Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

[paarsurrey1]

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 37 by Goose]

Something special about the first century? Not in and of itself. But if we are looking for proper and fair comparisons they need to be close to Jesus’ time. If we move too far away from that period we run the risk of committing an anachronistic fallacy or false analogy or both.

But the story of Socrates isn't "far away" at all from the Jesus fable especially considering that things changed slowly in those days.

We have no such evidence for Gamaliel the Elder, Pilate, Herod Agrippa, or Tiberius. Oh, and don’t forget our good friend Socrates. We don’t have writings from him either.

It looks like you're being disingenuous here not to mention that you keep moving the goalposts. Every time I post evidence to satisfy your demands, you demand even more. You demanded evidence for a person in the first century we have better evidence for than Jesus, I posted two examples for which we have better evidence for than Jesus. Now you argue that the evidence for some people in the first century is even worse than the evidence for Jesus.

By the way, it is a logical fallacy to argue for a proposition's truth by citing propositions that you think are even less likely to be true. In this debate you argue that we should accept Jesus as historical because we accept other figures as historical with, as you claim, even weaker evidence. Aside from the very real possibility that you are wrong about the evidence for people like Pilate being weaker than the evidence for Jesus, you need to realize that even worse evidence for people like Pilate does not make the evidence for Jesus any better. Weak evidence is weak evidence no matter how weak other evidence might be.

I asked for the methodology you are using to determine the writings attributed to Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes were actually written by them. If you can’t do that, just say so.

I think you might be confused. I never explained any methodology I was employing other than reading. I did criticize the gospels for their authors' neglecting to explain their methods.

In any case, I consider myself to be an "investigator." I investigate the claims made for a historical Jesus by reading those claims and judging them for strengths and weaknesses. So far I've found some weaknesses in both mythicism and historicism. At present it appears to me that mythicism is winning out, but it's way too early to tell who the final victor will be.

The Question Begging fallacy was the result of you assuming to be true that The Clouds was by Aristophanes in order to argue we have better evidence for Socrates than for Jesus because we have The Clouds by Aristophanes (as well as works by Plato and Xenophon). Whereas by contrast the Gospels are written by unknown authors. You assumed to be true the very thing you were trying to prove. It is about as circular an argument as they come.

OK, now I see where you're mistaken. I'm trying to post historical evidence that I believe is stronger for Socrates than the "evidence" for Jesus. I'm not assuming it's better evidence; I have reason to believe it's evidence because I am reading Carrier's book. I'm not really trying to prove anything but am saying that the preponderance of the evidence points to a mythical Jesus. There is no fallacy in assessing evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence. If I was begging the question, I might argue something like: I know Jesus never existed because he is a myth. I'm not saying that.

False. Jesus existence is built on a cumulative case, like anything from history.

Uh, no. You assumed a real Jesus when you said: "His close proximity to key disciples." By saying there were "key disciples," there must have been a Jesus! But that's what you're trying to prove.

That’s part of it. Just like part of your evidence for Socrates was that Xenophon said so.

I concede your point that we do tend to put our faith in whomever we wish to believe. That's quite true. However, I see the testimonial evidence for Socrates to be much better than for Jesus. Paul, for instance, was an avowed Christian propagandist who was out to evangelize the world for a Jesus "come in the flesh." He all but admitted that he was dishonest and made outrageous claims that he saw Jesus in a vision and communicated directly with God through revelations. I see little such nonsense in the evidence for Socrates. That's why I think that the evidence for Socrates is much easier to believe than the evidence for Jesus.

I’m flattered by the sudden interest in my feelings but I don’t see how they are relevant.

I've seen and experienced personally much anger and abuse from the historical Jesus crowd. That tells me that there may well be a motive for insisting that Jesus was real that is based in emotion rather than sound logic or good evidence. This phenomenon is very relevant to the debate with mythicists because it constitutes a barrier to discovering the truth about Jesus.

...But when the weight of scholarship is that heavy towards one side of the argument it’s a good bet there are virtually unassailable reasons for holding the position.

If I only had the consensus of scholars to go on, then I'd probably side with them. However, I do have access to the evidence and arguments for a historical Jesus. After scrutinizing that evidence, I find it to be very weak and unconvincing.

Speaking of scholars, they need to demonstrate their ability to determine that Jesus was historical. I have seen no such demonstration.

Uh, yeah. Was that supposed to be your refutation of the historicist position?

I thought that my point was clear: the arguments you make for a historical Jesus can in principal be made for fictional characters. Those arguments are then worthless as reasons to believe Jesus was historical.

In conclusion, allow me to say that your position isn't hopeless. It's entirely possible that some day we will have good evidence for a historical Jesus. Until then, I remain a skeptic.

[JP Cusick]

Most documents of this kind did not survive paradoxically, they were preserved OUTSIDE the Roman Empire by Arab nations, and would be rediscovered during the Renaissance.

