Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?

[Jagella]

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!

It's not hard to counter this argument. It assumes that the early Christians were embarrassed by their savior being crucified. Do we know this assumption to be true? Yes, some of us today might see such an event as embarrassing, but we project our own feelings onto first-century Jews living in a culture much different from our own. We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews would feel like we do today.

Another difficulty for the embarrassment theory is that the Romans crucified many Jews and were hated for it. The early Christians may have made up the crucifixion story to create sympathy for Jesus among the Jews and even gentiles who may have lost loved ones to the horror of crucifixion. Christians could claim then as they do today that "Jesus died for you" as they might say to a potential convert. Laying guilt trips on people can be a powerful motivation to unbelievers to join a religious group.

Yet another rationale for fabricating the crucifixion story is that it sets up the resurrection of Jesus. Without a crucified Christ his followers could not have claimed Jesus' rose from the dead, perhaps the greatest miracle of the New Testament.

Finally, if we are smart enough to assume that a presumably embarrassing story like the resurrection is unlikely to be made up and hence is likely to be true, then perhaps the early Christians thought the same way. They may have fabricated the crucifixion to lead unbelievers to conclude that Jesus was real because nobody would make up an embarrassing story! If so, then their trick is having its intended effect on modern historicists.

In any event, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for fabricating the crucifixion story. There are probably many you can think of. I should point out that the crucifixion story hasn't hurt Christianity much; Catholic churches proudly display paintings of the crucified Christ and place crucifixes in all their churches. Few if any will leave the church over this belief.

So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 56 by Mithrae]

Mistaken identity is a very real and very high probability in the case of most if not all Bigfoot 'sightings' that I've heard of. It is not a high probability when James told Paul (confirmed by Cephas, John and so on) that he was the brother of that Jesus dude.

I'll need to disagree with the likelihood that Paul (and Cephas and John) would not have misidentified James. We have no idea if Paul knew what "James" looked like. In fact, Paul probably didn't know what any brothers of Jesus may have looked like. Why? In the first century nobody had cameras and photos. Even busts and portraits were unlikely among the Jews who prohibited "graven images." Note the story of Judas agreeing to betray Jesus. Judas' job was to identify Jesus because those who sought to arrest him didn't know what he looked like. This story illustrates the difficulty of identifying people at that time.

What you are doing is blindly assuming an equivalency between evidence A and evidence B without providing even the slightest reason to suppose that they actually are equivalent! And you think I'm the one using invalid reasoning?

In my hypothetical scenario, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the probability of truth from each witness of Bigfoot is roughly the same. That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to me that each witness has essentially zero probability of having seen a real Bigfoot. Those who claim to know that Jesus was a real guy could easily have zero probability of being truthful as well. That's where your argument fails. You arbitrarily assign probabilities of truth to those who wrote about a real Jesus with the result of your getting the Jesus you want!

I've never been to Kansas, and as far as I know I've never personally known anyone who has either; but I've seen enough references to it as a real place that I am confident they can't all be lying or mistaken.

Are those who claimed that Atlantis is real lying or mistaken? They surely could be lying or mistaken. Kansas is a different matter. You can go to Kansas. You cannot go to Atlantis.

You need to understand that there are numerous cases of all people lying or being mistaken regarding some claims. Fairies, trolls, unicorns, dragons, and mermaids have been sighted by hoards of people. All those people got it wrong.

[evilsorcerer1]

. . . Look at the whole Christian religion, and mankind as a whole. They preach this whole 'protect your children and family' philosophy but can't seem to find the link between the world's problems about 7 billion peoples choice to believe they can be saved. They think all of these problems aren't just coming high percentage of people that are killing in ways like not caring about everything important which is this life. So they're only protecting their right to cause problems because children don't need protection most of them aren't running away anyway. War isn't about God being on their side it's about rolling the dice.
. . . I'm sure if there never were any or are no people left a creator loves, the world will go on because anyone that is supposed to be born will and nothing can stop that. But I don't see how people can have a soul. I think we're just flesh and there aren't any spirits other than God, that's all blasphemy. Wanting to be God, wanting to be like God. So just like in the Bible when it claims the jews were mad and called Jesus a blasphemed because jesus, a man, said he was god, anyone who claims that has blasphemed already. But the idea would be trusting in anything that wasn't god (a spirit) would have blasphemed but that would include trusting a bible or a mans voice such as the one in the garden of eden.
. . . I don't know what that book is trying to say but it's funny and I've been studying it. I think quite a lot of people were created in the beginning but no one even knew anyone else was there. And I think language got confused by people making a bunch of different alphabet symbols and just not being smart. I also believe that if a language were spoken correctly each sound has a particular meaning. But symbols have made it confusing. I also think even though people were given their own language it would have been easier to understand other languages if spoken by someone intelligent.
. . . The languages probably got confused around the time the Bible was written,and there were probably many involved. Babel and bible are very similar. But I read the Bible and it's weird. It seems like someone was passed down the stories or written on animal skins or they changed some words and numbers trying to make sense of it. Because Enosh, Enoch seems like it could be evolutions around the sun and moon. .Enosh lived 65 and then 300. Could have been recording time, 365 days in a year. Enoch lived 90 and then 815 more, a total of 905. I don't know but if 905 is divided by 7 you get about 130. But a lot of times they counted days and nights so if that was divided by 2 it'd be about 65. The first was 365 and the second 65, they could have been trying to figure out years and months. Solar could be the sideways s while lunar could be the upside down L.
. But it really seems some old writings were passed down but had to be translated with guesses. If words or numbers were scratched off they could have thought meant they died.

