretation. In terms of ABE (Argument for the Best Explanation), I beleive Earl Doherty wins hands down.

Many HJ proponents do not believe in the virginal conception or the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

As Jesus Mythers, we make no claim to what HJ proponents beleive. Its not part of my arguments (what they beleive) and it means little that some people have adopted a pick and choose strategy to retain their HJ concepts. It doesnt prove anything useful: just that people have ways of circumventing "obstacles" even in the absence of an established methodology for separating fact from fiction in HJ studies.

It is possible that books other than the gospels tell a story about Jesus. These books could include the Ignatian corpus and the Epistula Apostolorum.
(I could simply respond here by saying "anything is possible")
I know such books are of no strong historical value. Are they eyewitness testimony to the life of christ?

It is possible that events in the life of Jesus were interpreted in the light of scripture, which colored the narration of the events.
We simply have no evidence that a historical Jesus existed. I dont think it helps much when we fling ourselves in the sea of speculation.

There may be items in the gospels that were not derived through midrash and could have been obtained through historical channels.
Its not only midrash remember? There are other numerous possibilities other than historical channels. Remember midrash allowed for one to enlargen a meaning and include their own "interpretation" - that means we are talking of ad-hoc explanations and narratives, adoption of ideas from pagan legends etc.

If your statement is that an author who lifts material from another work without attribution could not have written anything that is true on the subject, then that statement is false.

No, that is NOT what I meant. But the author loses credibility and so does his un-original story.
Simple common sense tells us if we know something took place, we have no need to copy from others to create a story - UNLESS there is NO story.

We could undertake on studying what is written, but we can still be wrong when we select part of the story as historical when we know much of the story is made up. For example, when I read that Jesus drowned 2000 pigs after sending demons in them then went to Galilee - which part is likely to be true in that? That he went to Galilee? He had to go somewhere didnt he? Does that mean he went to Galilee because the author chose Galilee?

It is odd that you say that his credibility is impossible to judge and then proceed to conclude that his credibility is nil
I did not say his credibility is nil. I have however repeated many times his story has no credibility.
But we would be able to put his incredible story in some meaningful context if we knew him, his other works etc.

Moreover, your contention is supposed to be that Mark's narrative about Jesus is not only not credible but also entirely false.
I prefer the word fictitious ("false", to me, implies there is a "correct" story) because I beleive there is NO story except the fictitious one.

Many men and women have lived and died about whom no direct knowledge has been indicated by historians.
Not many men claim to be the son of God, not many men have been said to have raised people from the dead, not many men and women are claimed to have conquered death.

Not many men have the meaning of A.D. having something to do with their birth. And their birthday marked all over calendars worldwide.

Should your claim read, "do not display knowledge about"? If your claim is that numerous books in the New Testament make actual statements that are incompatible with familiarity with the concept of an earthly physical Jesus, then I would be interested to see the support for that claim.
They are NOT incompatible, they just dont rely ON, or directly support the idea of an existence of an earthly Jesus.

Ignorant because if they had knowledge about such a person, they would NOt have failed to mention his historical aspects in their writings. So their lack of mention can only be interested as ignorance, NOT failure to display knowledge.

If so, then doesn't part of the claim contain the conclusion that the existence of Jesus is a fantasy?

Religion is NOT a fantasy, because it is based on one's interpretation of reality - it is just an incorrect interpretation.

I would go as far as its a baseless belief, but not a fantasy - fantasy implies lack of touch with reality while what we are facing is slothful examination of evidence, wish fulfilment (for God so loved the world...) and religious indoctrination.

This might suggest that a historical Jesus, if he existed, did not teach dogmas centered on his own person, which would allow for disagreement among disciples and subsequent followers about who Jesus was.

"Nobody goes to the father except through me". How centered can his teachings be?
Their disagreement was on interpretation of scripture.

As an argument against the existence of Jesus, it require elaboration.
Its not an argument against a historical Jesus per se, but it shows there was a panoply of beliefs/ sects and from them, one came out on top and ended up as christianity. Those other sects held varying and even conflicting versions of Jesus' soteriology and the kingdom of God. If he existed as a real person, as opposed to a spiritual person, then his existence would have dispelles the varied myths about him.

The best of the above claims, if true, would lead us rationally to doubt the existence of Jesus.
Fair enough. When does the rational doubt turn to lack of belief?

