Eise

ten Oz, I asked what you think of the 4 criteria I mentioned. Concerning the citation of the Wikipedia article. You do selective quoting. Here are the two next sets of criteria: Thank you for referring to the Wikipedia article. And no, I am not sure that Jesus existed. I said that repeatedly: given the sources we have, the idea that Jesus existed is much more probable than that he did not. If some of my wordings or tone suggest that I am sure, then it is a reaction on the stubbornness of some of you to refuse to have an opinion without really diving into the matter, and use only prejudices and insinuations to make your case. The idea does not pass the criterion of dissimilarity (Nr 3): it fits too well in a Christian agenda.

I don't want to end the discussion, but yes, I would like people to take the discussions serious. Call me boring, if you like. I was already suspecting that you were just amusing yourself, but, well, it is a bit funny on the 'science forums', isn't it? I think there are not many here who try to to see that history is also a science, be it of another kind than the hard sciences. And you noticed I did not react on you anymore, but on ten Oz.

No. Historians. I gave the method you can use to criticise historians here. I gave the criteria that historians use here. Nobody of you (Moontanman, Acme,Ten oz) have reacted on this. For that you react with global insinuations against historians, just doing away with all sources without even looking into them, and give wild speculations. Yes, these are exactly criteria that sieve all that is very probably not true. What is left, which is not much, might be true, and be worthy to look at them against the other criteria I mentioned before. After applying these criteria, historians are left with these point that they assume fact: Jesus came from Nazareth he had a brother James he met John the Baptist he was an apocalyptic preacher he was crucified under Pilate. Nothing more: not that he did stage tricks (or not), not that he really healed anybody (or not), nor why he was crucified, etc. There are some speculations about other aspects of his life, but because the evidence is too thin, there is no general consensus about it under historians. What no historian can proof: that Jesus was born from a virgin that he really did heal people that he resurrected, etc. As long as you all do not criticise the mentioned criteria, or their application on the available material, your arguments are empty. PS The infancy gospel of Thomas of course fall through. It fits the Christian agenda too well, it is written much later than the gospels of the NT, there are no independent sources that confirm the stories in it, and there are occurrences in it that do not fit into a Palestinian Jewish context from around 0 CE. It drops out on all 4 criteria.

Hey, you both discuss as if you can take every gospel as a historical account. You can't: most of it is driven by a Christian agenda. Only those facts that do not fit the Christian agenda, are worth to test on other criteria of historicity.

So what? Show me where Jews believed in resurrecting gods. Where is the resurrecting God? This is about the Kingdom of God. The claim of Carrier and et al is that Jesus was modeled after resurrecting gods or demi-gods, like Osiris. Your link as nothing to do with that. It has even less to do with the idea that God (or his son) would take the sins of all people (Jews?) by letting himself be crucified So why argue for it? Let's stick to what the thread is about, and when we agree there we can let it be: the fact that Jesus existed. Migraine’ prayer against headache The one about "Migraine’ prayer against headache". Don't know what you are citing?

I asked for proof that priests (i.e. Sadducees and Pharisees) were doing stage magic, not that some Jewish fraud in Egypt claimed to do magic. And the story is imagined by the author, as you correctly show. It is mainly about love potions, and some charm for getting rid of headache. Is pretty far of showing that Jesus was a stage magician. Hey, people have defended that Jesus was a hippie, or a socialist, a rebel, an anarchist, a yogi or guru, and so on. Do your best!

The question was if Jews in those days believed in resurrecting gods, not if they believed in Moses. True, there is no evidence at all. But there is enough evidence that Jesus existed. (By explaining how Jesus got the name of a miracle man, you implicitly are saying that he existed.) And I think the simpler explanation for Jesus' miracles are his charisma, his gullible believers in those days (as in fundamentalist churches today), and exaggeration in hearsay stories after his death. But feel free to believe it was stage magic. I've heard there also people who think that the best explanation is that he was the son of God... Their 'proof' is as good as yours! (A 16th century's manuscript?)

There is a very long time between the time when Moses was supposed to live and when Jesus lived. If you can give some reference to Jewish documents around the time Jesus lived that prove that one still believed in resurrecting gods, please bring the proof. Otherwise I stick to Ehrman who, as historian, states that there was no such belief in those days of Judaism. Also in your argument you make yourself dependent on the idea that Moses existed, and has lived in Egypt. Given that no historian thinks that there is any hint that Moses really existed, your argument is not very strong. The rest of your 'magician' argument is as poor as the previous. You just give a possible explanation why there might be miracle stories about Jesus. But you refer to no evidence at all. Where Judaist priests performing stage magic? ASFAIK they interpreted Moses' laws, led the temple with its rituals and offerings, etc etc. I think you did not read many previous postings of me. I do not believe in a divine or miracle Jesus. But I think Jesus existed, and was, without his intention, founder of Christianity. But we know nearly nothing about him: that he was born in Nazareth, met John the Baptist, was an apocalyptic preacher, had a brother James, and was crucified under Pilate.