[Mithrae]

> Firstly, one of the reasons why we know that the TF is fake is because Origen had no knowledge of it - meaning that it had to be introduced sometime after his day - while Origen did quote the James passage.

Origens citation is different than extant MSS of Josephus. In fact, if properly reported it would seem there was another case of interpolation. So, what we have rests on a stylistic argument which posits that Josephus would not have given the judicial murder of one man such short shrift, correct? The James material itself is fairly terse.

Take care,
TFV

Actually on all three occasions he cites the passage - referencing it to Josephus each time and specifically to Judaic Antiquities on one of them - he quotes exactly the same phrase we find in Josephus: "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" (ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou); hardly a common Christian way of putting it.
http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyAr ... rigen.html

He was presumably writing from memory, because as you note there are other details which aren't found in Josephus (presumably from Hegesippus). But it's far more likely that, knowing Josephus wrote of James' death and remembering the curious phrasing of it, he confused extraneous details into the account, than that he was thinking of an entirely different source yet on all three occasions used that phrase not found in Hegesippus and rather than just confusing the names went so far as to specifically attribute it to Judaic Antiquities on one of them.

And even if the latter, more unlikely scenario were true (or the supposition that Origen was using a Josephus text which actually did have those details!) there's still the problem of why we have the Josephus text we now have: If a later scribe had seen Origen's alleged confusion and decided to 'correct' the Josephus account, they surely would have included the more significant details Origen mentions, not just that neutral phrasing.

His confusion of those extraneous details into the account obviously make it a less water-tight argument than it would otherwise be (though let's face it, there'd still be folk disputing the Josephus passage with just as much professed 'certainty' even if they weren't there!), but since mere confusion is the most likely explanation it is still fairly strong evidence that the text of Josephus read ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou in the mid 2nd century CE.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 20 by Jagella]

Quote:
I simply find your historical method to be wildly imaginative.

While I realize you mean this comment to be negatively critical, a healthy imagination can be very useful in discovering truth especially when solid evidence is lacking.

Correct, a 'healthy' imagination. EVen better, an imagination that is controlled, that perceives the ramifications of its theories and is able to critique them using established historical methodology.

As Historia and I have pointed out, all you have done is demonstrated that you can 'come up with' 'possibilities'. In the end, your argument runs, "because I do not see a blatant contradiction in my proposals, therefore, they are legitimate". But then there is no blatant contradiction in the proposal, "Julius Caesar was not assassinated but fell and broke his neck; those who could gain from the rumor spread the tale he was assassinated so as to start a war of succession".

No contradiction. Ergo, should be seriously considered.

Quote:
It is strange how many here think that because their theory is 'possible', it is therefore strong. "possibility" is the lowest criterion of historical method. If we do not demand a more stringent criteria, then any 'maybe x' is on the table.

And that's one of the main reasons why the criterion of embarrassment fails to be a valid way to assess the historicity of Jesus. Yes, it's possible that the early Christians may have been too embarrassed to make up a story like the crucifixion of Jesus, but we should go on more than mere possibility if we can.

You find me written evidence that a Jew would not regard the concept of a 'crucified Messiah' as almost a contradiction, and I will give you Peter's confession of Jesus as Christ at Caesarea, followed by Peter's intense embarrassment at Jesus' prediction. I will then give you Paul's "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

A person can of course question the historicity of Peter's confession; that is irrelevant, for it still testifies to the attitude of the day.

