Jesus is the reason baby

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

TLDR;

Some 2,000 years ago an unremarkable fellow named Jesus lived. After he lived, about 2 decades afterward, some dude named Paul called this unremarkable guy the "Lord", "Savior", "the Son of God", "Messiah" and other such things. Paul didn't seem to know anything about this Jesus guy's life, but he loved him and venerated him beyond all others, if he, as the subject of all these venerated titles, could be considered another. Paul was a pious believer who had previously, in his zeal for his previous religious conviction, persecuted those who had said this unremarkable fellow was Lord of heaven. After Paul died some anonymous dude (apparently if something got written back then it was a dude) said this unremarkable Jesus guy relly lived, did magic things, like spit in the eyes of blind people to heal them and raise people from the dead. This anonymous author suggested Jesus taught some religious stuff and in so doing gained a following, was executed for his teachings and as Paul had done before, this unknown writer of antiquity referred to this anonymous Jesus as Lord, Savior, Messiah, Son of God...all those exalting phrases pinned, by happenstance on this normal dude Jesus who had died...decades earlier. It just so happens this anonymous author didn't do justice to this unremarkable guy. A new anonymous author told of his kingly parentage adding to his stories of magic. He was born of a virgin, in this new appraisal, he was executed and raised magically from the dead. Other stories came out, attempting to outdo the magic and mysticism of the previous. And here we sit 2,000 years later watching people quarrel over whether some unremarkable guy lived in antiquity. It'd be comical if it weren't true. If Jesus did not heal the blind, or teach us a parable about 10 virgins. If Jesus didn't look upon a blind man and spit his magic spit in his face to heal him, nor didn't raise anyone from the dead. If that Jesus didn't teach that he and he alone would tell many believers that he never knew them and would happily and confidently condemn them for not loving him more than anyone else, including their moms or sons...if that Jesus didn't live. What are we arguing over? The data only speaks of a magic Jesus. It doesn't tell us a thing about an unremarkable preacher who gained a tiny following and upset someone just enough to get himself killed. We don't know a thing about what he taught that upset anyone. We assume. We assume because for some reason people from centuries ago preserved writings about a magic dude, who remains venerated by many today.

Maybe we ought to all just admit the argument is over a distinction without a difference. A historic Jesus who didn't tell people the silly myths in scripture is himself a myth as far as we can tell. That dude was so unknown and unremarkable everyone who ever wrote anything about him, didn't know him, but made his story something it never was. If that doesn't define the concept of myth I don't know what does.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

The evidence for Jesus' life is quite weak, as we should expect for anyone from 2,000 years ago--particularly someone who is not mentioned in contemporary records. Notable people get mentioned in contemporary records in history, but not all the time. Also it might be imagined non-notable people get mentioned after they lived, being turned into notable people as stories and tales are generated about them. If there were a mortal Jesus who, like the rest of us, did not do any miracles, but like the rest of us had some ideas about what is good or useful and preached on those things, we have next to nothing to verify his life. A historicist position would like Jesus to be a non-notable person who once lived and after his death all sorts of tales and myths were created for his life. But somehow the made up stories generated after his life is evidence of his life. It is without a doubt possible there was a lesser man Jesus who lived, gained a bit of a following and was killed for his obstinate preaching (we could also assume he taught something like that which we find in the New Testament). But that tale assumes quite a burden. Its safe to say that description, of a minimal historicist Jesus, is more likely than taking the descriptions written about him and uncovering the existence of the one who was born of a virgin, did many miracles, taught many things about the coming end of the world with a description of how to be spared, was killed, and rose again defeating death. We have a bit of a problem here we ought to call out. The Jesus who is but a normal guy, who taught normal things, failed to do magic tricks, and did not raise from the dead is not written about and is not found in the historic record. Anywhere. If we wish to find him, we can look into the remaining records for the magical Jesus and see if we can pull from those a normal guy who was, after he died, exalted and changed into a magic dude who was greater than men. One who was a God--at least considered as such by the time all the mythologizing of him was done.