Do you think that there is any theory that has a plausible mechanism and no contrary evidence that happens to be false?
Do you?
If there was contrary evidence that happens to be false, then what would make the "mechanism" plausible?

I beleive the best approach is to examine each case on its merits and the available evidence and not to let other stories influence our decision.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Iasion

Greetings all,

Sadly, The Lost One, your posts do not meet the minimum standards of rational debate - I will not be wasting any more time on you after this.[*] Firstly,
you are unable to converse without resorting to wild personal insults - childish behavior.[*] Secondly,
you have no understanding of the background - e.g. you didn't even know WHAT a Jesus Myther was, or even WHO they were, when you started shooting your mouth off.[*] Thirdly,
you don't seem to understand plain English.

The issue of a methodology in seperating NT fact from myth is a crucial argument in this forum. Yet you totally failed to get the point and instead went off 1/2 cocked (again) about various strawmen only vaguely related to the issue.

Let me make it clear for you :[*] Of course I have heard of "separating fact from fiction",[*] Of course I know there is often fact mixed with fiction,[*] Of course there are ancient documents such as biographies which mix fact with fiction[*] Of course there are some specific stories about, say, Alexander, which we consider fiction amongst otherwise factual material.

Yes - we all know that, and I never said otherwise - a pity you seem unable to understand plain language.


But
when it comes to actually separating the fact from the fiction in the NT -
there is NO METHODOLOGY !

sure,
there ARE lots of OPINIONS.

Yes,
there ARE stories about Jesus which SOME say are fact.

Yes,
there ARE stories about Jesus which SOME say are fiction.

But,
opinions VARY WILDLY on which are which - the range of different opinions in the field is vast beyond counting.

Yes,
There are MANY different versions, theories, arguments, claims, ideas, beliefs about what is fact vs fiction in the Jesus story.

But NO,
there is NO accepted METHODOLOGY in performing that separation (feel free to actually LOOK in a dictionary to see what the word means before ranting again).


I hope that perhaps even The Lost One can understand it when its put that simply - but I leave it to others to continue answering his rants.



I think we can all see from the evidence that you are simply not able to understand straight forward statements in plain language, and then resort to ridicule and invective to cover your inadequacy - it is plain who is really the stupid one.

Quentin David Jones

Peter Kirby

Intensity writes: Nah, I know you a little and I am not that ambitious. You notice I made no attempt to couch my arguments in persuasive phraseology. You accepting Jesus myth arguments would be huge news here - I wouldnt dream of it. I just made them for the sake of argumentation - in the hope that you will expose a weakness of some of the arguments.

I do not have any special resistance to "Jesus myth arguments" in that I apply the same critical thought to such arguments as I would any other historical arguments. As a point of fact, there was a period of time in which I accepted the hypotheses of Earl Doherty in full, and that stage of my thought is documented in my glowing review of his book written a couple years ago.

Intensity writes: You do admit though that that Elvis analogy was off, dont you, unless you had in mind a really warped meaning of the word myth?

I never compared the historical evidence concerning Jesus to the historical evidence concerning Elvis, except at one point to make it clear that I think there is no comparison. The point of picking on Elvis is the very fact that his historical existence is beyond all doubt, so that asking you whether you would say that Elvis is "mythical" would make it clear whether you were using "mythical" as a synonym for non-historicity or perhaps in a more sophisticated way. I see now that I should never have given a thought to the idea that you might have used the term in such a way, as you call say that any other sense of the word would have to be "really warped," and I have no interest in trying to broaden your horizons on this point. Since it has been clear for a while that you were using mythical as a synonym for non-historical, the reference to Elvis is no longer relevant, as its only purpose (in which it has been apparently successful) was in provoking you to reveal the sense in which you used the term "mythical." Please excuse me for thinking that you might have used the word in any other way.

Intensity writes: What kind of evidence would that be?

I'm not completely sure, but then I didn't make a claim about there being conclusive evidence.

Intensity writes: I think your inclusion of the word "theoretical" in the above sentence needs to be explained. What new meaning does it bring into the discussion?

Conceivably, one might think that a "historical Jesus" must be known to have been historical; the reference to "theoretical HJ" suggests that there may have been a HJ person without conclusive evidence for said person's existence.