A crucified messiah may indeed have been embarrassing to the early Christians, but would embarrassment prevent them from making up the story? That's one of the key questions I am pondering here.

Early Christians? Good grief, there can be no 'early Christians' until the story has been excepted. So the question is, what would make a handful of Galilean Jews make up the story?

But here is the problem; a wild imagination can come up with anything. Maybe they were disgruntled because they were never allowed to train among Pharisees. So, out of bitterness, they concocted a story to upset everyone. No contradiction there. But does it have explanatory scope and power? Is it guilty of ad hoc assumptions? Is it plausible, let alone probable? no, no, yes, no, no. = pitiful theory.

And that is the chief error of nearly all atheists here who attempt history. They think that because they can 'imagine' something, it therefore has warrant. It doesn't. The best explanation in history is the simplest one. The simplest explanation for the early testimony that there was a Jewish figure named Yeshua who got himself crucified, is that there was a Jewish figure named Yeshua who got himself crucified. There are ZERO problems with that.

So good try. The criterion of embarrassment still seems like a poor reason to believe the crucifixion story and that Jesus was historical.

as a single criterion, it is very good. Add to that references from Josephus and Tacitus, and it is outstanding.

Your attempts to ad hoc the simplest explanation into oblivion would never convince an historian. The number of ramifications which your theory would have to meet are enormous. Does that mean you can't come up with some kind of explanation for each one? Don't know. But I know it doesn't matter, for history (like mathematics) looks for simple and elegant explanations.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 56 by Mithrae]

Mistaken identity is a very real and very high probability in the case of most if not all Bigfoot 'sightings' that I've heard of. It is not a high probability when James told Paul (confirmed by Cephas, John and so on) that he was the brother of that Jesus dude.

I'll need to disagree with the likelihood that Paul (and Cephas and John) would not have misidentified James.

And James mistakenly identified himself? Please You're grasping desperately at straws here, and I think you know it. There is the possibility that they all lied to Paul, or that Paul lied to the Galatians. But since that is a scenario based on nothing more than ad hoc speculation - with no motive in Paul's case, or requiring a small conspiracy if it was a deception of the Jerusalem church - how probable do you think that is? 10%? 30%?

What you are doing is blindly assuming an equivalency between evidence A and evidence B without providing even the slightest reason to suppose that they actually are equivalent! And you think I'm the one using invalid reasoning?

In my hypothetical scenario, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the probability of truth from each witness of Bigfoot is roughly the same. That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to me that each witness has essentially zero probability of having seen a real Bigfoot. Those who claim to know that Jesus was a real guy could easily have zero probability of being truthful as well. That's where your argument fails. You arbitrarily assign probabilities of truth to those who wrote about a real Jesus with the result of your getting the Jesus you want!

Yes, they're somewhat arbitrary guesses about specific questions constrained by the specific data available.

Whereas your approach is just a wholesale arbitrary guess about the whole damn issue.

So which is more reasonable? As you've probably noticed, most people (including yourself, until I asked for a specific probability) just say things like "Jesus existed" or "I'm not convinced" or "Jesus was a myth" - pretty much useless semantic fluff. Only by actually quantifying those in terms of probabilities/plausibilities and analysing what things need to be true or what things need to be false for a given position to hold can we more clearly understand the constraints surrounding each position. Of course it's still somewhat arbitrary, but it's a lot less arbitrary than mere qualitative statements about the big picture.

In order for Jesus not to exist, each of the largely-independent lines of evidence I provided must be false or misleading. That is simply a fact. You're not trying to deny that, are you?

So in order for Jesus' existence to be a 50/50 probability, those seven or so main lines of evidence must roughly have an average 90% probability of being false. Again, this is simply a fact. I mean, you could try to argue that five of them are certainly, 100% false and therefore you only need a 70% probability that each of the remaining two are false. You could try.

But that gives us an idea of the kind of constraints within which a 50/50 probability estimate has to work. And judging by your responses, you have realized that your wholly-arbitrary figure becomes a lot harder to justify when you actually get down to brass tacks. That's okay - in fact it's a good thing. The whole point of discussion is to test our ideas and expand our understanding, after all

I've never been to Kansas, and as far as I know I've never personally known anyone who has either; but I've seen enough references to it as a real place that I am confident they can't all be lying or mistaken.

Are those who claimed that Atlantis is real lying or mistaken? They surely could be lying or mistaken. Kansas is a different matter. You can go to Kansas. You cannot go to Atlantis.

