Bart Ehrman "jesus Existed!"

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Maybe there was a many behind the myth, maybe there wasn't. My claim is just that, I don't have the evidence with which to say that there is.

Agree. We don't know. But like MM said, we can guess. My guess since most evidence points to many X, that at least X is one, probably more, but not zero. In other words, I think Ehrman is wrong because he thinks of "one Jesus" instead of "many Jesuses." And I think it's wrong to think "no Jesus" too since there seems to be "many Jesuses."

I definitely agree with you.

[mymistake]

You turn to the gospel Jesus, a Nazarene born at a certain time with certain followers killed by a certain group of people at a certain time in history.

 

It's interesting to see the phrase "a Nazarene" because the town Nazareth doesn't seem to have been large enough in the 30's AD but sometime in that ballpark a Nazarene religious sect might have existed. I've often wondered if the "Jesus of Nazereth" title was an attempt to take credit away from the Nazarene sect by some rival sect. This is pure speculation, of course.

[Joshpantera]

^Do you say that with or without knowledge of Rene Salm's work on the question of the existence of Nazareth in the first century? Because you're getting very close to it with your speculation about the issue.

 

 

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/q1.html

 

In the book Who Was Jesus; Fingerprints of the Christ, Murdock set out to launch a basic introductory into the contradictions between the gospels and basically show how difficult is actually is to say with certainty who the "real" Jesus Christ might have been, Here's a quote from that book addressing the Nazareth issue for those who haven't read about it:

 

From WWJ, p. 103:

Quote:

The phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears in quotations because in the "original" Greek of the Bible (Textus Receptus) the term often translated as "of Nazareth" in actuality reflects three different Greek words. Although the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears 29 times in the King James Bible, the original Greek phrase is "Jesus the Nazarene" the majority of the time. In fact, the Greek word for "Nazareth" (Strong's G3478) appears 11 times total in the gospels: three times in Matthew, once in Mark, five times in Luke and twice in John. The word for "Nazarene, Nazarite" or "Nazarite"—Nazaraios (G3480)—appears in the Greek 15 times, but it is only translated as such twice, the remaining 13 rendered as "of Nazareth." Another version of "Nazarene, Nazarite"—Nazarenos (G3479)—appears four times but is always translated as "of Nazareth." This fact is significant in that it seems the term "Nazareth"—which was not much of a place for people to inhabit, if it even existed at the time—was used, as stated at Matthew 2:23, to make Jesus a "Nazarene." Rather than being inhabitants of a particular town, the Nazarenes or Nazarites were members of a certain sect, to which the Old Testament hero Samson likewise belonged. It is possible that the mistranslations occur in order to cloak the fact of this pre-Christian sect that contributed much to Christianity. (See The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God for more information on the Nazarenes.

 

It does seem probable that the reference to Nazarene has more to do with a midrash lift from the Samson story or something of that nature. The idea of coming from a town called Nazareth appears to be a mix up with the character being portrayed as of the Nazorite sect. I find it interesting how people will come to suspect and realize things like this independently often times without even knowing that any one else has proposed it.

[mymistake]

^Do you say that with or without knowledge of Rene Salm's work on the question of the existence of Nazareth in the first century?

 

Without. I'm afraid that my knowledge is very limited. I started out in Christian apologetics using arguments that were merely excuses for believers to feel reassured in their beliefs. Then when I de-converted I discovered how so many of my ideas were so very wrong. I'm trying to pull together a better picture of the facts. I enjoyed the JR video. Thanks you for sharing that. I'm also grateful that you joined ex-C. You've really studied this stuff. Thanks for sharing what you've learned.

 

 

 

Because you're getting very close to it with your speculation about the issue.

 

 

 

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/q1.html

 

In the book Who Was Jesus; Fingerprints of the Christ, Murdock set out to launch a basic introductory into the contradictions between the gospels and basically show how difficult is actually is to say with certainty who the "real" Jesus Christ might have been, Here's a quote from that book addressing the Nazareth issue for those who haven't read about it:

 

From WWJ, p. 103:

 

Quote:

The phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears in quotations because in the "original" Greek of the Bible (Textus Receptus) the term often translated as "of Nazareth" in actuality reflects three different Greek words. Although the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears 29 times in the King James Bible, the original Greek phrase is "Jesus the Nazarene" the majority of the time. In fact, the Greek word for "Nazareth" (Strong's G3478) appears 11 times total in the gospels: three times in Matthew, once in Mark, five times in Luke and twice in John. The word for "Nazarene, Nazarite" or "Nazarite"—Nazaraios (G3480)—appears in the Greek 15 times, but it is only translated as such twice, the remaining 13 rendered as "of Nazareth." Another version of "Nazarene, Nazarite"—Nazarenos (G3479)—appears four times but is always translated as "of Nazareth." This fact is significant in that it seems the term "Nazareth"—which was not much of a place for people to inhabit, if it even existed at the time—was used, as stated at Matthew 2:23, to make Jesus a "Nazarene." Rather than being inhabitants of a particular town, the Nazarenes or Nazarites were members of a certain sect, to which the Old Testament hero Samson likewise belonged. It is possible that the mistranslations occur in order to cloak the fact of this pre-Christian sect that contributed much to Christianity. (See The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God for more information on the Nazarenes.

