The Jesus Myth: An unrelenting case for history

[dastardly stem]

I don’t think it’s worth getting so worked up. We have the evidence we have. It happened 2000 years ago.

If you think the odds are 90/10 or 10/90, is that really such an important distinction?

Believers will continue to believe 100% and 0%. The rest of us should be ok with ambiguity.

History is interesting and ought to be treated with respect as a discipline. Punting and saying, who cares? is ok though. Not all of us are interested enough to dig in.

[drumdude]

I don’t think it’s worth getting so worked up. We have the evidence we have. It happened 2000 years ago.

If you think the odds are 90/10 or 10/90, is that really such an important distinction?

Believers will continue to believe 100% and 0%. The rest of us should be ok with ambiguity.

History is interesting and ought to be treated with respect as a discipline. Punting and saying, who cares? is ok though. Not all of us are interested enough to dig in.

DS, do you believe the odds of the historical Jesus existing is exactly 0 percent? I don’t see how you can interpret what I said as believing it’s not an interesting question. I just don’t think it needs to rise to the level of heated debate as it normally does when mythesists start telling everyone they’re either lazy or stupid.

[dastardly stem]

DS, do you believe the odds of the historical Jesus existing is exactly 0 percent? I don’t see how you can interpret what I said as believing it’s not an interesting question. I just don’t think it needs to rise to the level of heated debate as it normally does when mythesists start telling everyone they’re either lazy or stupid.

I've given my take in the previous threads and this one again. I'm right around 50/50. 0 percent or even 1 percent as historicsts like Ehrman suggest, on such an issue from 2,000 years ago is silly and dogmatic. Of course Ehrman doesn't utilize probability theory. He just states what sounds more probable and less probable.

Dogmatic conclusions on either side is problematic for sure. Carrier's range is something near 33 percent and 1 percent unlikely Jesus lived.

[huckelberry]

The way you're framing this shows a complete lack of understanding of how scholarship works and your interest in your polemical goals as a propagandist.

Alright, thanks for the posturing. if you have a case for historicity, I'm all ears.

Christian believers in the first century believed in a human Jesus. They were closer to the question than people now. You propose an alternative picture where the original belief was a mythic figure in the heavens. This is a pretty much a what if proposal as there is no direct evidence of the existence of a movement believing such a thing. If the first Christians believed in an angel only Christ how did that get completely reversed in 20 years? Just because some literary guy wrote Mark?

[dastardly stem]

Christian believers in the first century believed in a human Jesus. They were closer to the question than people now. You propose an alternative picture where the original belief was a mythic figure in the heavens. This is a pretty much a what if proposal as there is no direct evidence of the existence of a movement believing such a thing. If the first Christians believed in an angel only Christ how did that get completely reversed in 20 years? Just because some literary guy wrote Mark?

huckelberry, what gives you such insight into what first century Christians believed? Some may have believed one thing and others may have believed something else in regards to Jesus. We don't have the luxury of getting much from first century Christians, certainly not enough to just blanket statement what they believed, it seems to me. A big purpose behind my point is, we simply do not know all that we often claim to know on this stuff. There's a great deal of pretending to know, and plenty of assumptions to go around. My proposal remains around 50/50 with an edge towards mythicism for all the reasons I've mentioned over the years. My reasons, as I see them, extend far beyond something about a reversal in 20 years or Mark's gospel was written with greek and roman myth in mind.

[honorentheos]

I don’t think it’s worth getting so worked up. We have the evidence we have. It happened 2000 years ago.

If you think the odds are 90/10 or 10/90, is that really such an important distinction?

Believers will continue to believe 100% and 0%. The rest of us should be ok with ambiguity.

History is interesting and ought to be treated with respect as a discipline. Punting and saying, who cares? is ok though. Not all of us are interested enough to dig in.

Digging in ones heels verses recognizing the reality of distance in history requires accepting certain probabilities are the closest we will get, perhaps.

[drumdude]

Christian believers in the first century believed in a human Jesus. They were closer to the question than people now. You propose an alternative picture where the original belief was a mythic figure in the heavens. This is a pretty much a what if proposal as there is no direct evidence of the existence of a movement believing such a thing. If the first Christians believed in an angel only Christ how did that get completely reversed in 20 years? Just because some literary guy wrote Mark?

huckelberry, what gives you such insight into what first century Christians believed? Some may have believed one thing and others may have believed something else in regards to Jesus. We don't have the luxury of getting much from first century Christians, certainly not enough to just blanket statement what they believed, it seems to me. A big purpose behind my point is, we simply do not know all that we often claim to know on this stuff. There's a great deal of pretending to know, and plenty of assumptions to go around. My proposal remains around 50/50 with an edge towards mythicism for all the reasons I've mentioned over the years. My reasons, as I see them, extend far beyond something about a reversal in 20 years or Mark's gospel was written with greek and roman myth in mind.

50/50 seems perfectly reasonable to me. I think the main difference is that a historical Jesus is plausible to everyone. But a Jesus myth hasn’t become plausible yet to most people. Possible, yes, but not plausible or likely.

I think a real Jesus is the null hypothesis, it’s the simplest explanation.

I see a lot of myth arguments about how it’s possible, I don’t see them arguing that it’s more likely than the null hypothesis that some real person named Jesus was the seed for it all.

[honorentheos]

I would lean to there having been a historical person who served as the germ of the myth, over the possibility Jesus was fabricated entirely by Paul. But that discussion is a parenthetical to the improbability of there having been a resurrected, deified being. I think PGs sand/salt pile fable was quite brilliant.

[huckelberry]

Christian believers in the first century believed in a human Jesus. They were closer to the question than people now. You propose an alternative picture where the original belief was a mythic figure in the heavens. This is a pretty much a what if proposal as there is no direct evidence of the existence of a movement believing such a thing. If the first Christians believed in an angel only Christ how did that get completely reversed in 20 years? Just because some literary guy wrote Mark?

huckelberry, what gives you such insight into what first century Christians believed? Some may have believed one thing and others may have believed something else in regards to Jesus. We don't have the luxury of getting much from first century Christians, certainly not enough to just blanket statement what they believed, it seems to me. A big purpose behind my point is, we simply do not know all that we often claim to know on this stuff. There's a great deal of pretending to know, and plenty of assumptions to go around. My proposal remains around 50/50 with an edge towards mythicism for all the reasons I've mentioned over the years. My reasons, as I see them, extend far beyond something about a reversal in 20 years or Mark's gospel was written with greek and roman myth in mind.

Stem, I can see your point that there is no way that I would know what every first century Christian believed. There is clear evidence of variety. What information I do have is based upon first century Christian writing. I would be willing to admit that my reading is also influenced by the much broader supply of second century writing and the understanding they had of the past. They cared about the history of Christian tradition though that does not prove that nothing has been forgotten.

[Kishkumen]

Hey, stem. Have you read Burton L. Mack’s The Christ Myth? I think you might enjoy it. He has a different approach than Carrier, in that he does not address the likelihood that Jesus may not have been a real person. Instead, he deals with the mythologization of Jesus the person. I got it pretty cheap a few weeks ago, and so far I quite like it.