I think its important to keep in mind, and so I emphasize, is if Jesus is something other than the person the stories attached to him depict, does that mean there really was a Jesus? I find it important because Jesus, as we know, is a magical God hidden in the heavens as we speak. At least to millions of believers. To them he wasn't some guy who lived 2,000 years ago who taught a few things, gained a bit of a following and got himself killed. To believers He was that, plus a magic person who was and is none other than God who taught the wisest things ever and conjured up the most wondrous magic ever and currently hides in the best of hiding spots ever. That magic Jesus is summarily dismissed as not existing by historicists. Historicists are left arguing for a normal guy Jesus. But Mark and Paul, the earliest authors we have writing about Jesus, don't know the normal guy Jesus. We can assume these later authors got wind of a normal guy Jesus from others and in writing about him they made him more than he was, but there's no evidence that's true. Paul denies he got wind of the magical Jesus from others, or least his gospel (Galatians 1:11-12), and Mark never claims to have heard of him from others either. How can we say with any confidence they heard of a normal guy Jesus who had lived whom these stories got attached to? They simply aren't good sources to verify a Jesus who lived on earth. Their entire intention is to create a character who is greater than a normal person. They created a God, a Son of God, a Son of Man, a Lord, a Messiah, and a heavenly King. But on the question of historicity, that is not the guy who is thought to have lived.

Many were killed for what we'd think were minor offenses back in the day. So on that, I maintain the minimal historicist position is quite possible. If it's merely possible he lived (which is no feat in and of itself), it's also possible there was no human Jesus who started a religion (a feat, I suppose, but one that has happened many times). The big point here is a minimal historicist position provides us a distinction without a difference. If a normal guy lived and died and after he died some people made up fantastic stories about him not resembling his life, do we really say the guy in the stories lived? It seems to me the guy in the stories is simply myth. So as Dennis MacDonald once pointed out, a historicist position is really just a mythicsist position of a kind. What if we can't confirm anything in the stories? Was his mother named Mary? who knows? Was his father Joseph and not God? Who knows? Was he born in Bethlehem? Did he come from Nazareth? Did he walk the streets of Jerusalem? Who knows? We simply don't have any confirming evidence for any of the mundane elements claimed to be his life. Again, it's all quite possible...but possible can't be made probable on a whim. We truly need reason.

My issue is not accurately thought of in a historicist vs mythicist way. I'd frame it more as historicist and ahistoricist. A historicist position considers it likely Jesus lived. An ahisthoricist considers it as likely as not. For many reasons I don't care too much about the details of mythicism at least not here. The question I'd ask is did Jesus live? On that I'd like to see this more as an effort to examine the position of historicism, if it could ever be nailed down, and determine if the evidence is in its favor. If someone wishes to complain about the mythicist position...fine. I mean fine, but I'm not interested. I've considered every argument I could find against mythicism and I find the critiques lacking, and quite often terribly so. But it's a dead end. There is no scholarly work that argues for historicism. Nothing. Not in our modern day. Until there is we're left with very little reason to think Jesus actually lived.

But I like to be charitable when discussing topics of interest, so....

If there were a Jesus who walked around and gained a following, then perhaps we can verify his existence from evidence of a following. But that's difficult and ambiguous. I'm not sure we have anything from such a following (not only no eye witnesses to his life, but no one who followed him ever leaves us anything). If we were to suggest we do have something from a following then we hold an assumption that that which persists is material from his following. In other words, there'd be some begging the question there. We first have to assume a historic Jesus then assume anything written about Jesus the Christ was given to the authors as stories from his life from others, who likely got it from others going back to those who knew him. But it's odd "the following" given to him in the gospels (written decades after him) disappear as soon as he does, for the most part, with a couple of exceptions (Peter and James appear in Paul but we hear nothing from either of them). There's a problem going on here that doesn't seem to get mentioned much. If the gospels write about the apostles, including Peter, then how do we know gospel authors are not adding these characters into Jesus' life, as they created it, because they were mentioned by Paul as being apostles? I don't think we know this. Paul only speaks of aposltes having visions of Jesus, not walking around with him, literally following him.