I think this is part of the reason these would-be Muslim nations are reviled so much, they basically caught the religion out, with demonstrations of unorthodox books - (that needed to be re-buried), evolution treatise that pre-dated Christianity, round-Earth proofs and so on.

I like this.

It gives more credence that the religion of Islam and Muhammad are the second coming witness proclaiming the truth. See thread HERE.

I was already aware that the Arabs were the ones who kept the ancient Greek works, and the Muslims continued in this for many centuries later, and the old Roman Christianity would have destroyed the works.

[Goose]

But the story of Socrates isn't "far away" at all from the Jesus fable especially considering that things changed slowly in those days.

Well Socrates is removed from Jesus by roughly four centuries, 3,000km, and a completely different cultural back ground. I’m not sure why you would think that isn’t “far away.�

The reality is there simply is a paucity of sources reporting the history of first century Judea. The Romans didn’t care all that much about Judea, a backwater Roman territory occupied by a race of people who were known to be trouble makers. Which is probably why Tacitus is really the only Roman historian who says much at all about the goings on there. And that’s just a by product of his overall Roman history, not because he was intentionally writing a history of that region. The only other main sources for first century Judean history come down to us from Philo and Josephus. Josephus at least mentions Jesus and so does Tacitus. That’s two out of the three. Not bad for a trouble making Jewish peasant wondering the Judean country side and executed as a criminal. So, when the correct perspective is set one begins to see that four narrative accounts (the Gospels) all within 70 years is actually quite an amazing amount of evidence which has come down to us.

As for Socrates. I don’t know why you are continuing to press with that argument. I’ve already shown the evidence for Socrates existence isn’t really any more abundant and can be argued to be less than that for Jesus. You’ve not overturned this.

It looks like you're being disingenuous here not to mention that you keep moving the goalposts. Every time I post evidence to satisfy your demands, you demand even more. You demanded evidence for a person in the first century we have better evidence for than Jesus, I posted two examples for which we have better evidence for than Jesus. Now you argue that the evidence for some people in the first century is even worse than the evidence for Jesus.

I didn’t ask for someone with better evidence per se. What constitutes better is too subjective.

What I said was, “It sounds impressive because it is impressive by comparison. Four ancient biographies within 70 years. That alone is impressive. Name one other figure from first century Judea which has that going for him.�

As for Paul and Josephus. Sure, we have their writings. That’s assuming all Josephus’ and Paul’s writings weren’t forgeries. I do find it ironical you are appealing to the authenticity of Paul’s letters after having argued some of them are forgeries having no basis in history. At any rate, the point is, no one close to their time dedicated entire biographies to telling Paul’s or Josephus’ story. So although you may consider having someone’s writings as some kind of definite proof they existed you haven’t provided anyone from first century Judea who had four narratives (or ancient bios) dedicated to the telling of their story.

By the way, it is a logical fallacy to argue for a proposition's truth by citing propositions that you think are even less likely to be true.

Nowhere have I done that. What I have done is called into question your historical reasoning when I produce examples of people thought to have existed which suffer the same evidential problems you point out for Jesus – i.e. Pilate, Gamaliel the Elder, etc.

In this debate you argue that we should accept Jesus as historical because we accept other figures as historical with, as you claim, even weaker evidence.

Nowhere have I formally made that argument. But it is suggestive to note that you probably do accept the existence of others on weaker evidence. Well actually you have to or you’d be forced to dismiss the existence of a number of people from first century Judea since Jesus is one of the most well attested figures of the time and region.

Aside from the very real possibility that you are wrong about the evidence for people like Pilate being weaker than the evidence for Jesus, you need to realize that even worse evidence for people like Pilate does not make the evidence for Jesus any better.

Of course not but it does show some inconsistency on your part when you accept the one on weaker evidence.

I think you might be confused. I never explained any methodology I was employing other than reading. I did criticize the gospels for their authors' neglecting to explain their methods.

Let me help you out here. The basic methodology historians use to determine who wrote something from antiquity is by looking at internal and external evidence. Internal being claims to authorship and incidental clues from which we can infer or support (or deny) authorship. External meaning other writers who attribute the work to that author.

My suggestion is lay down Carrier and begin to read some ancient works on your own. Find a few ancient works where the authorship is widely accepted by scholars. What you’ll begin to find is that the evidence supporting the authorship of these other works isn’t really any stronger or more abundant than what we have for the Gospels. You’ll then begin to see that the arguments often levied against the traditional authorship of the Gospels are unreasonably sceptical. That is, if we were to apply the same kind of arguments to secular works we would have to say we don’t know who wrote them either. We find ourselves in an absurd state of having to say we know almost nothing about the past.

OK, now I see where you're mistaken. I'm trying to post historical evidence that I believe is stronger for Socrates than the "evidence" for Jesus. I'm not assuming it's better evidence; I have reason to believe it's evidence because I am reading Carrier's book. I'm not really trying to prove anything but am saying that the preponderance of the evidence points to a mythical Jesus. There is no fallacy in assessing evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence. If I was begging the question, I might argue something like: I know Jesus never existed because he is a myth. I'm not saying that.