I don't think you find a document that fits the 4 criteria I mentioned that proof that point. If obviously already fails the criterion of dissimilarity (number 3). The authenticity is disputed, until proven otherwise.

These stories do not pass the historical test of dissimilarity, point 3 in my criteria here. They fit too well in an agenda in which Mary must be a virgin, and at the same time explained that Jesus would have had brothers and sisters. On the other side, if we have independent sources that mention that Jesus had brothers and/or sisters, then this fact might very well be true, exactly because it does not fit in a Christian agenda: it is a difficult fact to explain, when Jesus' mother was a virgin. We have several independent sources: Paul, one of the gospels in the NT (forgot which one) and Josephus. Thereby is Paul a very early source, and above he mentions that he met James. So it is probably a true fact that Jesus had a brother, James. If it somehow would turn out that the ossuary is authentic, it would be another proof.

I assume they just took over the Christian calculation by James Ussher.

Robittybob1 is right (except this 'chance 1' thing). The usual phrase would have been 'James, son of Joseph'. The addition of 'brother of Jesus' is unusual, and therefore significant. However: it is, to say the least, very suspect that the ossuary was presented by a known forger of antiquities. Under scholars the standpoints are diverging. See here.

Ah, the 'quoting to death strategy'. If you would have read the links I provided, you would see that the 'argument of silence' does not hold water. Again, you do not react on what I write. What do you think of the criteria I gave in my previous posting? Do they make sense to you? Will you answer this, or do you take your steam-roller this time? Here is what one of my previous links has to say. For the complete argument, read the links I provided: Just to be sure: the writer is an atheist, not a theologian, or even a Christian. And in your giganto-quote you only mention the rightfully criticised Testimonium Flavium (i.e. it was extended by Christian scribes). Not the one that that was discovered later, and fits in much better, and does not make exaggerated claims about who Jesus was:

Yes, I accept that Jesus and James existed. But I also notice that the ossuary still is not accepted by the majority of historians. So, just wait and see. You have nothing to prove, because you believe.

You argue with a sledge hammer. Yes, the documents we can actually have in our hands are written centuries after the fact. But some of them are copies, from copies..., not hearsay from hearsay... On basis of mentioning e.g. the gospels by other writers, on basis of language styles, translations form Aramaic etc etc. we know that the originals were written much before. On basis of criteria you refuse to look into, historians can conclude this. Using the same argumentation as you do, we could not conclude that Hannibal or Alexander the Great existed. From them we also have no physical, contemporary documents. Of Hannibal there even are no claims that such documents existed. Following criteria are used by historians to decide if a document or fragment is probably authentic: How old is the original document? The shorter after the events described, the better. Are the events described by multiple independent sources? The more, the better. Does the document fit in the agenda of the scribe? The better it fits, the less the chance it is authentic. And of course the opposite: the worse it fits, the bigger the chance it is authentic. Do the events described fit in the historical context of the time and place where the events are supposed to happen? If they do they increase the chance that the document is authentic. Again, not much is left of the wonder stories in the bible. But what is left is that Jesus existed, that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he was an apocalyptic preacher, and that he was crucified by Pilate around 30 CE. Read the articles I linked to, and tell me where the errors are. I think you overrate it. As long as the experts are discussing this, we should wait and see.

You show you have no knowledge of NT history at all. The earliest Pauline epistle was written at most 20 years after Jesus' death, and he describes some events that occurred only a few years after it, e.g. that he met Peter and James (the brother of Jesus, the same that Josephus mentions). The gospels of the NT were written in the years 60 - 100, so definitely not 'centuries' after the fact. It is also obvious you do not react at the contents of my postings, and not on the articles I linked to. It shows you have no arguments. You only have your preconceived prejudices on offer. And it is funny to notice that you give a negative point on a posting in which I link a good article, in the sense that it very well explains why historians think Jesus really existed. You do this for the second time. Clear articles should give you the perfect possibility of explaining why they are wrong. You choose to react by giving an obvious falsity.

Yes. Bart Ehrman. You can use his books for further references. I don't give evidence. I give reasons why assuming that he existed is more reasonable than that he didn't. But you do not want to dive into the questions how history is done as described here. You follow your own biases. Here is a good link that summarises the arguments pro the historicity of Jesus, and arguments against the mythicists (here is part 2).

By which definition? Here I have a few for you: Free will means that decisions cause my actions Free will means that I can act according my wishes and beliefs Free will means 'I could have done otherwise' in the normal counterfactual way: 'If it would have rained, the streets would have been wet'. Free will means that you do not act according the wishes and beliefs of somebody else Please show me why any of the above is in contradiction with determinism, or with the idea that in principle our actions can be predicted. Please also telle me why above do not describe (aspects of) free will. Be aware: in none of the above descriptions I said that your wishes, beliefs and decisions are not determined.