Intensity writes: Have you seen (elsewhere) any conclusive evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?

Maybe in another thread, but I am not making a claim on the matter. The subject here is the statement that there is conclusive evidence for the mythical Jesus hypothesis.

Intensity writes: That belief should be obviated by the idea that they are HJ proponents.
He wouldn't be a savior or an incarnated deity if he is historical now - would he?

Maybe you should bring up that point with someone who believes in the incarnation or the redemption. My reply is to indicate that those doctrines are not essential to the existence of a historical Jesus. You seem not only to agree but go me one better, and you say that these doctrines are mutually exclusive of a historical Jesus. I am not sure about that, but it seems that we can agree that the falsity of the doctrines of the incarnation and redemption do not show the non-existence of Jesus.

Intensity writes: kata sarka could allow for that, but many other reasons offer Doherty's argument more explanatory power and makes his argument more plausible compared to the hitherto literal (and dare I say ad-hoc) interpretation. In terms of ABE, I beleive Earl Dohertys' wins hands down.

Earl Doherty has a whole book and website arguing that the epistles reveal a non-earthly intermediary figure. I doubt that you can add anything to what Doherty has said on the matter, so I will not ask you to do so.

If only because I don't want to get involved in semantic squabbles over the references to Jesus in Paul, let's assume for a moment that Doherty is correct in saying that Paul's Jesus is not an earthly being. Doherty has also argued that the author of the Octavius knew about claims that Jesus was physical but rejected them. Why could not such a thing apply to Paul, then?

And, is there any good evidence to suggest that the author of the Gospel of Mark had ever so much as heard as the apostle Paul? If not, is it possible that a historical man informed parts of Mark's story even if not Paul's kerygma?

Intensity writes: As Jesus Mythers, we make no claim to what HJ proponents beleive. Its not part of my arguments (what they beleive) and it means little that some people have adopted a pick and choose strategy to retain their HJ concepts. It doesnt prove anything useful: just that people have ways of circumventing "obstacles" even in the absence of an established methodology for separating fact from fiction in HJ studies.

Since we are both atheists, let's just take it as established that natural-law-defying miracles do not happen in reality, or at least are very unlikely. Based on this criterion, we can set aside the miracle claims as unhistorical. Now, the rest of the material may have any different mix of historical and non-historical elements; our criterion of eliminating miracle stories says nothing about accepting all non-miracle stories. But we needn't let the alleged miracles distract us from considering serious historical issues.

Intensity writes: (I could simply respond here by saying "anything is possible")

I was using the word possible in the sense of epistomological possibility. That is, if we do not know that something is false, then it is epistemologically possible. Since I do think that we have some knowledge, I would not say that all things are epistemologically possible.

Intensity writes: I know such books are of no strong historical value. Are they eyewitness testimony to the life of christ?

I don't think so. I would agree that, if we regard only eyewitness evidence and physical evidence in evaluating history, then there is no good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. This still does not mean that there is conclusive evidence against the historicity of Jesus, which was your claim.

Also, it was your statement that the story of Jesus is not found outside the gospels, but these non-gospel books tell stories about Jesus.

Intensity writes: We simply have no evidence that a historical Jesus existed. I dont think it helps much when we fling ourselves in the sea of speculation.

I have never asked you to believe in a historical Jesus.

Intensity writes: Its not only midrash remember? There are other numerous possibilities other than historical channels. Remember midrash allowed for one to enlargen a meaning and include their own "interpretation" - that means we are talking of ad-hoc explanations and narratives, adoption of ideas from pagan legends etc.

It has not been shown that all the stories about Jesus are fictional in one of these ways. It has been your contention that all of these stories are fictional and not merely that some of them are.

Intensity writes: Simple common sense tells us if we know something took place, we have no need to copy from others to create a story - UNLESS there is NO story.

Urban legends include stories that follow set patterns and attach themselves to the names of actual real-life people. The fact that stories are often made up about historical people does not show that these people themselves are made up.

Intensity writes: We could undertake on studying what is written, but we can still be wrong when we select part of the story as historical when we know much of the story is made up. For example, when I read that Jesus drowned 2000 pigs after sending demons in them then went to Galilee - which part is likely to be true in that? That he went to Galilee? He had to go somewhere didnt he? Does that mean he went to Galilee because the author chose Galilee?