You need to understand that there are numerous cases of all people lying or being mistaken regarding some claims. Fairies, trolls, unicorns, dragons, and mermaids have been sighted by hoards of people. All those people got it wrong.

Is that how your reasoning works? In order to know whether something exists, you simply assume that you could personally experience it, or assume that you can not personally experience it? Unfortunately for you, you cannot go to 1862, or to a black hole, or to an electron cloud, or to the pre-Cambrian era. You're not providing counter-examples, just illustrating some rather sloppy thinking I'm afraid.

In order for Atlantis to be false, every single claim about it must be false or misleading. That is still a simple fact.

And I wonder how many people have seen dragons or the like? What are their names? Do you even know, or are you (yet again) blindly assuming that evidence A is equivalent to evidence B, without a single shred of reason or evidence?

I know what the evidence is for the existence of Jesus, and it is very compelling. I don't know what the evidence for the existence of dragons is. If you'd be so kind as to share it with us, then we can decide whether or not it is compelling. If you find numerous credible sources reporting their existence, I'd be delighted to hear it; but I strongly suspect that what you'll find are that there are no credible first-hand accounts - unlike Jesus' existence.

[Mithrae]

You need to understand that there are numerous cases of all people lying or being mistaken regarding some claims. Fairies, trolls, unicorns, dragons, and mermaids have been sighted by hoards of people. All those people got it wrong.

I should elaborate on this, because it's an important point. But rather than these dubious examples, let's look at a couple of cases where there are known to be large numbers of serious reports: The miracle of the sun at Fatima, and alien abductions. How should we assess the evidence in those cases?

In both of those cases, there are explanatory possibilities which for all intents and purposes apply to all accounts. In the case of Fatima, we have a) the townsfolk's intense anticipation of a miracle and b) their prolonged gazing towards the sun; both factors which could very likely contribute to misperception. In the case of alien abductions, we have a) the phenomenon of sleep paralysis and b) widespread cultural portrayals of aliens/abductions themselves to give the experience its specific form.

Because these are explanations which apply to all accounts, even though there is only a vanishingly small possibility that all witnesses to the miracle of the sun for their part provided false or misleading information, the probability that these prior or external factors produced their experiences is quite high. Same for alien abductions.

There are also some pretty compelling reasons to believe that the sun did not zig-zag around the sky, that Bigfoot, dragons and Atlantis do not exist, and (to a lesser extent) that aliens are not abducting random humans. We have excellent reasons to suppose that if any of the first four were in fact the case, there'd be much more evidence available than we've actually got; the geological upheavals from a zig-zagging sun or a sinking city, or the prints, nests and faeces of big creatures in a given habitat. Aliens abducting random humans and never making formal contact simply doesn't seem to make sense.

By contrast, there is no compelling reason to suppose that Jesus did not exist; nor is there any alternative explanation applying to all accounts, beyond the absurd and vanishingly small possibility of a conspiracy to pretend that someone who didn't exist actually did.



In short, these would-be counter-examples do not change the fact that this reasoning - "How many things would need to be false for this conclusion to be wrong, and how likely is that?" - is the only rational approach to knowledge outside our own personal experience (at least as far as I've ever seen).

Underneath our unconscious heuristics, that is how we evaluate pretty much everything from media reports (if they're all saying this and no-one is disputing it, it must be true) to scientific conclusions and consensus. Any individual report has a non-zero possibility of being false, but we rely on information which is confirmed by numerous sources or lines of evidence.

The fact that there are cases in which numerous sources provide apparently false information does not refute that; it simply means that we should rise to the challenge of justifying our disbelief in those cases.

[paarsurrey1]

Jesus son of Mary who died a natural death did exist but Jesus the literal "Son of God" or the literal "God" who got crucified for the sins of others, died on the Cross and got raised up from the dead and then sat on the right hand of God, didn't exist. The latter Jesus is the creation of Paul and the Church.
I like the First Post.
Regards

You got things backwards. Paul's letters are BEFORE the Gospels.

The list of books is as follows:

The New Testament is a collection of 27 books, usually placed after the Old Testament in most Christian Bibles:

Matthew's
Mark's
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
http://www.biblestudytools.com/books-of-the-bible/
and so on and so forth.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 65 by Mithrae]

And James mistakenly identified himself?

I don't recall saying that, but now that you mention it, it is quite possible that if James was a real guy, then he may have been deluded into thinking he was Jesus' brother. I'm sure that any brother of Jesus would have very high status in the emerging Christian religion. That high status might have influenced James identifying as Jesus' brother.

