So what if Jesus existed? Was he ‘divine’?

[Zzyzx]

.
So what if Jesus existed? Was he ‘divine’? Did he perform supernatural ‘miracles’?

A current thread is making a lot of fuss about a famous Atheist acknowledging that Jesus existed. Why?

Not everyone who is Non-Christian insists that Jesus never existed (though some do). Disbelief in existence of the Jewish preacher’s existence is not required for disbelief in Christian teachings.

In fact, it seems likely that a wandering Jewish preacher of that name lived 2000 years ago (perhaps several of them?).

That is a LONG way from ‘divinity’ or ‘miracles’ attributed to ‘Christ’ by religion promoters decades or generations later (and often evidently far away – pitched to a Gentile / Roman audience; since fellow Jews rejected the claims).

What verifiable evidence supports Bible tales of ‘divinity’ and supernatural ‘miracles’?

[Elijah John]

.What verifiable evidence supports Bible tales of ‘divinity’ and supernatural ‘miracles’?

None that I know of. Even if we hold to the subjective "changed lives" that is evidence for the changed person only, and maybe for their loved ones. A Divine Jesus often gets the credit, but it could be God alone, because devout Muslims, Jews, etc also often experience "changed lives", conversions and reformations.

Yes, a very human Jesus preached God as Father. And that in and of itself can "change lives". No need to worship the messenger.

God was real to Jesus and his words make God real for many. For many, Jesus own devotion and belief is contagious.

Also, regarding the existence of Jesus, I agree with Ehrmann, and every HJ scholar I have read. Jesus existed. Not sure why the notion should be so controversial in some circles. Jesus existence as a man, a first century Jewish preacher (and perhaps healer of some kind, if only as a psychological healer) is an historical likelihood, but his existence as the Divine "Son of God" is a matter of faith, not history.

Belief in Jesus as a human being does not necessitate belief in Jesus as a God.

[Mithrae]

What verifiable evidence supports Bible tales of ‘divinity’ and supernatural ‘miracles’?

We should note that there is no verifiable evidence that folk like Plato or Aristotle even existed, so that might be an important caveat to introduce into a debate but is obviously not useful in terms of historical inquiry.

So what if Jesus existed? Was he ‘divine’? Did he perform supernatural ‘miracles’?

More or less off the top of my head, I'd rate the quality of evidence for what we 'know' or might infer about Jesus roughly along these lines:

• Tier one (confirmed by multiple, more or less disinterested first-hand sources Paul and Josephus)
  1 > That he was a Jewish fellow with a brother named James
  
  Tier two (possible biased/unreliable eyewitness in John, possible confirmation from Josephus, universal confirmation from gospels, Paul and Tacitus)
  2 > That he was crucified under Pontius Pilate
  
  Tier three (possible biased/unreliable witness in John, universal confirmation from gospels and Paul in at least generic terms as central beliefs/ethics/rituals of early Christianity; possible confirmation from Josephus on some points)
  3a > Baptized by John {also criterion of embarassment}
  3b > Was a teacher who gathered disciples including Cephas/Peter
  3c > Taught against wealth/social prestige and hypocrisy, angering elites
  3d > Shared a 'last supper' with his disciples and was betrayed
  3e > Was resurrected from the dead
  
  Tier four (possible biased/unreliable witness in John, confirmation from gospels but not from Paul, possible confirmation from Josephus)
  4a > Came from Nazareth in Galilee {also criterion of embarassment}
  4b > Had a reputation as a healer and miracle-worker
  4c > Caused a disturbance in the temple {not found in Josephus, but further explains his execution}
  
  Tier five
  5a > Specific teachings attested by multiple sources (Mark, Q, John, Paul; eg. total love for God, radical love for one another, give up everything for God, don't work for food that perishes...)
  5b > Specific miracles attested by multiple sources (Mark, Q, John; eg. feeding five thousand, walking on water and healing the centurion's servant)
  
  Tier six
  6 > Specific teachings and miracles with poor attestation
  
  Tier seven
  7 > Specific teachings and miracles for which there is contrary evidence (eg. contradictions, obvious anachronisms, resounding silence from other gospels)

Since I would estimate the very basic proposition 'Jesus existed' as having something like a 90-95% plausibility based on multiple lines of evidence, the more limited evidence for his crucifixion (for example) would imply a lower probability than that. If the 'supernatural' parts of the story were treated with no more scepticism than anything else, I might suppose somewhere in the order of a 70-80% probability of his resurrection; perhaps even higher, because I think I'd likely suppose at least that much for even the tier four points!