I haven’t read Carriers work here but if he is making that argument (Socrates had better evidence than Jesus) in his book then it’s Carrier who is begging the question. You need to be asking how does Carrier know that, for example, Aristophanes wrote The Clouds? He knows the same way we know who wrote the Gospels. Later writers, like in Plato’s Apology, attributed to Aristophanes a play where Socrates is mentioned. Then we have to ask how do we know Plato wrote the Apology?

Uh, no. You assumed a real Jesus when you said: "His close proximity to key disciples." By saying there were "key disciples," there must have been a Jesus! But that's what you're trying to prove.

Wrong. Saying key disciples doesn’t logically imply the existence of Jesus. It’s possible the people who claimed they were disciples just made up Jesus. Highly unlikely, but a possibility. No where have I argued because there were disciples there must have been a Jesus.

Look you made the same argument when you claimed we have works from Xenophon and Plato, the disciples of Socrates. Were you Begging the Question too then?

I concede your point that we do tend to put our faith in whomever we wish to believe. That's quite true. However, I see the testimonial evidence for Socrates to be much better than for Jesus. Paul, for instance, was an avowed Christian propagandist who was out to evangelize the world for a Jesus "come in the flesh."

Again, you keep saying this but Paul was writing to converts. He wasn’t trying to convert them. He may have been correcting their views, but he wasn’t trying to convert them. So this argument is irrelevant.

And do you really think, for example, Plato was without an agenda? It’s commonly thought he put words in the mouth of Socrates to promote his own philosophical ideas.

He all but admitted that he was dishonest and made outrageous claims that he saw Jesus in a vision and communicated directly with God through revelations. I see little such nonsense in the evidence for Socrates. That's why I think that the evidence for Socrates is much easier to believe than the evidence for Jesus.

Based on this statement I’m guessing you haven’t read Xenophon, Plato, or Aristophanes. So Paul’s experiences are “nonsense� in your view but when Aristophanes has a choir of winged immortal goddesses speaking to Socrates that’s okay and “easier to believe�? Or how about when Xenophon goes to have a conversation with the god Apollo on the advice of Socrates?

�Socrates...advised Xenophon to go to Delphi and consult the god in regard to this journey. So Xenophon went and asked Apollo to what one of the gods he should sacrifice and pray in order best and most successfully to perform the journey which he had in mind and, after meeting with good fortune, to return home in safety; and Apollo in his response told him to what gods he must sacrifice.�– Anabasis 3:1

Plato, same stuff different pile.

�For of my wisdom—if it is wisdom at all—and of its nature, I will offer you the god of Delphi as a witness.� – Apology

�But, as I believe, I have been commanded to do this by the God through oracles and dreams and in every way in which any man was ever commanded by divine power to do anything whatsoever. This, Athenians, is true and easily tested.� – Apology

Still think the evidence for Socrates has “little such nonsense�?

I've seen and experienced personally much anger and abuse from the historical Jesus crowd. That tells me that there may well be a motive for insisting that Jesus was real that is based in emotion rather than sound logic or good evidence.

So when atheists are hostile towards Jesus-mythers is that based in emotion and not sound logic or good evidence as well? Or what about when mythicists like Carrier are hostile towards atheist/agnostic scholars like Ehrman?

If I only had the consensus of scholars to go on, then I'd probably side with them. However, I do have access to the evidence and arguments for a historical Jesus. After scrutinizing that evidence, I find it to be very weak and unconvincing.

So the evidence and arguments which have managed to convince virtually every scholar, even the critics and atheist ones, that Jesus existed somehow isn’t quite good enough. That doesn’t strike you as problematic? What do you know that they don’t?

Speaking of scholars, they need to demonstrate their ability to determine that Jesus was historical. I have seen no such demonstration.

It’s not hard to do or find. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by agnostic/atheist NT scholar Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman is no friend to Christianity so you don’t have to worry about his bias here. He also debated Price on the topic. Bart Erhman vs Robert Price over the existence of Jesus.

I thought that my point was clear: the arguments you make for a historical Jesus can in principal be made for fictional characters.

I’ll tell you what. Point me to a bonafide Three Little Pig scholar at an accredited university and I’ll take your argument seriously. If you actually think this is a cogent argument against the historical Jesus position it at the very least helps shed some light on why you may think the myther position has good arguments.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 43 by Goose]

The reality is there simply is a paucity of sources reporting the history of first century Judea. The Romans didn’t care all that much about Judea, a backwater Roman territory occupied by a race of people who were known to be trouble makers. Which is probably why Tacitus is really the only Roman historian who says much at all about the goings on there. And that’s just a by product of his overall Roman history, not because he was intentionally writing a history of that region.