You're grasping desperately at straws here, and I think you know it.

Well, if you can read the minds of first-century Jews, then reading my mind must be a cinch for you!

There is the possibility that they all lied to Paul, or that Paul lied to the Galatians. But since that is a scenario based on nothing more than ad hoc speculation - with no motive in Paul's case, or requiring a small conspiracy if it was a deception of the Jerusalem church - how probable do you think that is? 10%? 30%?

This is odd; you criticize me for speculating only to ask me to speculate. Since I must speculate because good evidence is lacking, I'd say that there is an even chance (50 percent) that the early church lied often to achieve its ends. After all, the Christian religion's modern-day leaders lie often enough.

Whereas your approach is just a wholesale arbitrary guess about the whole damn issue.

Again, I am forced to guess because good evidence for what was going on in the early church is sorely lacking. You need to guess too. We all need to guess.

So which is more reasonable?

I'd say my speculation is more reasonable than yours. My approach takes human nature including delusion and deception into consideration, while you seem to believe that the first Christians could not have lied or been mistaken.

And judging by your responses, you have realized that your wholly-arbitrary figure becomes a lot harder to justify when you actually get down to brass tacks.

Your figures are as arbitrary as mine.

Is that how your reasoning works?

Yes. I often use examples of people lying or being mistaken regarding issues not directly related to Christianity as good evidence of the possibility of Christians being deceptive.

In order for Atlantis to be false, every single claim about it must be false or misleading. That is still a simple fact.

Yes, one single true claim that Atlantis is real would prove that Atlantis is real, obviously. Like I said before, though, it's very possible that all those claims are false. So why believe in Atlantis based solely on people's claims? I posted examples of things that all eyewitnesses were wrong about. It happens. So why make a special exception for a historical Jesus?

And I wonder how many people have seen dragons or the like? What are their names?

I don't know what the evidence for the existence of dragons is. If you'd be so kind as to share it with us, then we can decide whether or not it is compelling. If you find numerous credible sources reporting their existence, I'd be delighted to hear it; but I strongly suspect that what you'll find are that there are no credible first-hand accounts - unlike Jesus' existence.

BlackDrago.com lists 15 dragon sightings along with the names of they eyewitnesses. Based on this kind of evidence, do you accept dragons as historical? In order to be consistent, you will need to accept dragons as historical.

Do you even know, or are you (yet again) blindly assuming that evidence A is equivalent to evidence B, without a single shred of reason or evidence?

My assumptions are no more blind and without "a single shred of reason or evidence" than anybody else who attempts to use mathematics to get a probability for Jesus' historicity.

I know what the evidence is for the existence of Jesus, and it is very compelling.

That's fine, Mithrae. If you find the evidence for Jesus' historicity to be compelling, then go ahead and believe it. I realize that your salvation depends upon a historical Jesus. Why let some skeptics get in the way of all that?

[Mithrae]

And I wonder how many people have seen dragons or the like? What are their names?

I don't know what the evidence for the existence of dragons is. If you'd be so kind as to share it with us, then we can decide whether or not it is compelling. If you find numerous credible sources reporting their existence, I'd be delighted to hear it; but I strongly suspect that what you'll find are that there are no credible first-hand accounts - unlike Jesus' existence.

BlackDrago.com lists 15 dragon sightings along with the names of they eyewitnesses. Based on this kind of evidence, do you accept dragons as historical? In order to be consistent, you will need to accept dragons as historical.

None of those are of dragons. Most of them are of sea serpents (oarfish perhaps), or creatures that sound like whales, sharks, or the common kraken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oarfish

And James mistakenly identified himself?

I don't recall saying that, but now that you mention it, it is quite possible that if James was a real guy, then he may have been deluded into thinking he was Jesus' brother. I'm sure that any brother of Jesus would have very high status in the emerging Christian religion. That high status might have influenced James identifying as Jesus' brother.

Some kind of 'high status' from being Jesus' brother would require a human Jesus to begin with

You're grasping desperately at straws here, and I think you know it.

Well, if you can read the minds of first-century Jews, then reading my mind must be a cinch for you!

I can read what they wrote. You are the one professing a high probability that they didn't mean what they said at all - that they were lying or self-delusional. That is mind-reading.

There is the possibility that they all lied to Paul, or that Paul lied to the Galatians. But since that is a scenario based on nothing more than ad hoc speculation - with no motive in Paul's case, or requiring a small conspiracy if it was a deception of the Jerusalem church - how probable do you think that is? 10%? 30%?