I would say whatever gets claimed to be from a following can speak well to a myth theory as Carrier lays out. If Paul mentions Peter and James and the rest of the apostles, not as followers of a previously living Jesus, but as fellow believers who witnessed Jesus just as Paul did in vision, then later stories about these guys having walked around with a living Jesus might be nothing more than myth. For historicists to think there was a following of a preacher named Jesus jumps the question at issue and fails to use the data to address the question but instead addresses the question with assumptions. It's simply an attempt to turn a possibility into a probability magically.

Paul for starters doesn't say Jesus had a following. There were no "disciples" on his accounts. There were no teachings passed from a mortal Jesus to his followers to Paul's ears. Also, there was no Jesus coming again, on Paul's account. There was only a coming of Jesus yet to arrive. Paul's writings have been perplexing to scholars for these reasons. They give plenty of reason to question what's going on. What they don't do is definitively uncover a real Jesus who lived on earth. Not with any certainty. Explanations given for why Paul refused to further Jesus' teachings if they were around before Paul are simply possibilities rather than probabilities. They assume first there was a Jesus, and thus if used in this context are nothing more than begging the question as well. They may say Paul didn't mention disciples, as many have, because he didn't want others to think his followers were better sources of truth than he...or some such explanation. But this again, begs the question. There may be reasons why Paul refused to teach what Jesus taught or refused to acknowledge there were actual followers or disciples, but it's also possible Paul didn't mention these things because he didn't think there were these things. Paul didn't think there were teachings from a mortal Jesus. All teachings about Jesus for him, weren't passed to him from another, but were revealed to him, via revelation or through scripture. Paul didn't think there were disciples of a mortal Jesus walking around with him. He thought there were fellow believers and fellow apostles who were called via revelation from Jesus. That seems to be the most probable explanation of the data because it doesn't introduce unfounded assumptions.

So moving on, along comes the Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Mark, the first of these written or the majority of scholars suggest, very well could be said to have invented a story about a man incorporating into the story themes from previous myths. There is no evidence that anything he says about Jesus was meant to represent a real person. Perhaps he offered nothing more than myth? That is quite possible. On the basis of the gospels and Paul there's no evidence to suggest Jesus was real. The stories in the gospels are magical with the intent, as Luke clearly puts it, to create a gospel worth believing. Oddly, there are four gospels that believers hold to, but in reality there are plenty more. Of the highly regarded four, the latter three used the previous ones as sources, as demonstrated by the copying and pasting from one to another, and it should be noted each is written as if they are trying to outdo the previous work. I don't see how anyone can seriously suggest that amounts to evidence for a life of Jesus. But many do.

Assuming the Farrer hypothesis (and if you favor the Matthean posterior hypothesis, simply substitute Luke for Matthew in these next lines), which I think is the majority position, if Mark's creation was intended to represent reality, then why would Matthew take it, chop it up, copy most of it, change a few things and add others? Did Matthew care about writing something accurate on history? It is possible, I suppose, Matthew made changes with the intent of correcting the misunderstandings of Mark on history. Sure...it is possible. But again, possible is not probable simply because we want it to be. It's also quite possible neither wrote history. Both wrote fantasy gospels, if you will. If so, we have little reason to favor historicity over ahistoricity. By the time Luke or John come along, what do we make of the many differences or contradictions? Some hypothesize there must have been competing sources that each author used. But that's simply a guess. It's possible there were no other sources. Its possible Mark invented the story of his life, Matthew worked to better it, Luke attempted to rework it to better fit and John saw them all and changed things more drastically. If so, none of them seem to support the notion that they attempted to write an accurate history. And, as it is, arguing from silence can be problematic. These are not independent sources simply because we want them to be, or suspect they each could have possibly, maybe, used various sources. That's all ad hoc reasoning.