You do realise that you do not counter one single of my arguments, don't you? On the other hand... no I am afraid you haven't understand one word of my posting. I find no criticism on history, on its methods and criteria, and how they are applied on the question of the historicity of Jesus' existence. What is left if you strip all the miracle stories I have said several times. And you keep repeating that the consensus of Jesus' existence is under theologians only. It is also under historians. You keep arguing from ill will. If you do not even try to start with an understanding of how historians work, and give a critical evaluation on their work, you are just as prejudiced as climate skeptics, who also have their opinion ready before they understand climate science.

Ten oz and Moontanman, You argue as 'climate skeptics'. Undisturbed by any knowledge how historians come to their conclusions, you already know in advance that they are wrong, and biased to their conclusions. Applied to climate science, we know that it is just the opposite: in fact the so-called skeptics are biased to their conclusions. They use the same strategy as you do. Use insinuations, parallels, and wild hypotheses to discredit established science, call some oppositional scientists as your witnesses. To criticise the general agreement under historians about the existence of Jesus, you should do the following: know what criteria historians use to filter probable true facts from lies, exaggerations, propaganda, forgeries etc. evaluate these criteria: do you think they are correct? understand the methods that historians use to evaluate the authenticity of their sources, how they determine where they come from evaluate these methods See how these methods and criteria are used on the available material about Jesus (unpreoccupied, all the material: the criteria and methods filter the material, not your biases!) evaluate if these methods and criteria were correctly applied. None of you have done any of this. I think it is very useful to take a historical Jesus as background in dealing with (especially fundamentalist) Christians. In the first place you learn how many contradictions are in the the different biblical accounts of Jesus. Secondly, you can show that what is left after a serious investigation in the sources, has nothing to do with the kind of Jesus that most Christians believe in. By showing you understand and know the bible, you are in a stronger position than if you totally prejudiced just deny Jesus' existence. That is simply the end of the discussion. The more people have insight in what we can know about Jesus and what he really thought, the weaker and stupid uncritical beliefs will look. Just for the record: I am an atheist and do not believe in miracles, least of all the resurrection. But I do think that there is a historical core in the documents about Jesus. And seeing how much stupidity has been, and is done and believed under the banner of Jesus 'Christ', I think giving a fair and honest investigation into this is important. But we don't need other biased believers: those that, without critical investigation, believe he did not exist.

Now it is going to a completely other topic then 'Non-Christian documents about the existence of Jesus Christ'. Isn't that called 'kidnapping of a thread'?

Right. But again, most historians agree that the passage was changed in a Christian sense, but that in the core is mentioning Jesus (Christ). Do you see something different? What do you want to proof quoting us to death? Obviously you want more heavy proof of Jesus' existence. Sorry, this is the way antique history must be done. If you have not that many sources, you ask what is the most probable assumption. You analyse how Christian texts developed through the ages, the languages and styles in which they were written, etc etc, and see what remains after shifting everything. It is not much, but it is enough to take it for granted that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was crucified by Pilate. Add the Josephus fragments, and a few others, which fit the hypothesis, and you can get even more secure. James is mentioned in one of the (considered authentic) epistles of Paul, he is mentioned in an independently of Paul written Gospel, and he is mentioned by Josephus (which fragment comes to us in via two independent paths). Now consider the hypothesis that it was all made up: where is the proof? Any proof? Found writings show how scribes intentionally invented Jesus? Any evidence that in those days Jews in Palestine already had resurrecting gods or humans? Any proof that Jesus did not fit in the context of Palestine Jews in those days? No, there isn't. There are just parallels, insinuations, and wild hypotheses from the side of mythisists.

Wow. You support me. Just accentuate some other passages, and you get exactly what I am saying. The following does not refer to the Testimonium Flavianum, but you are also quite supportive here: The critics are wrong. See the full citation: The name James sure was very common. The name Jesus as well. So to be very clear which James Josephus meant, he extended his reference explicitly with 'who was called Christ'. Nobody was called 'Christ'. It comes from the Greek expression 'Christos', which means 'Messiah' in Hebrew. Please note that Josephus does not say he was the Messiah, only that he was called that way. So Josephus does not support Christianity in any way. He only states implicitly that he existed. So, yeah, thanks for the support.

Says who? Richard Carrier? It is true that we are not 100% sure (again) if the passage is authentic. What nearly every historian is sure of, is that following phrases are later additions: 'if it can be called a real man' 'people who were happy to find out the truth' 'due to accusations by leaders of our people' 'Because he showed before them the third day alive again, as predicted by the Prophets sent by God, accomplishing a thousand of miracles' They fit too well in the Christian (and anti-Semitic) agenda. Interesting enough, later the same Josephus fragment was found in a 10th century manuscript. Obviusly this was not copied from Eusebius, and made its way independent through the Arabic world. It runs as follows: So even if the document as a whole is written by a Christian (Agapius of Hierapolis),he cites Josephus in a different way, without the later Christian additions. According to historian's criteria this makes the Testimonium Flavianum, without the Christian additions, probably authentic. (Even one may be in doubt about 'Maybe he was the Messiah, about whom the prophets had spoken of miracles').

Well, intellectual clarity does not mean that it is easy. When physicists say that they have a clear understanding of relativity, that does not mean that everybody can follow them. Yep. Or unable.