 

It does seem probable that the reference to Nazarene has more to do with a midrash lift from the Samson story or something of that nature. The idea of coming from a town called Nazareth appears to be a mix up with the character being portrayed as of the Nazorite sect. I find it interesting how people will come to suspect and realize things like this independently often times without even knowing that any one else has proposed it.

 

Very interesting. I stumbled onto what little I know about the early Nazarene sect (perhaps I spell their name wrong) because I had been attending a modern Nazarene church. The modern sect came into existence about a hundred years ago and I was interested in why they chose that name. Again thanks.

[Ouroboros]

The Jesus Mythicist Creed:

A creed? Does this mean the mythicists have orthodoxy and dogma too? It's a surprise that they have a creed to declare what they actually have to believe to be a mythicist.

 

The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

Sure. Okay. But then I don't want to hear "it's a myth only" from now on from Mythicists, since the story is partially from real people.

 

And it's funny that some of your Mythicist followers don't really follow that creed exactly like that. Some are detractors and backsliders from the creed. And those are the ones I was talking about. I was talking to those who don't follow your creed, but have gone astray into the idea that there's not a single shred of person or persons in the background of the stories. Obviously there is. Obviously not even the true Mythicist believe that either. From now on, I can confidently respond to them what the Mythicists really believe.

 

I'd advise anyone promoting the myth position to carefully consider this before claiming that there is no evidence for any Jesuses in history whatsoever. I have never encountered such a blatant ignorance from any mythicists online, but if it's circulating I'd be the first to step in and take the person or persons "to task." That requires zero knowledge of Josephus, and an ill-informed perspective of what the mythicist writers are actually promoting.

Next time I encounter one, I will point you in his/her direction and you can have the discussion directly.

 

The real point is that composite of characters constitutes a mythological character. What was that movie a while back about the Wrestler who's story was a blend of the lives of many different historical wrestlers? I don't recall the name. But it makes a good point here because the character in the movie was a mythological character, a fiction, which was based bringing together parts and pieces of some real wrestlers, like Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, etc. No one of actual historical wrestlers is the real man behind the mythic character. He's not Hulk Hogan from Tampa, but rather Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage and Jesse Ventura, and who ever else contributed. He himself is no one in particular. That's what a mythic character can be (a mix of history and mythology) and yet retain the status of a mythic charater.

 

You turn to the gospel Jesus, a Nazarene born at a certain time with certain followers killed by a certain group of people at a certain time in history.

 

I've found that this mythological character draws from all variety of elements which include parts from of the many Jesus's mentioned in Josephus, the Yeshua Ben Pandera / Sedata of Talmud (living circa +/- 100 BCE during the reign of Janneus), other Jewish heretics mentioned in the last debate, the Philonic Logos concept, the syro-gnostic cosmic savior, the dying and rising god themes popular in the first century, etc. etc.

 

This is how the New Testament Jesus (Paul / pseudo-Paul, the gospels, and Revelation) can be all myth and yet touch on some history because the tid bits of history sprinkled in don't make the story any less mythological. Listen, I present it like this because I've gone from knowing zero about the argument (not even knowing there was such an argument, no different than Ehrman when he approached it) to finding myself right in the middle of it all with the leading voices as facebook friends and fellow mods and admins. I defend their positions because I feel very strongly about the right for this argument to be voiced.

 

These people arguing the case for mythicism are generally all former Christians just like me, and just like all of you I would assume. They are now atheists, agnostics, humanists, pantheists, panentheists, deists and even liberal Christians who retain the title. And we all mix in together under the common opinion that the NT Nazarene Jesus lacks proper historical credibility. If you come across aggressive and hostile types that's mainly because we're a minority of former Christians who were raised zealous for the faith and then turned away from it. Some of that zealousness remains and is directed at the new cause, which is to promote the Christ Myth theory as the rational and logical position to take. Unfortunately some of that Christian residue can taint the cause as you've pointed out. I just wish that I could have observed the tainting in action because I'm sure that I could have ended it swiftly with a few breif quotes....

And I will point you in the direction next time I see it.

[Ouroboros]

You turn to the gospel Jesus, a Nazarene born at a certain time with certain followers killed by a certain group of people at a certain time in history.

 

It's interesting to see the phrase "a Nazarene" because the town Nazareth doesn't seem to have been large enough in the 30's AD but sometime in that ballpark a Nazarene religious sect might have existed. I've often wondered if the "Jesus of Nazereth" title was an attempt to take credit away from the Nazarene sect by some rival sect. This is pure speculation, of course.

I think of sects like Jim Jones. Started his own little cult, grew, named his own city with some hundreds of people. If they hadn't killed themselves, who knows how big they would be now or where "Jim from Jonestown" would be.