So again, let's consider, if Matthew copied 90% of Mark, although he rearranged and changed some things just to make sure there were contradictions, then the only hypothesized theory worth considering if we are to treat Matthew as a reliable source is assume Matthew used something other than Mark and the author's creativity to write Matthew. But that's hypothetical and thus, by definition, is not reliable. In other words, only Mark is a source here. And, as it turns out, Mark might have invented the whole idea that Jesus really lived. We can easily say Mark was aware of Paul. Sure...no big deal. Many have suggested as much. We can also think Mark had as his intended audience other literate elites. Yep. Not believers...not Christians, but other greek trained literate elites. This is what Robin Faith Walsh describes as most likely for Markin her book The Origins of Early Christian Literature. That simply takes the hypothesized oral tradition of teachings and story passed from a hypothesized Jesus to his followers, to their followers to Mark's ears, and adds in its place a huge old question mark. Since we don't know, that's how it should be--a question. And don't worry, if we question Jesus' existence we also question who the hell really wrote Mark or the other gospels too. There really is no level of certainty to any of this, despite what historicists often say.

On the question of Jesus' historicity all we can muster is an evaluation on probability. Not certainty as historicists often suggest. On the contrary, because as it is the cases have been made and the evaluations have shown it is likely Jesus didn't live. But as it happens, based on many assumptions, there are many dogmatists fighting those evaluations for whatever reason. Indeed any attempt to critique the evaulation fails on multiple levels. And yet, when pressed there is no case made to show it's more likely Jesus lived. It gets stated "it's more likely he lived" as a matter of dogma not as a matter of historical ananlysis nor reasonable derivation. In promoting his book on the question Dr Erhman says, "Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed." Somehow a clear issue of probability gets turned into a clear measure of certainty based on an expert opinion. Well, let's see, he also says, "The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place. The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist." What would that mean? We don't have evidence, but since we can't have evidence for people who lived that long ago, it's a certainty that Jesus lived...because of the lack of evidence? So as to not appear to be tricking anyone, I will note this last quotation is talking about archaeological (as in not written) records. Fewf! That helps. It really does. But his evaluation of the written records, as we shall see, leaves plenty of question marks, it seems to me. I don't understand his certainty which often gets used as a source of dogma for historicity defenders.

Ok let's make some brief reminders/comments on extra-biblical mentions of Jesus. Well, in the first century there are none. I know people jump on Josephus (writing in the 90s AD), but one of those two mentions is largely agreed to be a later scribe adding the account of Jesus, and the other mention makes far more sense if one reads the passage without the two words called Christ, making a good case for these two words being added later. Remember much like the gospel and the rest of the New Testament, we have no original of Josephus, no copy of an original, no copy of a copy of a copy and so on. If mention of Christ is excluded it makes sense and it makes sense given that Christians were often handlers of these texts. Some may say arguing as much is a stretch and that'd be fine. It is. The problem doesn't come down to whether someone thinks it likely Josephus mentioned Jesus the Christ. It's a question of how debatable are Josephus' mentions of Jesus. It turns out they are very debatable. Being debatable they don't work out well as evidence. So if we can consider it as evidence for a living Jesus, it'd be really really weak evidence.

And in the first century, aside from the fantastically written gospels (likely only 2 at this point, since many have made a good case to show Luke relied on Josephus), and the ambiguous Paul, that is all there is. Oh wait...there's 1 Clement, Hebrews (ok, not extra-biblical but not included in the biblical sources above) and possibly the Ascension of Isaiah. Nobody really trots those out though. Hebrews doesn't speak of a mortal Jesus. The Ascension of Isaiah, happens to be a difficult text with many renditions--the earlier seeming far more fitting of mythicism than not. And 1 Clement is, much like Hebrews, a non help on the question.