But of course even without presupposing naturalism, we should and do treat any highly unusual claims with extra scepticism. It would be hard to justify with any kind of precision, so I tend to suppose somewhere in the order of 10% to 40% plausibility for Jesus' resurrection; in part simply centered around the assumption of there being two or three other explanations (however speculative) for the available evidence/early Christian beliefs, and assuming that they are as good as the simpler reported story. I haven't yet found either evangelical or critical arguments compelling enough to warrant a higher or lower range, though I'm always open to learning.

[marco]

Since I would estimate the very basic proposition 'Jesus existed' as having something like a 90-95% plausibility based on multiple lines of evidence, the more limited evidence for his crucifixion (for example) would imply a lower probability than that. If the 'supernatural' parts of the story were treated with no more scepticism than anything else, I might suppose somewhere in the order of a 70-80% probability of his resurrection; perhaps even higher, because I think I'd likely suppose at least that much for even the tier four points!

I don't know how we can attach numberical values to such questions. The 70-80% is a kind of conditional probability, based on the supposition that we treat supernatural claims with some seriousness. If our indulgence extends to that degree we can attach any value we want, for then the impossible becomes possible and probability flies into the clouds.

But of course even without presupposing naturalism, we should and do treat any highly unusual claims with extra scepticism. It would be hard to justify with any kind of precision, so I tend to suppose somewhere in the order of 10% to 40% plausibility for Jesus' resurrection; in part simply centered around the assumption of there being two or three other explanations (however speculative) for the available evidence/early Christian beliefs, and assuming that they are as good as the simpler reported story. I haven't yet found either evangelical or critical arguments compelling enough to warrant a higher or lower range, though I'm always open to learning.

You are remarkably generous. Governments, never mind resurrections, have been built on 40%. Deception, superstition, bribery, rumour, misinterpretation are all humbly human and need no uplifted corpse. Was Tom right in demanding to see visible wounds? Could he not understand that a corpse restored may be blessed with no wounds and no pain? Then, for the reader's benefit, Tom sees the wounds. QED.

The entire scenario, and the reasons behind it, seem to suggest fiction. What elements of truth conspire to lend some credibility we cannot say.

But I like your approach to the subject and your analysis of what is known. The tale merits a hearing since so many have been seduced, and their seduction surely requires analysis too. Go well.

[Mithrae]

Since I would estimate the very basic proposition 'Jesus existed' as having something like a 90-95% plausibility based on multiple lines of evidence, the more limited evidence for his crucifixion (for example) would imply a lower probability than that. If the 'supernatural' parts of the story were treated with no more scepticism than anything else, I might suppose somewhere in the order of a 70-80% probability of his resurrection; perhaps even higher, because I think I'd likely suppose at least that much for even the tier four points!

I don't know how we can attach numberical values to such questions. The 70-80% is a kind of conditional probability, based on the supposition that we treat supernatural claims with some seriousness. If our indulgence extends to that degree we can attach any value we want, for then the impossible becomes possible and probability flies into the clouds.

If it could be proven that something is impossible, that should certainly be taken on board as a relevant fact. For example, it is impossible both that there were two angels at the tomb and that there was only one. But philosophical naturalism is nothing more than a metaphysical hypothesis, so far as I have ever seen, and a very vague one at that! What is considered 'supernatural' changes from century to century or even from naturalist to naturalist. Currently, I see no reason to indulge such vague speculation as a criterion of historical (or any other) inquiry. Rather we should acknowledge that some things are extremely unusual if not unprecedented: Dozens of people propagating a known lie about a condemned criminal in the face of opposition, persecution and eventual execution would be extremely unusual for example (though there are other instances of cults doing very bizarre things) while a corpse coming back to life would perhaps be even more unusual (though again, there are other reports of resurrections, healed amputations and the like).

But of course even without presupposing naturalism, we should and do treat any highly unusual claims with extra scepticism. It would be hard to justify with any kind of precision, so I tend to suppose somewhere in the order of 10% to 40% plausibility for Jesus' resurrection; in part simply centered around the assumption of there being two or three other explanations (however speculative) for the available evidence/early Christian beliefs, and assuming that they are as good as the simpler reported story. I haven't yet found either evangelical or critical arguments compelling enough to warrant a higher or lower range, though I'm always open to learning.