Many mythicists dispute this claim saying that we have abundant historical records from that place and time. Here's what Carrier has to say:

The quantity of literature produced in antiquity was vast, far beyond the miniscule fraction that we now have. And speeches on popular topics were among the genres frequently published, as well as histories and paradoxographies and epistolaries and florilegia (not to forget also poetry, encyclopedias, medical and technical literature, and so on).

Josephus at least mentions Jesus and so does Tacitus.

I can cite numerous problems with these writings. Probably the biggest problem is that we do not know where either Josephus or Tacitus got their information. That information could have come from Christians. If it did, then it's only a repetition of what Christians were claiming. In addition, some of the passages in Josephus were probably Christian interpolations most notably the The Testimonium Flavianum.

I didn’t ask for someone with better evidence per se. What constitutes better is too subjective.

In that case you realize that claiming that the evidence for Jesus is "good" is merely your own opinion. We are progressing!

I do find it ironical you are appealing to the authenticity of Paul’s letters after having argued some of them are forgeries having no basis in history.

Uh, no, Goose; I'm appealing to the historicity of Paul, not the authenticity of his claims. Obviously some person wrote those letters. That person we call "Paul." I'm sure he existed because of those letters.

At any rate, the point is, no one close to their time dedicated entire biographies to telling Paul’s or Josephus’ story. So although you may consider having someone’s writings as some kind of definite proof they existed you haven’t provided anyone from first century Judea who had four narratives (or ancient bios) dedicated to the telling of their story.

I believe Carrier claims that may pseudo-biographies were written in antiquity. They were a popular genre of fiction then. The gospels may have fallen into that category of fiction.

Of course not but it does show some inconsistency on your part when you accept the one on weaker evidence.

Not really. But it's hard to imagine any historical figures for which we have even weaker evidence than for Jesus unless they are obvious myths. Did anybody write of Pilate being a god with magical powers? Whoever wrote that Pilate single-handedly "cleansed" the temple? Virtually every story in the gospels has historical difficulties. Is that true for Pilate? Of course not. So that's why I can accept Pilate but not Jesus as historical.

The basic methodology historians use to determine who wrote something from antiquity is by looking at internal and external evidence.

Then who wrote the gospels?

My suggestion is lay down Carrier and begin to read some ancient works on your own.

I've read almost every volume of the Time-Life Books series, The Enchanted World. What struck me right away is just how much those myths and legends resemble the story of Jesus. Like the gospels we read fables of men with magical powers who battle the forces of monsters and evil spirits. We read of the god Osiris who was raised from the dead by the goddess Isis--just like Jesus was raised by his own god. I'd recommend these books if you haven't read them already.

And do you really think, for example, Plato was without an agenda? It’s commonly thought he put words in the mouth of Socrates to promote his own philosophical ideas.

Oh sure--myth-makers were by no means peculiar to Palestine. If Plato wrote stories about Socrates like the gospels write stories about Jesus, then I'd question Socrates' existence too.

So when atheists are hostile towards Jesus-mythers is that based in emotion and not sound logic or good evidence as well? Or what about when mythicists like Carrier are hostile towards atheist/agnostic scholars like Ehrman?

I disapprove of some of the insults Richard Carrier has used on Ehrman and others like Tim O'Neill, but Carrier's attacks are at least understandable considering the attacks on mythicists.

It’s not hard to do or find. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by agnostic/atheist NT scholar Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman is no friend to Christianity so you don’t have to worry about his bias here. He also debated Price on the topic. Bart Erhman vs Robert Price over the existence of Jesus.

I've read the book and watched the debate. I'm at a loss as to why Ehrman says what he does. It's almost childish.

Point me to a bonafide Three Little Pig scholar at an accredited university and I’ll take your argument seriously.

You missed my point. I said: "...the arguments you make for a historical Jesus can in principal be made for fictional characters. So if a consensus of scholars assured us that there was a big, bad wolf and three little pigs like in the child's story, then that would be evidence for the pigs and the wolf, at least for you. So a consensus counts for little. A consensus got us Trump for a president, and we all know how that went.

In conclusion, here's an Amazon preview of Biblical scholar Hector Avalos book, The End of Biblical Studies:

Avalos criticizes his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still relevant in today’s world. In effect, he accuses his profession of being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith communities.

"flawed and specious techniques" used by Bible scholars? I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 43 by Goose]

Well Socrates is removed from Jesus by roughly four centuries, 3,000km, and a completely different cultural back ground. I’m not sure why you would think that isn’t “far away.�

Well the Bible is removed from Jesus by roughly three centuries, 4,000km, and a completely different cultural back ground. I’m not sure why you would think that isn’t “far away.�

The Roman's cared about all their conquests enough to usurp their religion, which is why Jove is a homophone of both Yahweh and Jehovah, and why Jesus is a homophone of "Hail Zeus."

Socrartes reported on many events that surrounded him and was well quoted. Nothing of what Jesus said can even be proved... surely you can see the difference.

As to the rest, you really need to re-read the claims you made: "Jesus exists because Aristotle can't be proven either," is a principle of your argument...