Tacitus is claimed to be a good extra-bibilical source saying Jesus lived. But he's writing in the second century and if the passage can be said to be a mention of Jesus it is simply a repeat of what some second century Christians believed and passed on. This again is extremely weak and remains a debatable point anyway.

So I'm going to tune it up. There are at least two works, ableit not scholarly works, in the recent past that deal with this question and arrive at a likelihood that Jesus lived--although neither specifies a likelihood they just kind of state without equivocation Jesus lived, seemingly overlooking the concept of probability altogether. I'll deal with one, the most credible of the two--Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus exist?.

It's chock full of problems. Here's a major one:
We cannot think of the early Christian Gospels as going back to a solitary source that ‘invented’ the idea that there was a man Jesus. The view that Jesus existed is found in multiple independent sources that must have been circulating throughout various regions of the Roman Empire in the decades before the Gospels that survive were produced. Where would the solitary source that ‘invented’ Jesus be? Within a couple of decades of the traditional date of his death, we have numerous accounts of his life found in a broad geographical span. In addition to Mark, we have Q, M (which is possibly made of multiple sources), L (also possibly multiple sources), two or more passion narratives, a signs source, two discourse sources, the kernel (or original) Gospel behind the Gospel of Thomas, and possibly others. And these are just the ones we know about, that we can reasonably infer from the scant literary remains that survive from the early years of the Christian church. No one knows how many there actually were. Luke says there were ‘many’ of them, and he may well have been right.
– Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Did Jesus Exist,’ pg. 163-164
No. We don't have Q, nor M nor L. We don't have any of this. This is all speculation. And yet, Bart's book is the best source we have for arguing for historicity, at least written in our modern era. it seems to me we either assume Jesus lived for the sake of argument, or pretend we know more than we do, because we want to and we want to be dogmatic about it, as Ehrman tends to be. Whenever we hypothesize "there must have been something before this" we are guessing there was something and we'd be guessing what that hypothetical source actually said. Unfortunately our best guesses can't turn something we don't have into something we do have, as Bart attempts to do in his book and arguments for historicity. Our best guesses can't possibly mean we can reliably say those guesses really existed 2,000 years ago. This type of begging the question type of reasoning plague's Dr Ehrman's analysis on this question. Oddly, the guy who has made a career out of showing the problems of the gospels has turned defensive and unreaonable on this question.

An issue alluded to in the above quote is better laid out here by Dr Ehrman:
But even if we leave Paul out of the equation, there is still more than ample reason for thinking that stories about Jesus circulated widely throughout the major urban areas of the Mediterranean from a very early time. Otherwise it is impossible to explain all the written sources that emerged in the middle and end of the first century. These sources are independent of one another. They were written in different places. They contain strikingly different accounts of what Jesus said and did. Yet many of them, independent though they be, agree on many of the basic aspects of Jesus’s life and death: he was a Jewish teacher of Palestine who was crucified on order of Pontius Pilate, for example. Where did all these sources come from? They could not have been dreamed up independently of one another by Christians all over the map because they agree on too many of the fundamentals. Instead, they are based on oral traditions. These oral traditions had been in circulation for a very long time before they came to be written down. This is not pure speculation. Aspects of the surviving stories of Jesus found in the written Gospels, themselves based on earlier written accounts, show clearly both that they were based on oral traditions (as Luke himself indicates) and that these traditions had been around for a very long time—in fact, that they had been around since Christianity first emerged as a religion in Palestine itself.
– Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Did Jesus Exist,’ pg. 170-171
Please, Dr Ehrman, explain how these sources (the gospels) are independent of each other? he tells us this isn't speculation then goes on to do nothing more than speculate. As many have attested, Matthew copies 90% of Mark. That's not independence. It's not even reasonable to assume Matthew was unaware of Mark. Many have pointed out that Luke was aware of both Matthew and Mark, Luke often being cited as a response to Matthew. Again what Ehrman says is the opposite of scholarship here. Ehrman's position is these are independent even though they seemingly have copied parts, because they each could have been written using other unknown hypothetical sources. It's not that his wondered speculation is not possible. The problem is simply his position is unsupported. Its guesswork masqerading as scholarship.