This is odd; you criticize me for speculating only to ask me to speculate. Since I must speculate because good evidence is lacking, I'd say that there is an even chance (50 percent) that the early church lied often to achieve its ends. After all, the Christian religion's modern-day leaders lie often enough.

Your prejudices are showing more than a little here. But I did ask, so okay, you're assuming a 50% probability of each early Christian source being deceptive. But let's not stop there; why not also assume a 50% probability of delusion or fundamental but honest error for all Christian sources too?

That'd mean each Christian source has only a one in four chance of being neither deceptive nor delusional! Across the top 7 or so lines of evidence for Jesus' existence that'd average out at almost 70% probability per source for deception or honest error; Josephus was not Christian, but in the spirit of our anti-historical crusade I've still given him half as much evil insanity as the average Christian. That would then give us an almost 8% probability that Jesus did not exist! Well, probably a few percent more than that, to allow for manuscript uncertainties.

There's still substantial uncertainty in that final figure of course, because your assumptions about how likely deception is are somewhat arbitrary, just like anyone else's would be. But it's still pretty clear that even by your own assumptions, we'll still be looking at greater than 80% probability of Jesus' existence.

So which is more reasonable?

I'd say my speculation is more reasonable than yours. My approach takes human nature including delusion and deception into consideration, while you seem to believe that the first Christians could not have lied or been mistaken.

I have clearly and consistently stated that deception or error are very real possibilities in all cases. I don't share your view that we can legitimately assume 50% probabilities of lying across the board without a shred of evidence, but as a 10 or 20% possibility, sure. I don't want to be accused of mind-reading again, so whatever it is that makes you feel as if you need to brazenly deny reality in this manner is best left to the imagination.

I know what the evidence is for the existence of Jesus, and it is very compelling.

That's fine, Mithrae. If you find the evidence for Jesus' historicity to be compelling, then go ahead and believe it. I realize that your salvation depends upon a historical Jesus. Why let some skeptics get in the way of all that?

I am not a Christian. My avatar and usergroups indicate this quite clearly. Nor am I religious, as my usergroups also indicate (and in spite of His Noodliness in my avatar - I'm merely a cultural pastafarian). So once again, the reasons for your compulsion to deny reality are best left to the imagination.

However it does seem that if you struggle so mightily with facts like my clear and consistent acknowledgement of the possibility that the sources are dishonest, or my non-Christian non-religious stance, any reader of our little discussion would have ample reason to take your views on more obscure matters with a grain of salt

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 69 by Mithrae]

None of those are of dragons. Most of them are of sea serpents (oarfish perhaps), or creatures that sound like whales, sharks, or the common kraken.

None of the mentions of Jesus in the New Testament are of a historical Jesus. Most of them are of generic, peasant Jewish preachers, or people that looked like the mythical Jesus fabricated by Paul, or the common god of the pagans.

See. I, like you, can be as slippery as a sea serpent!

Some kind of 'high status' from being Jesus' brother would require a human Jesus to begin with

Uh, no, all you need is a Jesus who people believe in.

I can read what they wrote. You are the one professing a high probability that they didn't mean what they said at all - that they were lying or self-delusional. That is mind-reading.

No, I gave them an even chance of being honest.

Your prejudices are showing more than a little here.

Actually, I'd say I'm postjudiced. My opinions are based on my reading of the New Testament and my personal experiences as a Christian.

But I did ask, so okay, you're assuming a 50% probability of each early Christian source being deceptive.

OK, you have the percentage correct, but you're wrong about the "each early Christian source being deceptive." I said: "...there is an even chance (50 percent) that the early church lied often to achieve its ends." (emphasis added). So it's the church, not each early Christian source, that I gave the even chance of lying to.

I have clearly and consistently stated that deception or error are very real possibilities in all cases.

Great. Then recognize that the probability of error in each of your sources is close enough to zero that one needs no historical Jesus! He's only probable if you make him probable.

I am not a Christian. My avatar and usergroups indicate this quite clearly. Nor am I religious, as my usergroups also indicate (and in spite of His Noodliness in my avatar - I'm merely a cultural pastafarian).

My mistake, but you seem to argue like a Christian apologist for a historical Jesus. Why do you want him to be historical?

...any reader of our little discussion would have ample reason to take your views on more obscure matters with a grain of salt

They should scrutinize what I post. It's always a good idea to be a bit slow to believe what we read. That's my whole point about believing on writings alone that Jesus was historical. I'm glad you're beginning to see it my way.