I have certainly not claimed that any particular bit of this story is known to be historical. It has been your burden to show that all these stories about Jesus are not only unreliable but also made-up about a non-existent person.

Intensity writes: I did not say his credibility is nil. I have however repeated many times his story has no credibility.

Since we know of the author only from his story, the distinction is petty at best.

Intensity writes: Not many men claim to be the son of God, not many men have been said to have raised people from the dead, not many men and women are claimed to have conquered death.

The miracle criterion tells us that, if there was a historical Jesus, these claims about him are false.

Intensity writes: Not many men have the meaning of A.D. having something to do with their birth. And their birthday marked all over calendars worldwide.

This is just a non sequitur. What have the calculations of the sixth century Dionysius Exiguus in making a Christian reckoning of years to do with the historical evidence concerning the existence of Jesus?

Intensity writes: They are NOT incompatible, they just dont rely ON, or directly support the idea of an existence of an earthly Jesus.

I am not convinced that the mythicist interpretations of the passages commonly cited as referring to an earthly Jesus are correct, but I don't think that you and I are going to add anything new to that exegetical debate, so I am willing to grant you the premise to see if you can do anything with it.

Intensity writes: Ignorant because if they had knowledge about such a person, they would NOt have failed to mention his historical aspects in their writings. So their lack of mention can only be interested as ignorance, NOT failure to display knowledge.

Explain how you know that these writers would have made a statement about the earthly Jesus that is unambiguous to you on the assumption that these writers accepted that Jesus had been on earth.

Intensity writes: "Nobody goes to the father except through me". How centered can his teachings be?

You are acting as if you debating inerrancy.

Intensity writes: Their disagreement was on interpretation of scripture.

Which disagreements were based on which interpretations of which scriptures?

Intensity writes: Its not an argument against a historical Jesus per se, but it shows there was a panoply of beliefs/ sects and from them, one came out on top and ended up as christianity. Those other sects held varying and even conflicting versions of Jesus' soteriology and the kingdom of God. If he existed as a real person, as opposed to a spiritual person, then his existence would have dispelles the varied myths about him.

Why? Even if Jesus was a real person, Jesus was no longer around at the time that Christians starting telling myths about him and disputing with each other the significance of his life and death (and alleged resurrection).

Intensity writes: When does the rational doubt turn to lack of belief?

I have not stated in this conversation that I have a belief in any historical Jesus. If you must know, I consider myself to be in an information-gathering stage. This conversation has concerned your statement that there is conclusive evidence for the non-existence of Jesus.

Intensity writes: If there was contrary evidence that happens to be false, then what would make the "mechanism" plausible?

I think you have misunderstood me somehow, but I am not sure how, because I don't understand what you are getting at. Fortunately, I am sure that it is not an essential point.

Intensity writes: I beleive the best approach is to examine each case on its merits and the available evidence and not to let other stories influence our decision.

This is great as long as we are consistent in our methods and we make sure that our methods track the truth. Attempting to study the Jesus stories in a vacuum is dangerous because we then have no reference point concerning how stories develop in general and what makes evidence good, and then anything goes, from the 0% true mythical Jesus to the 100% true fundamentalist Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Hi Lost Number,

I see you are trying to argue with the headbangers. I wouldn't bother if I were you but I expect you'll learn this quickly enough.

On methodology - this is a bit of a hobby horse for Vork (not a headbanger but sometimes behaves like one). There are, of course, methodologies which are debated, discussed and widely used. Some historians are rather too sceptical and others, perhaps, not sceptical enough. If Vork is saying that there is no single methodology agreed by all, this is true but irrelevant. If he is saying there is no consensus about useful methodologies in critical history, he is wrong although a few scholars exist well outside the consensus. If he is saying that the alleged lack of consensus means the methods used are useless, he is wrong period.

Here is a long essay on the methods used which covers most of the bases: <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/methodologies.htm" target="_blank">Theory and Method in HJ Studies</a>

Vork thinks the essay is 'garbage' which is an interesting point of view as it got a Distinction during my Masters on the historical methodology course. Either Vork knows more about method than a senior professor in one of the UK's most respected history departments or his opinion isn't worth much. I'll leave the decision up to you.