In another attempt to turn nonscholarship into scholarship he says, in his book:
But when we encounter a story about Jesus that does not support an early Christian agenda or
that seems to run contrary to what the early Christians would have wanted to say about Jesus, as
we saw, the story is more likely to be historically reliable since it is less likely to have been made
up. We saw how the story that Jesus was crucified created enormous headaches for the Christian
mission because no Jews would have expected a crucified messiah. This tradition clearly passes
the criterion of dissimilarity. Given the additional fact that it is so thoroughly attested in so many
of our independent sources, it appears highly probable that in fact Jesus was crucified. That is far
more probable than an alternative claim, for example, that he was stoned to death or that he
ascended without dying or even that he simply lived out his life and died as an old man in
Nazareth, none of which is ever mentioned in our sources.
– Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Did Jesus Exist,’ pg. 175
Yep. Bart accepts oft-used apologetic position of criterion of dissimilarity. "I don't think it'd be likely that the story would be made up because...therefore it's more likely it's not". Reasoning that "no Jews would have expected a crucified messiah" is just silly, since that is exactly what would be expected. But there is no "independent" sources as he claims. They are dependent. A page earlier he says,
I have repeatedly stressed that a tradition appearing in multiple, independent sources has a
greater likelihood of being historically reliable than a tradition that appears in only one. If a
saying or deed of Jesus is found in only one source, then it is possible that the source simply
made it up.
He's assumed independence when that is at best debated, and at worst or more likely has been shown to not be the case. They are all dependent on Mark. If so and if ever he caught himself on that scholarship he'd likely have to conclude the opposite--"oh" says future Bart, "since they are all dependent then the story or saying is likely made up. We don't have indpendence". But this has been pointed out to him many times, so here's to holding out hope <clink>.

Ehrman's arguments hold the theme of independence, and criterion of dissimilarity throughout his arguments. They are the mainstays to make his point. But each, I'd say, or more than problematic, rendering his whole study ineffective. But it was written as a popular work, not a scholarly one. And that perhaps makes this type of reasoning seem useful.

Page 181 he say:
That Jesus associated with John the Baptist is multiply attested in a number of our early sources.
It is found in both Mark and John, independently of one another; there are also traditions of
Jesus’s early association with John in Q and a distinctive story from M. Why would all these
sources independently link Jesus to John? Probably because there was in fact a link.
Page 184:
Given these different Son of Man sayings, how can we decide how the historical Jesus actually
used the term (as opposed to the Gospels or the storytellers from whom they learned these
accounts)? This is where the criterion of dissimilarity can come into play. The early Christians
believed that Jesus himself was the Son of Man, the cosmic judge of the earth who would return
in glory (see, for example, Revelation 1:13). The sayings in which Jesus talks about himself as
the Son of Man cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity. But the sayings in which Jesus seems to
be talking about someone else do pass the criterion: surely Christians who thought Jesus was the
Son of Man would not make up sayings that appear to differentiate between him and the Son of
Man.

The sayings that make this differentiation are always ones that predict what will happen in the
future, when the Son of Man comes in judgment on the earth. These sayings are also multiply
attested in early sources, as we saw earlier.
page 184:
But when the Son of Man
arrives, all that will be reversed so that anyone who has given up everything for the sake of that
coming kingdom will be rewarded: the first will become last and the last first. And so we see
from a saying in Mark and another in L
He goes on to list Mark, Matthew and Luke as indpendent sources.

Page 185:
The Law was a central component of Jesus’s teaching, as can be
seen from the fact that he focused on the Law, and the correct interpretation of the Law, in
multiple independent sources, both early and late.
He goes on to list as independent sources: Mark, Q, M, John.

He argues for the criterion of dissimilarty another 2 dozen times in his book. And relies on independence over 100 times and multiple sources 3 dozen times.