[William]

[Replying to post 39 by JP Cusick]

The Romans destroyed everything - and yet the Romans did save some writings - thus a paradox.

The reason for this has to do with evil requiring a little bit of truth in order to appear legitimate. This is the reason why sorting wheat from chaff is so important...the wheat is there...it just needs to be uncovered.

In relation to whoever it was who begat the original movement, 'Jesus' is the Romanized version and I would say with confidence that not all of that individuals words would have been removed by Rome, but rather just added to and tweaked in such a way that confusion would prevail whereby new 'interpreters' could avail themselves to explain said confusion by bringing things in line with the way Rome wanted people to think. ~ William Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:17 pm from Thread "Jesus was not a Christian"

See also;


♦ Christianity - a political device created for a specific purpose.

[JP Cusick]

See also;

♦ Christianity - a political device created for a specific purpose.

There is a big mistake here because it is a misunderstanding of "turning the other cheek" because it does not mean being passive or non-resistant.

See in this short video that the Christian man does not understanding the doctrine as Gandhi explains it: YouTube ~ Gandhi on turn the other cheek

The real message of "turning the other cheek" is to be aggressively resistant to violence, which is not a doctrine which the Roman Empire would have created.

Jesus being crucified is not being passive either.

We also know that the Christians being thrown to the lions did this "turning the other cheek" in the arena, and then killing the Christians backfired onto the Romans because Christianity would in time take over Rome.

[Goose]

Many mythicists dispute this claim saying that we have abundant historical records from that place and time. Here's what Carrier has to say:

The quantity of literature produced in antiquity was vast, far beyond the miniscule fraction that we now have. And speeches on popular topics were among the genres frequently published, as well as histories and paradoxographies and epistolaries and florilegia (not to forget also poetry, encyclopedias, medical and technical literature, and so on).

I fail to see what Carrier has written here overturns my argument. Carrier is talking about the totality of literature produced from across all of antiquity. Which I would agree was vast. The sources, however, (outside of the Gospels) which have comes down to us that report on first century Judea are relatively few. As I mentioned they are primarily from Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus.

I can cite numerous problems with these writings. Probably the biggest problem is that we do not know where either Josephus or Tacitus got their information. That information could have come from Christians. If it did, then it's only a repetition of what Christians were claiming. In addition, some of the passages in Josephus were probably Christian interpolations most notably the The Testimonium Flavianum.

I wasn’t even thinking of the TF although it’s generally agreed that, tampering aside, it at the very least is evidence for the existence of Jesus. I was thinking of Antiquities 20.9.1. It’s virtually unanimous that this is authentic. And generally agreed to be a reference to Jesus.

As for sources. Funny you should mention that. Didn’t you argue earlier that one of the problems with the Gospels is that they didn’t discuss their sources? Why yes you did. Yet here in regards to Tacitus and Josephus you are arguing we don’t know where they got their information because, well, they don’t reveal their sources. Doesn’t that make Tacitus and Josephus unreliable as historians then too by your reasoning? And if they are unreliable how can we trust anything they write? You are systematically destroying history with your reasoning. That’s quite something. Congratulations are in order, I think.

Consider what you are arguing though. You are arguing Tacitus’ information “could have come from Christians.� According to Tacitus Christians were a class of people “hated for their abominations.� The Christian movement being a “most mischievous superstition� he says. Clearly Tacitus didn’t like or trust Christians. But your argument entails that Tacitus would take the word of Christians and risk his reputation as an historian despite his distrust of them. Does that seriously strike you as a well thought out cogent argument? It’s more plausible that Tacitus got his information from sources he trusted such as the Imperial archives.

In that case you realize that claiming that the evidence for Jesus is "good" is merely your own opinion. We are progressing!

Of course what constitutes “good� or “better� evidence is an opinion and subjective. That’s why I asked for someone from first century Judea who had as many as four biographies written about him within 70 years. That’s not subjective. They either have four bios or they don’t.

Uh, no, Goose; I'm appealing to the historicity of Paul, not the authenticity of his claims. Obviously some person wrote those letters. That person we call "Paul." I'm sure he existed because of those letters.

And that’s why I brought up Pilate, Gamaleil the Elder, Tiberius, etc. Because we don’t have anything written by them. Does that mean you aren’t sure they existed?

I believe Carrier claims that may pseudo-biographies were written in antiquity. They were a popular genre of fiction then. The gospels may have fallen into that category of fiction.

Of course Carrier claims that. Claims are easy to make. We also know that by and large the ancient biographies written around the time of the Gospels attempted to record actual history. Tacitus’ Agricola, Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, Suetonius’ Twelve Caesars, to name a few.

Not really. But it's hard to imagine any historical figures for which we have even weaker evidence than for Jesus unless they are obvious myths. Did anybody write of Pilate being a god with magical powers? Whoever wrote that Pilate single-handedly "cleansed" the temple? Virtually every story in the gospels has historical difficulties. Is that true for Pilate? Of course not. So that's why I can accept Pilate but not Jesus as historical.