[qadeshet]

Simon Magus by G. R. S. Mead

That book was published in 1892 by Theosophical Publishing Society. I'm not sure it constitutes evidence for the existence of Simon Magus more than Bart Ehrman writing a book about the existence of Jesus. Mead was a better historian and had more facts than Ehrman? There are many myths surrounding Simon Magus. It's not quite clear where he came from. The sources are the same ones as Jesus. Some of the "evidence" is from Acts (New Testament). Hmm... Should we assume the Bible is false with everything, but then it's right about Simon? I'm not quite clear on how that can be. The Bible is wrong about everything except the things that can help us discredit it further? It's not an honest position to be in.

 

The honest position here is that Simon probably existed but most of the stories we have are inaccurate or sometimes perhaps have some kernels of truth in them. And we can say that, while being just as honest, there are some truths in the Bible even though a lot of it is myth.

 

All the referrences to Simon Magus are from Christian sources. Mead presents all the common sources for the Simon story. The Simon in the book of Acts and the writings of the Church Fathers is no more real than the Gospel "Jesus". I like the idea that "Paul" and "Simon" are one and the same.

[Joshpantera]

A creed? Does this mean the mythicists have orthodoxy and dogma too? It's a surprise that they have a creed to declare what they actually have to believe to be a mythicist.

 

Of course the whole thing was done tongue-in-cheek, which should go without saying but there, I've said it. lol

 

Those claiming that zero evidence exists for any one named Jesus is blown out of the water by simply quoting the above list from Josephus, for instance. I'd point that out next time it arises. All that serves to do is paint a false impression of what these mythicist writers are attempting to argue.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

^Do you say that with or without knowledge of Rene Salm's work on the question of the existence of Nazareth in the first century?

 

Without. I'm afraid that my knowledge is very limited. I started out in Christian apologetics using arguments that were merely excuses for believers to feel reassured in their beliefs. Then when I de-converted I discovered how so many of my ideas were so very wrong. I'm trying to pull together a better picture of the facts. I enjoyed the JR video. Thanks you for sharing that. I'm also grateful that you joined ex-C. You've really studied this stuff. Thanks for sharing what you've learned...

 

Very interesting. I stumbled onto what little I know about the early Nazarene sect (perhaps I spell their name wrong) because I had been attending a modern Nazarene church. The modern sect came into existence about a hundred years ago and I was interested in why they chose that name. Again thanks.

I've been interested in following Biblical critism for quite a while and I've stumbled into a lot of interesting bits of info here and there along the way. I'm not too hip on the modern Nazarene Church though. Sounds like another 19th century pop out cult like the Seventh Day Adventism I was mixed up in as a youth. Seems like there were a lot of protestant pop outs coming out of that area...

[Ouroboros]

All the referrences to Simon Magus are from Christian sources. Mead presents all the common sources for the Simon story. The Simon in the book of Acts and the writings of the Church Fathers is no more real than the Gospel "Jesus". I like the idea that "Paul" and "Simon" are one and the same.

Meaning that Paul was never real either?

[qadeshet]

All the referrences to Simon Magus are from Christian sources. Mead presents all the common sources for the Simon story. The Simon in the book of Acts and the writings of the Church Fathers is no more real than the Gospel "Jesus". I like the idea that "Paul" and "Simon" are one and the same.

Meaning that Paul was never real either?

 

Someone wrote the Pauline Epistles. His name may or may not have been "Paul".

[Joshpantera]

...or even Paul and Apollonius have striking similarities. All of these storyline characters whose very existence relies on the Bible in order to prove the claims made in the Bible, ought to be viewed as questionable.

 

The problem that I have is when people like Ehrman step out and claim that scholars do know these characters existed, and then produce as evidence the very same flimsy information that caused everyone to doubt in the first place. So then we're back to square one again at the starting point for doubt. There was a lot of anticipation among mythicists over the release of "Did Jesus Exist?" Some people were thinking that Ehrman was going to introduce something new into the mix, something that could possibly settle the issue once and for all.

 

"they were wrong then, weren't they?" - Marty Feldman

[mymistake]

All the referrences to Simon Magus are from Christian sources. Mead presents all the common sources for the Simon story. The Simon in the book of Acts and the writings of the Church Fathers is no more real than the Gospel "Jesus". I like the idea that "Paul" and "Simon" are one and the same.

Meaning that Paul was never real either?

 

Someone wrote the Pauline Epistles. His name may or may not have been "Paul".

 

The name "Paul" was suppose to be an assumed name. As long as the "authentic Paul" letters are actually written by the same author and that author used the pen name Paul then whoever he was he is de facto "Paul".

 

 

To me if Paul is Simon Magus that means some other Judeo-Christian sect was competing against and trying to vilify Paul.

[Ouroboros]

The name "Paul" was suppose to be an assumed name. As long as the "authentic Paul" letters are actually written by the same author and that author used the pen name Paul then whoever he was he is de facto "Paul".