Vork's mistake is to believe that a given statement is invalidated because he personally can make up a story that might explain the statement. For instance, the 500 witnesses mentioned by Paul is 'a lie'. The baptism by John the Baptist could represent various conflicts within early movements etc. No need for evidence of Vork's speculations - the fact his imagination is fertile enough means he can cast doubt on anything he likes. I parody this approach <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm" target="_blank">here</a> and prove Hannibal didn't exist either.

Ultimately historians must treat the NT like any other ancient historical source. They cannot, as Vork seems to urge, erect a higher level of proof because they are religious texts or because Vork has found some scholars who are ultra sceptical about some other figures. Nor can historians depend on archaeology which is just as subjective and open to interpretation as history not to say non-existant in many areas.

I'm sure you are well up on these issues. HJ can be an interesting subject but usually not here where the conversation is dominated by the evangelical wing of atheism keen to eliminate Jesus completely if they possibly can.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Ted Hoffman

Kirby,
I have always found you to be a straight debater, keen on clarity and very forthright, but I cant help feeling in your last post, you have twisted some of my arguments around, for example I said:

Intensity :We simply have no evidence that a historical Jesus existed. I dont think it helps much when we fling ourselves in the sea of speculation.

you responded:

Kirby I have never asked you to believe in a historical Jesus.

Your earlier, statement, which I was responding to, was:

Kirby It is possible that events in the life of Jesus were interpreted in the light of scripture, which colored the narration of the events.

This statment puts forward the possibility that there existed actual (read historical) events, that were then interpreted in the light of scripture and got colored by the narration and that is why I responded that we have no evidence that there existed a historical Jesus. My response had nothing to do with you asking me to do anything, so to twist it around to make me sound like I am interpreting you to be asking me to do anything is not accurate.

Another instance.
you said:
Kirby Many HJ proponents do not believe that Christ was the savior or an incarnated deity.

I responded:

Intensity That belief should be obviated by the idea that they are HJ proponents.
He wouldn't be a savior or an incarnated deity if he is historical now - would he?

and you responded:

Kirby Maybe you should bring up that point with someone who believes in the incarnation or the redemption.

You are the one who brought up the issue concerning what HJ proponents believe. And you made an obvious point, when I pointed that out, you argued to make me appear like I was forcing you to discuss an issue that does not concern you.

Another instance:
I said:
Intensity Intensity writes: I did not say his credibility is nil. I have however repeated many times his story has no credibility.

your response:

Kirby Since we know of the author only from his story, the distinction is petty at best.

You had earlier said:
Kirby It is odd that you say that his credibility is impossible to judge and then proceed to conclude that his credibility is nil

I had to point out the error in this statement because it portrays me as inconsistent. Now unless you would like to convince me that you portraying me as self-contradictory. My argument removed the self-contradiction you were imposing on me and to trivialize the distinction I made is not very charitable of you.

Now back to your arguments:

I can agree that the falsity of the doctrines of the incarnation and redemption do not show the non-existence of Jesus. I however dont remember saying that those doctrines are mutually exclusive of a historical Jesus - unless you would like to prove that I said so.

Doherty has also argued that the author of the Octavius knew about claims that Jesus was physical but rejected them. Why could not such a thing apply to Paul, then?

Do we have evidence that Paul rejected the claims that Jesus was physical? I dont think so.
Paul just seems unaware of a historical Jesus.

And, is there any good evidence to suggest that the author of the Gospel of Mark had ever so much as heard as the apostle Paul?
Not that I know of.

If not, is it possible that a historical man informed parts of Mark's story even if not Paul's kerygma?
Evidence will make that possibility useful.

Since we are both atheists, let's just take it as established that natural-law-defying miracles do not happen in reality, or at least are very unlikely. Based on this criterion, we can set aside the miracle claims as unhistorical. Now, the rest of the material may have any different mix of historical and non-historical elements; our criterion of eliminating miracle stories says nothing about accepting all non-miracle stories. But we needn't let the alleged miracles distract us from considering serious historical issues.

This is a great suggestion - I agree. Any reservations I have, I will voice them when necessary.

I was using the word possible in the sense of epistomological possibility. That is, if we do not know that something is false, then it is epistemologically possible. Since I do think that we have some knowledge, I would not say that all things are epistemologically possible.
I agree, but of what historical evidence is third-hand testimony? It just shows there were rumours going round. Someone can also write that another saw an alien was spotted in the Philadelphia, would that be historical evidence of aliens visiting earth?