Those 3, I would say, dubious criteria spoil his position, I'd say. Many will argue the criterion of dissimilarty or embarrassment is good and useful. many would contest that. And that'd be the point. It's debatable, at best, so it can't get us to the dogmatic certainty that Bart holds. Some may argue that the gospels are independent. Fine...But very debatable..more and moreso in fact. That's a big problem. Some may argue the hypothetical sources he relies on are sources we have, as he does. But that'd be stupid. Let's just face that. We don't have hypothetical sources. That's silly and that claim itself spoils his whole case, if you ask me.

In the end, in my view, it's 50/50. I don't' consider myself a mythicists, even though I've pushed ideas at times. It doesn't really matter. It only matters in context. We have millions of believers basing their lives on the religion of Christianity. This holiday season we'll hear many appeal to the reason for the season. And I suppose I'll roll my eyes. Even with that kind of stuff, I like Christmas. I like the season. I feel good and happy about it. I like to see people get excited. I like it all. So I leave this for the season...to think about. Or not. Whatever.
Last edited by dastardly stem on Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by drumdude »

There’s as much or more evidence that Jesus existed as there is for anyone else of that time period.

The absolute amount of evidence compared to today’s standards is low. The relative amount of evidence compared to contemporary standards is high.

If we are going to use the modern standard, then almost no one specific person existed before the advent of modern documentation.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

drumdude wrote:
Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:17 pm
There’s as much or more evidence that Jesus existed as there is for anyone else of that time period.
I don't think that's true at all. That is a common apologetic that usually gets trotted out, but not true. Here's a previous discussion on the matter. Pontius Pilate, Caligula, Spartacus, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Tiberius Ceaser, Hannibal....all get referenced as examples of people who think existed but Jesus is said to be better attested. And that's just not true at all.
The absolute amount of evidence compared to today’s standards is low.
Yes, something near zero is low.
The relative amount of evidence compared to contemporary standards is high.
Which certainly says we can't say as much as we'd like about the past, or we can't confirm as many claims about the past as we like, but certainly doesn't mean we can certainly say jesus lived.
If we are going to use the modern standard, then almost no one specific person existed before the advent of modern documentation.
no. That's a silly way to think of it, I'd think. Of course people lived. But people in stories may not have. We ought to proceed with some degree of skepticism. That only seems reasonable.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by drumdude »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:32 pm
drumdude wrote:
Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:17 pm
There’s as much or more evidence that Jesus existed as there is for anyone else of that time period.
I don't think that's true at all. That is a common apologetic that usually gets trotted out, but not true. Here's a previous discussion on the matter. Pontius Pilate, Caligula, Spartacus, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Tiberius Ceaser, Hannibal....all get referenced as examples of people who think existed but Jesus is said to be better attested. And that's just not true at all.
The absolute amount of evidence compared to today’s standards is low.
Yes, something near zero is low.
The relative amount of evidence compared to contemporary standards is high.
Which certainly says we can't say as much as we'd like about the past, or we can't confirm as many claims about the past as we like, but certainly doesn't mean we can certainly say jesus lived.
If we are going to use the modern standard, then almost no one specific person existed before the advent of modern documentation.
no. That's a silly way to think of it, I'd think. Of course people lived. But people in stories may not have. We ought to proceed with some degree of skepticism. That only seems reasonable.
Where do you think Bart Ehrman has it wrong, in a few sentences? He’s studied this his whole life, and is not a Christian. He has no dog in the fight, as many atheist myth theorists do.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

drumdude wrote:
Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:26 pm
Where do you think Bart Ehrman has it wrong, in a few sentences? He’s studied this his whole life, and is not a Christian. He has no dog in the fight, as many atheist myth theorists do.
no one has a dog in the fight. It's a rather unimportant question for our daily lives. But I'd love to steer away from these types of distracting points. I've provided some examples of how I'd say Ehrman has made a bad argument.