Exactly. It's just like Yrth said some weeks back about how Shakespeare was written by a conman under the same name as Shakespeare.

 

I know that some Pauline letters are most likely fake, but Paul must have existed out of other reasons than his letters. The simple reason is that for a letter from a person X to be of any significance to the people who receive them, there must be some reference for the recipients to such a person X to begin with. You and I wouldn't lift an eyebrow or think any highly of a letter from the "Mr. Boblebobegoo" unless he was of some importance to you or me. So if a church receives a letter from "Paul" (fake or no fake), they must have some knowledge about a Paul before the letter or they would just throw this letter in the trashbin.

 

To me if Paul is Simon Magus that means some other Judeo-Christian sect was competing against and trying to vilify Paul.

The problem also seems to be that Simon belonged to a Gnostic sect (if I remember it right), while Paul seems to preach against it. Paul never speaks of an evil demiurge called Yahweh (if I recall correctly, that's what Gnostics believed, but I could be wrong).

[mcdaddy]

The name "Paul" was suppose to be an assumed name. As long as the "authentic Paul" letters are actually written by the same author and that author used the pen name Paul then whoever he was he is de facto "Paul".

Exactly. It's just like Yrth said some weeks back about how Shakespeare was written by a conman under the same name as Shakespeare.

 

I know that some Pauline letters are most likely fake, but Paul must have existed out of other reasons than his letters. The simple reason is that for a letter from a person X to be of any significance to the people who receive them, there must be some reference for the recipients to such a person X to begin with. You and I wouldn't lift an eyebrow or think any highly of a letter from the "Mr. Boblebobegoo" unless he was of some importance to you or me. So if a church receives a letter from "Paul" (fake or no fake), they must have some knowledge about a Paul before the letter or they would just throw this letter in the trashbin.

 

To me if Paul is Simon Magus that means some other Judeo-Christian sect was competing against and trying to vilify Paul.

The problem also seems to be that Simon belonged to a Gnostic sect (if I remember it right), while Paul seems to preach against it. Paul never speaks of an evil demiurge called Yahweh (if I recall correctly, that's what Gnostics believed, but I could be wrong).

 

Read Elaine Pagels' "Gnostic Paul" and you may change your mind on this.

[Ouroboros]

Read Elaine Pagels' "Gnostic Paul" and you may change your mind on this.

Maybe. I suspect it's a stretch and very speculative. Is that theory/hypothesis even accepted by they mainstream historians as having any validity? Maybe Paul was some kind of gnostic, maybe not. From the letters that are perhaps/supposedly from Paul in the NT, it doesn't seem to match up. Does the Gnostic terminology even appear in Paul's letters? I saw somewhere that it's suggested that Paul was one of the proto-gnostics (like Simon), but that also assumes that there was a Gnostic and a Christian movement around that time. Gnosticism started somewhere in the 1st or 2nd century, right? And it was embedded in some, but not all, Christian groups. I don't know. And looking into Gnosticism, it's just a multifaceted religion too and one gnostic believes this, and another that, perhaps Paul was just a Paul-Gnostic and not fitting in? Whatever.

[mcdaddy]

Read Elaine Pagels' "Gnostic Paul" and you may change your mind on this.

Maybe. I suspect it's a stretch and very speculative. Is that theory/hypothesis even accepted by they mainstream historians as having any validity? Maybe Paul was some kind of gnostic, maybe not. From the letters that are perhaps/supposedly from Paul in the NT, it doesn't seem to match up. Does the Gnostic terminology even appear in Paul's letters? I saw somewhere that it's suggested that Paul was one of the proto-gnostics (like Simon), but that also assumes that there was a Gnostic and a Christian movement around that time. Gnosticism started somewhere in the 1st or 2nd century, right? And it was embedded in some, but not all, Christian groups. I don't know. And looking into Gnosticism, it's just a multifaceted religion too and one gnostic believes this, and another that, perhaps Paul was just a Paul-Gnostic and not fitting in? Whatever.

 

Short answer - its kind of in "code". He doesn't say literally "demiurge" or anything like that as far as the usual gnostic lingo, but it does make MANY of paul's passages that otherwise don't make much sense, make perfect sense. IDK. Some seemed a bit speculative, but alot of it blew me away. I think its a very legitimate possibility.

[Joshpantera]

Earl Doherty's new e-book is finally out, where he disects Erhman's "Did Jesus Exist?" chapter by chapter:

 

http://vridar.wordpr...-jesus/#respond

 

And looks to be rather aggressive:

 

The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest

[qadeshet]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13747-simon-magus

 

Simon is mentioned by Josephus as having lived at the very same time as Simon Magus of the Church literature. Felix, appointed governor of Judea by the emperor Claudius between the years 52 and 60, had fallen in love with Drusilla, sister of King Agrippa and wife of King Azizus of Emesa; and he sent Simon, a Jew born in Cyprus and a friend of his who was known for his magical skill, to use incantations (compare the love incantation in Deissman's "Bibelstudien," 1895, p. 21, and Blau, "Das Altjüdische Zauberwesen," 1898, pp. 96-117) to alienate her affection from her husband and to turn it to Felix. In this way the governor succeeded in obtaining Drusilla's consent to marry him ("Ant." xx. 7, § 2). The only difficulty in identifying this Simon with the other lies in the statement of Josephus that the magician was born in Cyprus. The charges brought against the sect of the Simonians are of such a nature as would point to seductions brought about by witchcraft as well as by Gnostic teachings leading to sexual impurity.