You are remarkably generous. Governments, never mind resurrections, have been built on 40%. Deception, superstition, bribery, rumour, misinterpretation are all humbly human and need no uplifted corpse.

Yes, once we take into the account the extremely unusual nature of the alleged resurrection, wild speculation about other unusual scenarios accounting for the available evidence can be taken more seriously than we otherwise might. My plausibility estimate of 10-40% is obviously somewhat arbitrary and subjective, but on the other hand it seems that most folk come to conclusions like 'Jesus was raised' or 'Jesus was not raised'; 100% or 0% estimates which seem much more arbitrary than my own analysis! Presupposing abstract metaphysics and/or trying to simply stack a bunch of evidence to one side or the other seems like a far less valid type of approach to my mind than actually trying to weigh all sides fairly; the latter may be a rather imprecise approach, but far less so than the former.

Probably the best argument I know of to suggest a lower range or at least a decrease in the upper boundary is one of my own: Miguel Juan Pellicer of Calanda's healed amputation is supported by far better evidence than Jesus' resurrection (the formal sworn testimony of four medical professionals who saw the amputated and regrown limb plus various other, less credible witnesses who knew him before and after the healing), so whatever plausibility that event has, Jesus' resurrection must be considerably lower. Of course there are folk who would automatically insist that even Pellicer's healing has >1% plausibility, which is pure, unadulterated dogmatism as far as I can tell. It's ironic that the best argument for a lower probability of Jesus' miracle is one which entails considering a different miracle quite seriously.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 3 by Mithrae]

We should note that there is no verifiable evidence that folk like Plato or Aristotle even existed,

No we shouldn't …

This is a debate about the Divine Jesus. We should keep the focus on the Divine Jesus … not Plato or Aristotle or any other diversion or distraction.

For the highly likely that he existed as a human Jesus to be divine, he would need to have been sired by the Holy Ghost on the Blessed Virgin Mary ... just like the cult propaganda says.

If we can't establish that as anything more than a common sort of superstition of the day (everyone who was anyone in certain cultures was sired by their local deity - even the King of Nepal just recently - and some folks believe the Emperor of Japan is divine) then we can't declare that the possibly fictional Jesus character was divine.

[Divine Insight]

I totally expect that there was a real person who served as the fodder for the mythical rumors of the Jesus created by the authors of the Gospels.

I expect that he did indeed rebel against the religious leaders of his day and publicly accuse them of being hypocrites, etc. I expect that he did ultimately meet a deadly fate at the hands of an angry mob. It may have even taken place similar to the crucifixion described by the gospel rumors. I believe that he either died during this unofficial mob crucifixion, or possibly even survived the ordeal which may give credence to the gospel rumors that some people saw him alive in a wounded condition after the crucifixion.

Even if the existence of this historical Jesus could be historically certify beyond any reasonable doubt, I would still have absolutely no reason whatsoever to suspect that any of the supernatural rumors about him represent any truth at all.

To the contrary, IMHO, for any actual God to have purposefully orchestrated such a hideous event to be held over the heads of humans supposedly to offer them undeserved salvation doesn't even make any sense, much less would it represent justice or anything remotely moral.

Also, let's not forget that before we can even consider the possibility of Jesus having supposedly been the Son of the God of the Hebrews named Yahweh we would first need to establish that Yahweh makes sense. IMHO the original religion was already extremely flawed on non-nonsensical. It was itself a highly self-contradictory collection of absurd fables.

If we consider the Old Testament and the New Testament as two different books then I would suggest that after having read the Old Testament I am already 100% convinced of the fallacy of Yahweh as the creator of the world and all humanity.

At that point there's really no reason to even read a second book that claims to be about the Son of this obviously false God.

So what would people say. They would probably say that I should read it anyone before passing any judgements. Fine, I've not only done that, but I've even given ever apology for all the obvious flaws in this second book at close examination. It's still not compelling.

It's not compelling already knowing that Yahweh was clearly a false God to begin with.

However, I could even go further and say that it wouldn't even be compelling if I though the original God made sense. Jesus was such antithesis of the doctrine taught in the Old Testament that even if the Old Testament God were real it would still make no sense to think that Jesus was his Son.

So this religion is so broken I just can't see any way that it could possibly be revived. Anyone who thinks that this religion is in any better shape than Greek Mythology is only kidding themselves.