This is just a non sequitur. What have the calculations of the sixth century Dionysius Exiguus in making a Christian reckoning of years to do with the historical evidence concerning the existence of Jesus?

My point is, if the figure of Jesus could be given so much importance centuries later, then its inconceivable that nothing historical was written about him. Most great men have a lot of historical material written about them.

And if Jesus was just an ordinary man, then it further proves that the Jesus of the gospels is fictitious.

Explain how you know that these writers would have made a statement about the earthly Jesus that is unambiguous to you on the assumption that these writers accepted that Jesus had been on earth.

explain how I know? because we would reasonably expect them to write of such a great magician or teacher.

that is unambiguous to me? Would it be ambiguous if they were talking of a real man?

You are acting as if you debating inerrancy.

You said This might suggest that a historical Jesus, if he existed, did not teach dogmas centered on his own person
I demonstrated otherwise, where does the inerrancy come in? You have other sources of christs teachings?

Which disagreements were based on which interpretations of which scriptures?
The major one was on Pauls apostleship.
which he is pushed to defend in I Corinthians 9 and Galatians 2. Whether the disagreement was based on interpretation of scripture is something I will have to check up.
I beleive there was also a major disagreement between Paul and Peter, I cant remember exactly where or on what at the moment (something to do with circumcision of the gentiles and the eucharist).
Other disagreements abounded
There is the one in I Cor 1:10 (although in this part Paul is trying to play reconciliator) where Paul says:
The following article addresses some of the disagreements:
[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]<a href="http://www.hendrickson.com/pdf/chapters/1565633792-ch01.pdf" target="_blank">the disagreements</a>

This is great as long as we are consistent in our methods and we make sure that our methods track the truth. Attempting to study the Jesus stories in a vacuum is dangerous because we then have no reference point concerning how stories develop in general and what makes evidence good, and then anything goes, from the 0% true mythical Jesus to the 100% true fundamentalist Jesus.
My point was that we cant discount what is plausible because it is not plausible in other cases.

Gotta run.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Bede said:
Let me help the lost number with the definition so that he doesn't create another mess.
headbanger:
1. one specialized in the job of taking peoples heads and banging them against the rock of reason until all silly ideas contained in those heads fall off to the ground. The headbanger then proceeds to crush the silly ideas under his foot.

2. One dedicated to the systematic and relentless refutation of all silly ideas and exposure of poor reasoning.

Bede, your pretentious little friend is just getting what he had coming.

Interesting, why does Vork say so?

I have just completed your Theories and Methodologies in the Study of the Historical Jesus and Christian Origins I must say you have done a fine job at laying out the history and development of biblical studies to this moment from a couple of centuries ago. I find his article very edifying.

I am only bothered by a few statements in the article:

You say under "Orthodoxy and heresy":
This statement smacks of superstition and implied that you beleive christianity managed to be so successful through means other than naturalistic means.

another one (two paragraps later) was:
Consensus on what? that "early Christians were a highly disparate bunch"? Have you established that there is consensus on the matter in your article?

Others
Sweeping and vague statements like:
"Anthropologists have solved one problem that ...",
"more conservative historians point out that..." these are not acceptable as scholarly. They smack of quackery.

"While using the symbolic resources of the Old Testament and elsewhere, the historian should try to keep within the largely agreed framework delineated ..."
Who is Bede to tell historians what they should or should not do?
Is that Bede's job - the authority on how historians should do?

And Bede also makes an irrelevant conclusion. He starts very well then he gets bogged down into questions concerning why one sect came out on top over many other sects, which is a question his article (going by the title) is NOT about.

Other than those, good work Bede. But I am such a layman, maybe Vork had a good reason for finding it "garbage".

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Intensity writes: I have always found you to be a straight debater, keen on clarity and very forthright, but I cant help feeling in your last post, you have twisted some of my arguments around, for example I said:

I try not to twist arguments around, but it sometimes happens, either because I don't understand the other person or the other person doesn't completely understand my response.

Intensity writes:

Intensity :We simply have no evidence that a historical Jesus existed. I dont think it helps much when we fling ourselves in the sea of speculation.

you responded:

Kirby I have never asked you to believe in a historical Jesus.