 

Acts 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

 

The Author of Luke/Acts borrowed heavily from Josephus. I find it interresting that Paul and Simon are both associated with Felix and Drusilla.

[★ Citsonga ★]

It's not about the data, it's about being a hack and dismissing experts in their field. As I said to BP awhile back which he seems blinded to, there is a difference between the opinion of a non-expert and that of an expert. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, but make no mistake that opinion is not going to be as good as someone who has a depth of knowledge beyond just researching one thing on the Internet. Education matters.

 

I'm curious, then, why you reject Christianity. After all, the apologists/theologians are the experts who are educated in Christianity, and they say it's true. Surely their expert opinions mean more than your non-expert opinion, right? And what about Islam? There are Muslim apologists educated in Islam, and they say that Islam is true. Surely their expert opinions mean more than your non-expert opinion, right?

 

You see, that's why it IS about the data. Just because someone is "educated" and seen as an "expert" does not automatically make his/her opinion right. That's why evolutionary scientists are on far better grounding than those arguing for a historical Jesus, because there are mounds of evidence for evolution while there is no indisputable evidence for Jesus.

 

Though I felt that that needed to be pointed out, I do agree that those saying that Jesus absolutely did not exist at all are overstating things just as much as those who say that he absolutely did exist. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that he did exist, but it's entirely possible that the stories are loosely based on someone (or multiple people) who did actually exist.

 

As far as my personal position, it really doesn't matter all that much to me whether or not there was a guy who inspired the embellished stories. There may have been such a guy, but we can never arrive at an actual historical record of him, because there is nothing solid to base it on. There is no extant historical (unimbellished) account, and trying to pick out "historical" details from the exaggerated Gospels basically amounts to loads of speculation. Therefore, there technically is no "historical Jesus," even if the stories are loosely based on an actual Jesus.

[Antlerman]

It's not about the data, it's about being a hack and dismissing experts in their field. As I said to BP awhile back which he seems blinded to, there is a difference between the opinion of a non-expert and that of an expert. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, but make no mistake that opinion is not going to be as good as someone who has a depth of knowledge beyond just researching one thing on the Internet. Education matters.

 

I'm curious, then, why you reject Christianity. After all, the apologists/theologians are the experts who are educated in Christianity, and they say it's true. Surely their expert opinions mean more than your non-expert opinion, right?

I don't really care to debate the historical Jesus question as it's, 'too religious' for my tastes, but I'll respond to this as it does raise some good points that I care to address.

 

Why I reject Christianity is for many reasons, none of which some 'expert' in theology even touches. First and foremost, spiritually it didn't work for me. In that case, I am the expert myself. They can say all the words about what is truth, but if it doesn't speak to my personal, direct, firsthand experience, then it's not the truth for me. I tried it, it didn't work. What is inside me is not based on beliefs, doctrines, theologies, theories, etc., so to make some "case for Christ" is meaningless. I don't base my spirituality on beliefs and logic arguments.

 

Secondarily, they do in fact go beyond their own expertise into areas where others are in fact the experts, and make grievous errors such as saying the earth was magically created 6000 years ago. In this case I put far more stock in the experts of that area, geologists, for instance, than I do some "hack" in science armed with a Bible. So far in both cases, I have placed greater stock in the actual experts: first myself, secondly scientists.

 

And what about Islam? There are Muslim apologists educated in Islam, and they say that Islam is true. Surely their expert opinions mean more than your non-expert opinion, right?

"True" in what regard? Spiritually? That question then isn't relevant. It is "true" in the sense it may be meaningful or valid in helping them as individuals. It may very well be true for them. I can't judge that for them. If I were raised in their culture it might be for me as well, or perhaps not.

 

I accept other spiritual paths as valid, depending on the individual. Systems are systems, not the giver of truth themselves. That truth comes from within. See my signature line.

 

You see, that's why it IS about the data.

Depends what you are trying to define, of course. If you are trying to speculate about plausable historical facts, which are ultimately impossible to say definitevely, again, I take the insights of those who are experts in those fields to be far more worthy than Joe Smoe armed with the Internet and a G.E.D. Are the experts always right? Of course not. Experts will disagree and debate with each other. And I take both of them, on either side of that debate, as far more qualified than some Internet Junkie. I don't see why that is so difficult to swallow. What has happened to the role of intellectuals in society?

 

Why have education at all then? Does a professor at Princeton have more chops than Joe who works at Burger King when it comes to ancient history? Sure, of course. Are they infallible? Of course not. But they are still 1000's of leagues more able to some shlep who knows how to do Google searches. Again, the Internet has a lot of information - but knowledge is another matter. That requires a rounded education. Information is not knowledge.