Oh I see. Because supernatural acts are associated with Jesus that makes the evidence weaker with “historical difficulties.� So on what grounds, then, do you accept the existence of Caesar Augustus because there are numerous supernatural acts associated with him too? Or how about Vespasian healing a blind man? If your methodology is to simply say we can only accept the existence of those who have nothing supernatural reported about them, well, you can see how that will be very problematic since so many notable figures are reported to have the supernatural associated with them.

Then who wrote the gospels?

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

I've read almost every volume of the Time-Life Books series, The Enchanted World. What struck me right away is just how much those myths and legends resemble the story of Jesus. Like the gospels we read fables of men with magical powers who battle the forces of monsters and evil spirits. We read of the god Osiris who was raised from the dead by the goddess Isis--just like Jesus was raised by his own god. I'd recommend these books if you haven't read them already.

You should try reading the primary accounts which recount the Osiris mythology. In Plutarch's recounting of the Osiris myth, Osiris was killed by being tricked into getting inside a coffin which was nailed shut on him by Typhon and then placed in the river. Later Typhon, having found the coffin, dismembered Osiris’ body into fourteen parts and scattered them. Isis found all the parts except Osiris’ penis. Osiris then simply returns from the other world. Plutarch says nothing at all about Isis bringing back Osiris from dead let alone a Jesus-type resurrection. The word resurrection doesn’t even appear in Plutarch’s retelling. Aside from the general death-to-life motif, which can also be found in the Old Testament (a more likely source for Jews to borrow from, if there was in fact any motif borrowing at all), there simply are not any concrete parallels between Jesus and the Osiris mythology. All one need do is read the accounts and it becomes obvious there are far too many dissimilarities to say there was borrowing. One has to suffer from parallelomania to see them.

Oh sure--myth-makers were by no means peculiar to Palestine. If Plato wrote stories about Socrates like the gospels write stories about Jesus, then I'd question Socrates' existence too.

But I already showed the evidence for Socrates is pilfered with references to the supernatural. Socrates speaks to winged immortal goddesses. He sends Xenophon to talk to the god Apollo. Socrates is commanded to do things by dreams and oracles from God. And that was just a small sampling. But you conveniently cut all those out of your response and ignored them altogether I noticed.

I disapprove of some of the insults Richard Carrier has used on Ehrman and others like Tim O'Neill, but Carrier's attacks are at least understandable considering the attacks on mythicists.

Oh I see. When Carrier does it, it’s understandable because, well, mythicists get attacked. But Ehrman didn’t attack Carrier. Carrier just flew off the handle.

I've read the book and watched the debate. I'm at a loss as to why Ehrman says what he does. It's almost childish.

So says the person arguing from Three Little Pigs.

You missed my point. I said: "...the arguments you make for a historical Jesus can in principal be made for fictional characters. So if a consensus of scholars assured us that there was a big, bad wolf and three little pigs like in the child's story, then that would be evidence for the pigs and the wolf, at least for you.

Oh I got the point alright. You missed the counter argument. There isn’t a single Three Little Pig scholars who argues for an historical big bad wolf etc. Let alone a consensus of Three Little Pig scholars. So your argument falls flat on its face.

So a consensus counts for little.

A consensus of experts counts for quite a lot actually. And you know it does. That’s why you probably believe smoking causes cancer. Because the experts say it does. Even though we all know people who smoke a pack a day who are still walking around healthy at the age of ninety.

A consensus got us Trump for a president, and we all know how that went.

You aren’t seriously conflating an election with a consensus of experts are you?

"flawed and specious techniques" used by Bible scholars? I couldn't have said it better myself.

Oh the irony. All we have to do is look at the methdolgy you’ve put forward and apply it across the spectrum of history. We end up in the abdsurd position of throwing out most of what we know about what happend in the past.

You don’t even apply your own methods consistently. You argue, on the one hand, the Gospels are poor historical sources for Jesus becasue they don’t discuss their methods, etc. Then, on the other hand, you introduce as evidence for Socrates anonymous works which suffer all the same problems. You even cited Aristophanes The Clouds as evidence for Socrates, a ficticous play for crying out loud.

You reject the evidence for Jesus because of the supernatrual elements on the one hand. Then accept evidence laden with the supernatural for Socrates on the other hand.

There’s so much inconsistency in your argumentation it’s hard to know where to begin. But then again, that’s how the myther position functions.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 48 by Goose]

Didn’t you argue earlier that one of the problems with the Gospels is that they didn’t discuss their sources? Why yes you did. Yet here in regards to Tacitus and Josephus you are arguing we don’t know where they got their information because, well, they don’t reveal their sources. Doesn’t that make Tacitus and Josephus unreliable as historians then too by your reasoning? And if they are unreliable how can we trust anything they write? You are systematically destroying history with your reasoning.