Your earlier, statement, which I was responding to, was:

Kirby It is possible that events in the life of Jesus were interpreted in the light of scripture, which colored the narration of the events.

This statment puts forward the possibility that there existed actual (read historical) events, that were then interpreted in the light of scripture and got colored by the narration and that is why I responded that we have no evidence that there existed a historical Jesus. My response had nothing to do with you asking me to do anything, so to twist it around to make me sound like I am interpreting you to be asking me to do anything is not accurate.

The original statement was that some NT stories were influenced by (or ripped off from) the OT, as part of a list of items ostensibly with the purpose that there existed no historical Jesus. My response about the possibility of a HJ, with some stories being influenced by the OT, was not anything other an expression of doubt concerning the (apparent) explanation of the phenomena of midrash in the gospels as pointing to the non-existence of Jesus. I was not advancing this possibility as anything other than possible in response to your argument, yet you replied saying that I was guilty of speculation and that there is no evidence for Jesus. Speculation is not bad when it is labeled as speculation in order to show that another person's speculation is not the only speculation out there - viz., that if someone says OT influence in the NT stories shows that there was no Jesus, it ain't necessarily so.

I do not represent you as thinking that I asked you to believe in Jesus. I responded to the statement that there is no evidence to Jesus in the way that I did, because generally people are not expected to provide evidence for things that they don't ask others to believe (or don't even believe themselves). Now, you may have expected me to provide evidence for a HJ without thinking that that I asked you to believe in a HJ, or you may have stated that there is no evidence for Jesus even though you do not expect me to provide any. Drawing such distinctions about your mental states was not my concern. My statement was simply a reflection of my own self, that I do not make a claim about there having been a HJ, nor do I adopt such a speculation as being supported by conclusive evidence, but I still may reply to arguments against the existence of Jesus in a way that indicates that the evidence is compatible with the existence of a HJ.

So, any twisting here resulted from the absence of a drawn-out explanation of my comment such as you will find above.

Intensity writes: You are the one who brought up the issue concerning what HJ proponents believe. And you made an obvious point, when I pointed that out, you argued to make me appear like I was forcing you to discuss an issue that does not concern you.

I was responding to a series of statements as though they were intended to provide conclusive evidence against the existence of a HJ, either individually or cumulatively. The falsity of the divinity and redemption of Christ are entirely compatible with the existence of HJ, just as much as such falsity is compatible with the non-existence of a HJ. If we agree on this, then the point can be dropped as presenting evidence for the totally mythical nature of Jesus.

You cannot force me to discuss anything (unless perhaps we meet up in a dark alley! &lt;G&gt , and so I would not act as though you were forcing me to discuss something. But, honestly, I do not know why you brought up the question of the divinity and redemption of Christ with me, an atheist.

Intensity writes: I had to point out the error in this statement because it portrays me as inconsistent. Now unless you would like to convince me that you portraying me as self-contradictory. My argument removed the self-contradiction you were imposing on me and to trivialize the distinction I made is not very charitable of you.

When we know an author only from one work, I find it pointless to distuingish the credibility of that author from the credibility of his work. However, if the distinction is important to you, then you have not contradicted yourself here.

Intensity writes: Do we have evidence that Paul rejected the claims that Jesus was physical? I dont think so. Paul just seems unaware of a historical Jesus.

This is a good point. Apart from the enigmatic 2 Cor 5:16, I can think of no verse in which Paul makes a statement that would suggest that he rejects an idea of an earthly Jesus held by others. This would tend to the disadvantage of a theory that Paul was contradicting others and teaching that there was no earthly Jesus. (And the verse in the Octavius is rather enigmatic itself, so I suppose a parallel might hold.)

Of course, such a theory of Pauline rejection would make most Christians uneasy, so I suppose that they would count this as no loss and hold to other defenses, such as that the occasional nature of Paul's letters did not lend itself to excurses on the life and times of Jesus.

Try reading 'Against the Nations' by Tertullian sometime and tell me how many references you find to the life of Jesus. Or read the Acrostics of Commodian, in which I found only one line that would refer to an earthly Jesus. I do not believe that all Christian writers who believed in an earthly Jesus made a point of that fact.

I wrote: If not, is it possible that a historical man informed parts of Mark's story even if not Paul's kerygma?

Intensity writes: Evidence will make that possibility useful.