 

Just because someone is "educated" and seen as an "expert" does not automatically make his/her opinion right.

And I have never once said that. But I have said it makes them more qualified than some hack armed with Google.

 

That's why evolutionary scientists are on far better grounding than those arguing for a historical Jesus, because there are mounds of evidence for evolution while there is no indisputable evidence for Jesus.

And an evolutionary scientist is not automatically better qualified in antiquities than someone who is a specialist in that field. This is why Richard Dawkins as an expert in biology, is an utter Joke in philosophy, religion, and the humanities, and yet why is it people consider him a voice of authority when he speak to these? Seems to me they value at least the illusion of an 'expert' when it comes to following him...

 

But beyond that, comparing the degree of certainty between the two sciences does not invalidate the plausiblities of understanding history. Of course they don't compare. In fact if you wish to use that line of argument, the Theory of Evolution is on far more unstable ground that physics. There the laws are really, far more obvious and understandable than evolution. It's a sliding scale of certainties, but you are in fact dealing with different areas. You can't make a direct comparison like you try to here.

 

Though I felt that that needed to be pointed out, I do agree that those saying that Jesus absolutely did not exist at all are overstating things just as much as those who say that he absolutely did exist. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that he did exist, but it's entirely possible that the stories are loosely based on someone (or multiple people) who did actually exist.

Which is my belief. I have reasons for that, supported by experts in the field who are not conservatives who have some religious agenda to prop up. I too have looked at the arguments of the experts, and I land on those who see some form of an historical personage. I have reason of my own I could add to that, but I'll defer from doing so here. My only point here was to talk about why education matters. It most definitely does, but I am not so naive as to assume it automatically makes them right. I have never suggested that.

[★ Citsonga ★]

It's not about the data, it's about being a hack and dismissing experts in their field. As I said to BP awhile back which he seems blinded to, there is a difference between the opinion of a non-expert and that of an expert. Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, but make no mistake that opinion is not going to be as good as someone who has a depth of knowledge beyond just researching one thing on the Internet. Education matters.

 

I'm curious, then, why you reject Christianity. After all, the apologists/theologians are the experts who are educated in Christianity, and they say it's true. Surely their expert opinions mean more than your non-expert opinion, right?

I don't really care to debate the historical Jesus question as it's, 'too religious' for my tastes, but I'll respond to this as it does raise some good points that I care to address.

 

Why I reject Christianity is for many reasons, none of which some 'expert' in theology even touches. First and foremost, spiritually it didn't work for me. In that case, I am the expert myself. They can say all the words about what is truth, but if it doesn't speak to my personal, direct, firsthand experience, then it's not the truth for me. I tried it, it didn't work. What is inside me is not based on beliefs, doctrines, theologies, theories, etc., so to make some "case for Christ" is meaningless. I don't base my spirituality on beliefs and logic arguments.

 

The "experts" say that you must have done it wrong, because it really does work.

 

Just because someone is "educated" and seen as an "expert" does not automatically make his/her opinion right.

And I have never once said that. But I have said it makes them more qualified than some hack armed with Google.

 

I didn't say that you said that; I was simply making a point.

 

I do have to ask, though, why the "experts" who believe in a historical Jesus never put forth any real evidence? It's all flimsily based on hugely problematic religious texts and scanty references from long, long after Jesus was supposed to have lived. While it is entirely possible that some Jesus who was essentially an unknown was later embellished into the Bible character, claiming that it must be that way is overstating reality. The evidence simply isn't very strong at all, and the evidence is what is most important.

 

That's why evolutionary scientists are on far better grounding than those arguing for a historical Jesus, because there are mounds of evidence for evolution while there is no indisputable evidence for Jesus.

And an evolutionary scientist is not automatically better qualified in antiquities than someone who is a specialist in that field. This is why Richard Dawkins as an expert in biology, is an utter Joke in philosophy, religion, and the humanities, and yet why is it people consider him a voice of authority when he speak to these? Seems to me they value at least the illusion of an 'expert' when it comes to following him...

 

I agree. I, for one, do not consider Dawkins to be an authority on religion or philosophy. I read The God Delusion and thought that he was strongest in is science points, but I didn't gush all over the book like some do. I think that former minsiter Dan Barker made a better case against Christianity in Godless.

 

But beyond that, comparing the degree of certainty between the two sciences does not invalidate the plausiblities of understanding history. Of course they don't compare. In fact if you wish to use that line of argument, the Theory of Evolution is on far more unstable ground that physics. There the laws are really, far more obvious and understandable than evolution. It's a sliding scale of certainties, but you are in fact dealing with different areas. You can't make a direct comparison like you try to here.

 

It's still a fair comparison. Yes, physics is very well founded, agreeably probably moreso than even evolutionary theory. That doesn't change the fact that evidence for the historicity of Jesus pales in comparison. Again, I am not saying that Jesus didn't exist (I am not a mythicist myself; I merely acknowledge that it's a possibility), but that the so-called "evidence" for him is quite flimsy and not at all indisputable, thus making his existence far less grounded than many would have you believe.