The cat's out of the bag! History as I'm sure you know is not a science. As far as antiquity is concerned, history is at best educated conjecture for most figures and events from that era. In some cases if we're lucky we have solid evidence for what some person may have done or maybe a tomb or even a mummy. Documentary evidence is much trickier to assess if that's all we have. The fact that the evidence for Jesus is purely in textual form is one of the main reasons we're arguing his historicity. So trying to use history to prove Jesus is not a strength but a weakness.

You are arguing Tacitus’ information “could have come from Christians.� According to Tacitus Christians were a class of people “hated for their abominations.� The Christian movement being a “most mischievous superstition� he says. Clearly Tacitus didn’t like or trust Christians. But your argument entails that Tacitus would take the word of Christians and risk his reputation as an historian despite his distrust of them.

I don't see how Tacitus hating Christians means he didn't get his knowledge about their beliefs from them. Most critics of Jehovah's Witnesses get their grist from the Watchtower magazine published by Jehovah's Witnesses. So hating a group in no way means you won't base your criticism of that group on what that group is saying.

Of course what constitutes “good� or “better� evidence is an opinion and subjective.

That's right, and that's why we're arguing the historicity of Jesus. To me the New Testament is bunk and not good evidence. You seem to love the New Testament. That's why I'm skeptical and you credulous.

Because supernatural acts are associated with Jesus that makes the evidence weaker with “historical difficulties.�

You got it! Now, to show you're consistent, you cannot dismiss any other story on the grounds that it contains magical elements. That includes the stories of King Arthur and Grendel and Thor and Zeus and...

So on what grounds, then, do you accept the existence of Caesar Augustus because there are numerous supernatural acts associated with him too?

I can believe in Roman emperors like any of the Caesars, but when it comes to gods like Jesus, I get a bit more skeptical.

Assuming you don't accept the historical existence of any other gods, then how can you make an exception for Jesus?

But I already showed the evidence for Socrates is pilfered with references to the supernatural.

I know philosophers exist, but again, gods are harder to accept as authentic.

Oh I got the point alright. You missed the counter argument. There isn’t a single Three Little Pig scholars who argues for an historical big bad wolf etc. Let alone a consensus of Three Little Pig scholars. So your argument falls flat on its face.

Goose, you may wish to look up the word "hypothetical." That way you may understand what I'm arguing.

A consensus of experts counts for quite a lot actually. And you know it does. That’s why you probably believe smoking causes cancer. Because the experts say it does.

No. I believe smoking is unhealthy because I used to smoke, and it made me sick. I know a man who got lung cancer, and he was a smoker. I can also cite scientific evidence that smoking is unhealthy. Such evidence is totally lacking for Jesus. Sorry, but all those (mostly Christian) scholars fail to convince me. I need to use my brain!

All we have to do is look at the methdolgy you’ve put forward and apply it across the spectrum of history. We end up in the abdsurd position of throwing out most of what we know about what happend in the past.

You'd conclude that all the gods are mythical including Jesus. And just like Osiris raised by Isis, you'd conclude that the resurrection stories in the gospels are fairy tales.

Those resurrection stories, like much of the rest of the gospels, are very contradictory, by the way.

You even cited Aristophanes The Clouds as evidence for Socrates, a ficticous play for crying out loud.

But it lampoons Socrates. Isn't that why it's fiction? Fiction is fine as long as it's not claimed to be fact like the gospels.

You reject the evidence for Jesus because of the supernatrual elements on the one hand. Then accept evidence laden with the supernatural for Socrates on the other hand.

Again, if virtually everything written about Socrates, like Jesus, was fanciful, then I probably would doubt his historicity. I know philosophers exist. Gods are less likely.

There’s so much inconsistency in your argumentation it’s hard to know where to begin.

Says the man who accepts the god of the Christians as historical while dismissing all the other gods as myths!

But then again, that’s how the myther position functions.

I'm really not a "myther." I like to think of myself as a skeptic and a BS detector.

[Goose]

The fact that the evidence for Jesus is purely in textual form is one of the main reasons we're arguing his historicity.

There are plenty of people from antiquity for which we only have textural evidence. You already accept the existence of some of them – Paul, Gamaliel the Elder, Pilate (although there is also the Pilate Inscription which is in one sense textural), Socrates, etc.

You also accept the existence of figures from history who have the supernatural attributed to them – Socrates, Paul, Vespasian, Julius Caesar. The list is extensive.

You also accept the existence of figures who were deified as a god – Augustus (and many other Caesars for that matter).

We are having this argument solely because it’s Jesus. Anyone reading this debate can see that, I’m quite sure.

I don't see how Tacitus hating Christians means he didn't get his knowledge about their beliefs from them.

That you can’t see it, doesn’t over turn the argument. Besides, you are missing the salient part of the argument. It’s not just that Tacitus hated Christians, it’s also that he didn’t trust them. In his mind they were a “most mischievous superstition.� Professional historians don’t tend to use sources they believe are untrustworthy. They tend to use sources they have reason to think are reliable. Which is why it is far more plausible Tacitus got his information from Imperial archives as we know he had access to them.