So, no, even a confirmed historical Jesus would not convince me that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh who came to earth to be crucified by humans so that Yahweh can grant humans undeserved amnesty if they simply believe that Jesus did this for them.

That doesn't even make any sense on any level.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

You seem to like Jesus well enough though you don't consider him "God" so I wonder. does it matter to you at all that Jesus seemed to revere the "Old Testament God"? Or that his own Bible was the "Old" Testament?

Also, if YHVH is such a monster, how do you account for Old Testament verses such as Micah 6.8?

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.

Do those sound like the words of a monster?

[Tcg]

Also, if YHVH is such a monster, how do you account for Old Testament verses such as Micah 6.8?

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.

Do those sound like the words of a monster?

It rarely takes long to get a full picture of this YHVH your are trying to defend. Fail to do what this God requires and he is ready to punish severely as we find a few verses latter.

• Micah 6:
  13
  Therefore, I have begun to destroy you,
  to ruin you because of your sins.
  
  14
  You will eat but not be satisfied;
  your stomach will still be empty.
  You will store up but save nothing,
  because what you save I will give to the sword.
  
  15
  You will plant but not harvest;
  you will press olives but not use the oil,
  you will crush grapes but not drink the wine.

As we find time and time again, obey YHVH or suffer. Walk humbly or face destruction.



Tcg

[Divine Insight]

You seem to like Jesus well enough though you don't consider him "God" so I wonder. does it matter to you at all that Jesus seemed to revere the "Old Testament God"? Or that his own Bible was the "Old" Testament?

I don't believe that Jesus did revere the "Old Testament God". To the contrary when Jesus spoke with the Pharisees he often refer to their Old Testament Scripture as "Their Law", not as "God's Law".

When arguing with the Pharisees Jesus proclaimed that he spoke for both himself and for God, and then said to the Pharisees:

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

He wasn't referring to the Old Testament as being "God's Law". To the contrary he was throwing the Old Testament in the face of the Pharisees proclaiming that it's their law and therefore they should respect it.


He did the same thing when they accused him of blasphemy when claiming to speak for God, he shot back at them,...

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

In other words, he's telling them that even their unholy Old Testament Scriptures proclaim that men are gods.

So no, I don't see any reason to think that Jesus believed in the God of the Pharisees. Or the God described in "their law". He simply referenced those doctrines when it supported his position.

Also, if YHVH is such a monster, how do you account for Old Testament verses such as Micah 6.8?

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.

Do those sound like the words of a monster?

Irrelevant. The Old Testament if filled with contradictory verses. Just because you can cite a few verses that claim God is good doesn't justify the horrors he's guilty of in the rest of the doctrine.

Not only this, but any God who is cruel and mean to anyone just because they don't walk humbly with him is himself without mercy and morality. So even this verse is a self-contradiction to itself.

If this God requires this of you lest he'll be cruel and mean to you, then he's no better than a cruel and mean human dictator. Anyone can threaten that ultimatum. That no indication of anything benign much less benevolent.

This God is the God who casts people into hell fire, or make them crawl on their belly and eat dirt for the rest of their days, etc. There are countless tales in this dogma of how this God has been cruel and mean to people, sometimes on massive scales.

So no, claiming that a God is good in a few verses in a collection of fables that has the God behaving otherwise, doesn't cut it. There is no excuse for the poor behavior of this God, starting with his curse on Satan to make him crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days.

There is no excuse for cruelty from an omnipotent God. If he can't solve his problems peacefully, then he's necessarily either inept, or outright malevolent.

These ancient fables simply don't hold water. They are a collection of very poorly written stories that contain extreme logical self-contradictions in just about ever chapter of the canon.

So trying to make this God into a benevolent entity today is basically an impossible task. It's simply too late to change these stories now. You can't go back and rewrite them as much as theists would love to, and try so very hard to do by pretending that they can reinterpret them to mean things entirely opposite from what they actually say.

It's just too late to change a failed theology that has basically been carved in stone over history for thousands of years. I realize that theists try their very best to change what it says, but as hard as they try, they cannot do it. They can't even convince each other of their apologies when they try, for if they could they could at least some up with a single unified theological consensus. But just look at the reality,... they can't even come to a consensus among themselves.

Theists are actually more in disagreement with each other than they are with atheists. There is no unified Christianity, all that exists are disagreeing Christian sects that argue with each other about every single book of the Bible. They can hardly agree on much of anything.