My first question for someone who wishes to defend Ehrman's take is do we have Q, M and L as he claims? If not, then it seems a huge basis for his argument has been undercut. If we do have them, where are they?
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by drumdude »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:56 pm
drumdude wrote:
Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:26 pm
Where do you think Bart Ehrman has it wrong, in a few sentences? He’s studied this his whole life, and is not a Christian. He has no dog in the fight, as many atheist myth theorists do.
no one has a dog in the fight. It's a rather unimportant question for our daily lives. But I'd love to steer away from these types of distracting points. I've provided some examples of how I'd say Ehrman has made a bad argument.

My first question for someone who wishes to defend Ehrman's take is do we have Q, M and L as he claims? If not, then it seems a huge basis for his argument has been undercut. If we do have them, where are they?
Does he claim we have them? Or does he claim we can infer they probably existed and were lost based on the textural analysis of the gospels?
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by huckelberry »

from dasterdly stems opening post:
dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:00 pm

And here we sit 2,000 years later watching people quarrel over whether some unremarkable guy lived in antiquity. It'd be comical if it weren't true. If Jesus did not heal the blind, or teach us a parable about 10 virgins. If Jesus didn't look upon a blind man and spit his magic spit in his face to heal him, nor didn't raise anyone from the dead. If that Jesus didn't teach that he and he alone would tell many believers that he never knew them and would happily and confidently condemn them for not loving him more than anyone else, including their moms or sons...if that Jesus didn't live. What are we arguing over? The data only speaks of a magic Jesus. It doesn't tell us a thing about an unremarkable preacher who gained a tiny following and upset someone just enough to get himself killed. We don't know a thing about what he taught that upset anyone. We assume. We assume because for some reason people from centuries ago preserved writings about a magic dude, who remains venerated by many today.
Stem, I find myself puzzling over a couple of points.I find myself wondering just how your view actually differs from that of Bart Ehrman. He does not view Jesus as having miraculous power, having been raised from the dead or having a divine nature. He sees a jewish religious preacher whose message got him killed.

That is what you present as well.

The most apparent difference is that you use a lot of snark and Bart does not. Your persistence seems to show a serious emotional involvement in your view. Ok. Is it possible that with your focus on your interpretation of the "I never knew you" judgement combined with the love me more than family comment you see the real Jesus dangerous fanatic who ran afoul of people's reaction to the fanaticism?
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by Kishkumen »

Great stuff, stem! I love the energy and passion you bring to this issue. I do think you are a little hard on Ehrman, but I am sure he can take it. He is using the tools he was trained to use to bring to this problem. I think he does a decent job. That said, the mistake we make in how we think of this is to imagine that Christianity is important because Jesus lived and did such and such things. To the contrary, Jesus is important because others made such a big deal out of him. It is participation in that act of worship—making a big deal out of Jesus—that lies at the center of Christianity.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
msnobody
First Presidency
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:35 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by msnobody »

drumdude wrote:
Sat Dec 10, 2022 7:59 pm
Kishkumen wrote:
Sat Dec 10, 2022 6:50 pm
Great stuff, stem! I love the energy and passion you bring to this issue. I do think you are a little hard on Ehrman, but I am sure he can take it. He is using the tools he was trained to use to bring to this problem. I think he does a decent job. That said, the mistake we make in how we think of this is to imagine that Christianity is important because Jesus lived and did such and such things. To the contrary, Jesus is important because others made such a big deal out of him. It is participation in that act of worship—making a big deal out of Jesus—that lies at the center of Christianity.
I don’t think the historical Jesus would be able to wrap his mind around Mormons dressed in green fig leaves chanting “pay lay ale” in his name. You could probably get him to understand air travel faster than that. :lol:
I just don’t do loooong posts well. I’ve read some of it.

I think Jesus could wrap his mind around this. I’m pretty sure he is aware of things more disturbing than this.
The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession... The LORD set his love on you and chose you... The LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery. Deut. 7
Post Reply