Most critics of Jehovah's Witnesses get their grist from the Watchtower magazine published by Jehovah's Witnesses. So hating a group in no way means you won't base your criticism of that group on what that group is saying.

You don’t take the word of JW’s on what they report do you? I doubt it. Tacitus wasn’t merely criticizing Christians. He was reporting events.

You got it! Now, to show you're consistent, you cannot dismiss any other story on the grounds that it contains magical elements.

That’s correct. I do not dismiss a priori any story solely on the grounds that it contains the supernatural or because it disagrees with my world view. If I did that, I’d be arguing in a circle and could not claim to be open minded.

That includes the stories of King Arthur and Grendel and Thor and Zeus and...

There are some historians who think there may be a historical basis for King Arthur – some figure which the legends were built upon. The trouble is the texts that are historical in nature which depict Arthur as real, as far as I’m aware, are comparatively quite late. But I remain open minded regarding Arthur.

In the case of Thor and Zeus I’m not aware of a single scholar who argues for their historicity. That would be prima facie good enough reason to dismiss them. Having said that, the evidence for them is primarily from genres of literature known to record mythology. In the case of Zeus, for example, he is mainly depicted in Greek Epic poetry. A genre known at the time to be fictional mythology as Aristotle tells us in his Poetics. In other words, one has grounds to dismiss the existence of Zeus for the same reason one can reasonably dismiss the existence of Jabba the Hutt. Not because they a priori find it unbelievable, but on the basis that the evidence for their existence comes to us from a genre known to be fiction. I wouldn’t go so far as to say there is absolutely no evidence for Zeus though. I would say the evidence for Zeus just isn’t on the same footing as the evidence for Jesus. I’m certainly not closed minded to the existence of these figure. If you’d like to make a historical case, I’d be interested in hearing it.

I can believe in Roman emperors like any of the Caesars, but when it comes to gods like Jesus, I get a bit more skeptical.

You are missing the point. Many Caesars were deified. For example, Julius Caesar and Augustus.

�Antonius is the priest of the god Julius.� – Cicero, Philippic 2.110

�I consecrated gifts from war-spoils in the Capitol and in the temple of divine Julius� – Augustus, Deeds of the Divine Augustus

�[Julius Caesar] died in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was numbered among the gods, not only by a formal decree, but also in the conviction of the common people.� – Suetonius, Caesar

Assuming you don't accept the historical existence of any other gods, then how can you make an exception for Jesus?

It’s not an exception. If you have a character from history that is reported to have done and claimed what is reported about Jesus with evidence on par with that for Jesus, I’d be interested in seeing it.

I know philosophers exist, but again, gods are harder to accept as authentic.

Of course philosophers exist. You can find them on any university campus. You said that, “If Plato wrote stories about Socrates like the gospels write stories about Jesus, then I'd question Socrates' existence too.� I showed you how the accounts attribute the supernatural to Socrates. But alas you just continue to ignore that and refuse to be as sceptical towards the existence of Socrates. Evidence be damned, full steam ahead!

By the way, atheist/agnostic New Testament scholars (like Ehrman) think Jesus was something like a philosopher/teacher. They just reject (or take no position on) the supernatural elements.

Goose, you may wish to look up the word "hypothetical." That way you may understand what I'm arguing.

You may wish to look up what it means to argue by False Analogy.

You'd conclude that all the gods are mythical including Jesus.

Along with concluding everyone else from history was mythical as well with your reasoning.

And just like Osiris raised by Isis, you'd conclude that the resurrection stories in the gospels are fairy tales.

Arguing by assertion again. You ignored what I argued about Osiris and then just simply reassert your erroneous argument.

Those resurrection stories, like much of the rest of the gospels, are very contradictory, by the way.

Just like most of history. Remember the Socratic Problem? Or how about the accounts of Caesar’s assassination. They disagree on more than agree.

But it lampoons Socrates. Isn't that why it's fiction? Fiction is fine as long as it's not claimed to be fact like the gospels.

The fact still remains you introduced a fictional play where one of the characters is a choir of winged goddesses as evidence foe the existence of Socrates. If that isn’t a double standard I don’t know what is. And it’s fiction because of its genre, not because it lampoons Socrates.

Again, if virtually everything written about Socrates, like Jesus, was fanciful, then I probably would doubt his historicity.

Good grief. Just read the accounts from Xenophon, Plato, and Aristophanes for yourself. They are all riddled with references to the supernatural as I’ve repeatedly shown.

I'm really not a "myther."

You're not?

You argue for the myther position. You have quoted from or linked to the work of at least three mythers.

Precisely 30 minutes before you posted this, you said the following in a spin off thread...

I'd say that there probably was no Jesus to add any myths to. He probably was a myth himself from the beginning.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...