It is useful already to show that the non-existence of Jesus is not the only explanation.

I wrote: I was using the word possible in the sense of epistomological possibility. That is, if we do not know that something is false, then it is epistemologically possible. Since I do think that we have some knowledge, I would not say that all things are epistemologically possible.

Intensity writes: I agree, but of what historical evidence is third-hand testimony? It just shows there were rumours going round. Someone can also write that another saw an alien was spotted in the Philadelphia, would that be historical evidence of aliens visiting earth?

Of course, we have first hand accounts of aliens, so that might cause you to revise your notions of eyewitness evidence too.

When I made my statement on the meaning of epistemological possibility, I was stating that it is an epistemological possibility that there was a HJ, not that it is an epistemological impossibility that there was not a HJ.

Intensity writes: My point is, if the figure of Jesus could be given so much importance centuries later, then its inconceivable that nothing historical was written about him. Most great men have a lot of historical material written about them.

The importance of Jesus centuries after his life can have absolutely zero effect on the visibility of Jesus to his contemporaries, who would have been prophets greater than Jesus himself if they had foretold that a tiny lower class superstitious oriental cult about a crucified Jewish sophist with absurd ideas of a bodily resurrection would come to dominate the eternal Roman Empire, blessed by the gods and ruled by divine emperors.

Intensity writes: And if Jesus was just an ordinary man, then it further proves that the Jesus of the gospels is fictitious.

If the "Jesus of the gospels" being non-fictitious means that the four gospels are mostly false, pericope for pericope, then I suppose that most of the Jesus Seminar are Jesus mythers and didn't know it. Myself, I think that the statement of the non-existence of a HJ means something stronger than the falsity of most of the gospel portraits. What understanding do you have of the idea that there was no historical Jesus?

Intensity writes: explain how I know? because we would reasonably expect them to write of such a great magician or teacher.

We would reasonably expect them to write of Jesus Christ as they conceived him to be, in heaven. Many Christians go long stretches at a time, mentioning Jesus, but not mentioning any details of the life of Jesus on earth.

Intensity writes: that is unambiguous to me? Would it be ambiguous if they were talking of a real man?

What is ambiguous to you may not have been ambiguous to the original author.

I wrote, with regard to the point that early Christians did not agree on who Jesus was: This might suggest that a historical Jesus, if he existed, did not teach dogmas centered on his own person.

Intensity writes: I demonstrated otherwise

You demonstrated that there is a statement in John in which Jesus makes a statement centered on his person. Unless you generally trust the statements in the Gospel of John for the teaching of Jesus, or unless you have a particular reason for accepting this statement as representing a dominical saying, then you have not demonstrated that Jesus taught dogmas centered on his person. And you have certainly not demonstrated the falsity of the idea that the disagreement of early Christians suggests that no clear teaching about his nature was given by Jesus, whether this is because there was no historical Jesus or because the historical Jesus did not make such dogmatic statements about his person. My response was to indicate that the disagreements of early Christians as to the nature of Christ is compatible with both the non-existence of Jesus and the existence of a HJ who did not tell his followers exactly who he is to be understood to be.

Intensity writes: where does the inerrancy come in?

You had quoted a verse, apparently as though someone who accepted that there was a historical Jesus would be obligated to accept the facticity of the verse or give up the idea of a historical Jesus altogether. But the idea of a historical Jesus would be shaken by the falsity of one verse only if the idea of a HJ is based on inerrancy.

You have other sources of christs teachings?

As a point of fact, there are other sources for the sayings of Jesus, such as the three synoptic gospels and one attributed to Thomas. Generally the Gospel of John is given low rank as far as preserving Christ's teaching, whatever its value may be as theology. But, even if the Gospel of John were the only source for sayings of Jesus, there is nothing that says that these sayings could not have been partially authentic, partially inauthentic.

Intensity writes: The major one was on Pauls apostleship.
which he is pushed to defend in I Corinthians 9 and Galatians 2. Whether the disagreement was based on interpretation of scripture is something I will have to check up.

I don't think that the idea of apostleship is found in the scriptures (i.e. the Jewish scriptures), but I welcome any information you may find about this.

Intensity writes: My point was that we cant discount what is plausible because it is not plausible in other cases.

So long as we apply the same methods of determining plausibility in all cases.

best,
Peter Kirby