[Antlerman]

I don't really care to debate the historical Jesus question as it's, 'too religious' for my tastes, but I'll respond to this as it does raise some good points that I care to address.

 

Why I reject Christianity is for many reasons, none of which some 'expert' in theology even touches. First and foremost, spiritually it didn't work for me. In that case, I am the expert myself. They can say all the words about what is truth, but if it doesn't speak to my personal, direct, firsthand experience, then it's not the truth for me. I tried it, it didn't work. What is inside me is not based on beliefs, doctrines, theologies, theories, etc., so to make some "case for Christ" is meaningless. I don't base my spirituality on beliefs and logic arguments.

 

The "experts" say that you must have done it wrong, because it really does work.

Yes, well, I don't consider them spiritual experts. They are technically experts of their own beliefs, and they are technically right that you didn't do it right, if the experience they call spiritual is derived from following strict conformity to the group. Yes, there is a generated bond that occurs from adherence to group-membership. That can be true of any tight group with community bonds centered around a common belief - nationalism is an example of this, nothing like a war to bring us together, right?

 

That's not what I call spiritual however. Unity flows from the heart, not a common belief, and extends beyond all borders, not just to those within them. What I have does work for me towards that within myself. So, again, I am the expert here in this area, where they appear to be experts in something other than that; experts in religious group conformity.

 

And I have never once said that. But I have said it makes them more qualified than some hack armed with Google.

 

I didn't say that you said that; I was simply making a point.

 

I do have to ask, though, why the "experts" who believe in a historical Jesus never put forth any real evidence? It's all flimsily based on hugely problematic religious texts and scanty references from long, long after Jesus was supposed to have lived.

I notice you qualifying it as "any real evidence" as opposed to "no evidence", which is what others like to say. When it comes to determining historical facts, most of the time you're not going get hard evidence. What I see personally is that the evidence is more like looking at a fossil record where the only thing you have are the trail marks of some animal, or rather more like the effects of its presence on the landscape, rather than bones or a body or hair, or even actual footprints. That is not "no evidence", and therefore has no value in trying to piece together what that animal may have been that had that effect on the terrain.

 

To me, "where's your hard proof!", sounds a lot like the Creationist, "Where's your so-called transitional fossils!". Time was, we didn't have those, yet was the theory wrong? Were the experts misreading the data they did have? Were similar counter-arguments of logic coming from the non-experts?

 

While it is entirely possible that some Jesus who was essentially an unknown was later embellished into the Bible character, claiming that it must be that way is overstating reality. The evidence simply isn't very strong at all, and the evidence is what is most important.

Well yes, if someone is saying "it must be that way", that sounds pretty religious.

 

But as a bit of an aside, when you say "the evidence is what is most important", what do you mean? Towards what end? Religious faith? To me, let's say Jesus was a creation of pure myth with no historical person of any fashion even remotely related to the myth that gave rise to the embellishments (the mythicist position). There were clearly schools of thought with bodies of various teachings that we hung upon this figure, and that early Christian groups used these bodies of teachings in this name. In fact, they were defined by those teachings, and the stories of the founder of the faith, mythical or otherwise, are vehicles for the telling of those teachings. Right?

 

If the teachings are the essence of what defines them as Christians, and not the "historical proof of a Jesus", then aren't the teachings "Jesus" to them? Isn't their faith in God, "Jesus" to them? Isn't what it does for them in whatever way, good or bad, "Jesus" to them? You see what I'm getting at? To say "The evidence is most important", is it really? Is it to all those who claim faith, even really the majority of them? Isn't it really the experience of faith to them, and the value of the teachings, despite protestations to arguments against the veracity of the myths mistaken as facts?

 

This gets to what I see as the whole problem behind insisting that Jesus didn't exist. Somehow, it seems like a religious war attempting to destroy faith by knocking the science out of the symbol. But is the symbol a scientific one? Is it 'believed in' or embraced that way?

 

And an evolutionary scientist is not automatically better qualified in antiquities than someone who is a specialist in that field. This is why Richard Dawkins as an expert in biology, is an utter Joke in philosophy, religion, and the humanities, and yet why is it people consider him a voice of authority when he speak to these? Seems to me they value at least the illusion of an 'expert' when it comes to following him...

 

I agree. I, for one, do not consider Dawkins to be an authority on religion or philosophy. I read The God Delusion and thought that he was strongest in is science points, but I didn't gush all over the book like some do. I think that former minsiter Dan Barker made a better case against Christianity in Godless.

You should agree. And I'll point out again here that as you say that some did gush all over him saying this prattle, they too like to look to 'experts', as misguided as that is with Dawkins. Those same ones will then say experts are not important when it comes to holding those like ArchraS equal in opinion as Princeton scholars. I see a certain "cherry picking" of experts going on there with them.

 

But beyond that, comparing the degree of certainty between the two sciences does not invalidate the plausiblities of understanding history. Of course they don't compare. In fact if you wish to use that line of argument, the Theory of Evolution is on far more unstable ground that physics. There the laws are really, far more obvious and understandable than evolution. It's a sliding scale of certainties, but you are in fact dealing with different areas. You can't make a direct comparison like you try to here.

 

It's still a fair comparison. Yes, physics is very well founded, agreeably probably moreso than even evolutionary theory. That doesn't change the fact that evidence for the historicity of Jesus pales in comparison. Again, I am not saying that Jesus didn't exist (I am not a mythicist myself; I merely acknowledge that it's a possibility), but that the so-called "evidence" for him is quite flimsy and not at all indisputable, thus making his existence far less grounded than many would have you believe.

Well, yes, I'm with you on rejecting those who want to make you believe it's the most verified fact of history than anything. That's just mindless political rhetoric of Christian apologists, trying to prop up their beliefs with the misuse of the tools of science and reason. That sword cuts both ways to the other side of that same religious coin, bear in mind.

[★ Citsonga ★]

To me, "where's your hard proof!", sounds a lot like the Creationist, "Where's your so-called transitional fossils!". Time was, we didn't have those, yet was the theory wrong? Were the experts misreading the data they did have? Were similar counter-arguments of logic coming from the non-experts?

 

Interestingly, I think the science example works the other way here. There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true. If everyone would have just continued following what the previously established "experts" said instead of taking a good look at the facts, then we'd still be insisting that the earth is flat.

 

While it is entirely possible that some Jesus who was essentially an unknown was later embellished into the Bible character, claiming that it must be that way is overstating reality. The evidence simply isn't very strong at all, and the evidence is what is most important.

Well yes, if someone is saying "it must be that way", that sounds pretty religious.

 

But as a bit of an aside, when you say "the evidence is what is most important", what do you mean? Towards what end? Religious faith?

 

No, not at all. Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but I guess I assumed that it would have been obvious that I meant that evidence is the most important in trying to arrive at truth. Truth is a matter of the facts, whether or not the facts are consistent with what "experts" claim. What really happened is exactly what really happened, regardless of whether or not we could ever actually know what really happened, and regardless of what "experts" claim happened. The most important thing (that is, the best path to getting the closest to the truth) is the evidence.

 

If the teachings are the essence of what defines them as Christians, and not the "historical proof of a Jesus", then aren't the teachings "Jesus" to them? Isn't their faith in God, "Jesus" to them? Isn't what it does for them in whatever way, good or bad, "Jesus" to them? You see what I'm getting at? To say "The evidence is most important", is it really? Is it to all those who claim faith, even really the majority of them? Isn't it really the experience of faith to them, and the value of the teachings, despite protestations to arguments against the veracity of the myths mistaken as facts?

 

Well, yeah, I agree. However, practically every Christian whom I know personally believes that the Bible presents a perfectly historical account of Jesus. Thus, for them it's not simply finding an esoteric "Jesus" in their faith, but in believing in a word-for-word literal Biblical Jesus. What you describe is completely alien to them.

 

But beyond that, comparing the degree of certainty between the two sciences does not invalidate the plausiblities of understanding history. Of course they don't compare. In fact if you wish to use that line of argument, the Theory of Evolution is on far more unstable ground that physics. There the laws are really, far more obvious and understandable than evolution. It's a sliding scale of certainties, but you are in fact dealing with different areas. You can't make a direct comparison like you try to here.

 

It's still a fair comparison. Yes, physics is very well founded, agreeably probably moreso than even evolutionary theory. That doesn't change the fact that evidence for the historicity of Jesus pales in comparison. Again, I am not saying that Jesus didn't exist (I am not a mythicist myself; I merely acknowledge that it's a possibility), but that the so-called "evidence" for him is quite flimsy and not at all indisputable, thus making his existence far less grounded than many would have you believe.

Well, yes, I'm with you on rejecting those who want to make you believe it's the most verified fact of history than anything. That's just mindless political rhetoric of Christian apologists, trying to prop up their beliefs with the misuse of the tools of science and reason. That sword cuts both ways to the other side of that same religious coin, bear in mind.

 

I agree. That's why I've said all along that it could go either way. The mythicists are right in so far as it is a fact that the evidence for a historical Jesus is quite flimsy, but that alone doesn't prove that there wasn't some remote guy who influenced stories that were imbellished into the accounts we have. Both sides can exaggerate things.

 

Anyway, it's been an enjoyable discussion. I still don't come down on either side of the fence on the issue of Jesus' existence. All I know is that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible is at least largely a work of fiction, and that's all I need to know in order to recognize that Christianity is mythology. Whether or not there was some guy who was later deified into the Jesus of the Bible doesn't change that fact.

 

Have a good week and a great Thanksgiving.

[Ouroboros]

There was a time when evolution and other modern scientific facts were fringe ideas in opposition to what the educated held to be true.

There's something with your statement there that just doesn't sound right to me...