Non-Christian documents about the existence of Jesus Christ

[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:

Procedures for contradictory sources

• If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
• However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
• The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
• When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
• Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
• If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
• When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Core principles for determining reliability

• Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
• Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
• The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
• An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
• If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
• The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
• If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

 

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.

 

I think the healing aspect is higher up the list than you declare.

• ...
• that he really did heal people

 

The idea does not pass the criterion of dissimilarity (Nr 3): it fits too well in a Christian agenda.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

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:

 

Selective quoting? I provided a link for review. You are insisting on a 4 criteria standard of your own preference. My point was that your method is not universal. There are many considerations. I provided 6 you then followed that by added several more you said I left out.

Your criteria as previously outlined:

"How old is the original document? The shorter after the events described, the better." - Age of the origanal documents do matter. However I find the part misguided. Rather than saying "the shorter after" I'd say the more contemporary the better. And there is nothing contemporary. So there is nothing that is particularly good. Decades later is better than nothing but it isn't good.

 

"Are the events described by multiple independent sources? The more, the better." - the Gospels are one source. The claim that they are all independent accounts is not provable. Many of the Gospels were clearly inspired by other ones and there is authorship questions so it isn't known where the information comes from. Assumptions have to be made to accept the Gospels as multiple accounts. So Jesus does not pass the "more the better" test. Accepting the Josephus reference as legit rather than a forgery there is two references.

 

"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." - The New Testament fits the agenda perfectly. Jesus is said to have been the Jewish Messiah. In the tradition of that story Nazareth, kings, donkeys, and solar events were all included. The story also dressed itself up with common stories of immaculate inception and resurrection.

 

"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." - We don't know when and where do we? The time frame and location are estimates. There is a window for when Jesus is said to have live give a take several years. As for the location we know the region but that all. No X marks the spot for birth, baptism, or execution (3 things you say we know probably happened).

 

 

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.

 

You say Jesus probably existed but are not actually calculating the probability. This is why I mentioned Baye's Theorem. Using it you can actually calculate probability rather than just guess at. Every assumption you make like saying Jesus was Baptized by John or put to death has its own probability of being true or false. Once you calculate it all out the odds of there being a guess are not overwhelming.

[Willie71]

I think the healing aspect is higher up the list than you declare.

 

• Jesus came from Nazareth
• he had a brother James
• he met John the Baptist
• he was an apocalyptic preacher
• he was crucified under Pilate.
• that he really did heal people

Have a watch of this video. Faith healing is a series of techniques to fool perception, and prey on confirmation bias.

 

[Robittybob1]

Have a watch of this video. Faith healing is a series of techniques to fool perception, and prey on confirmation bias.

 

I want to be able to sort out the fakes. So if it is just a technique like in the video I would be like you and totally reject them.

[Eise]

Hi Ten oz,

Very good that you took the challenge. I hope I can clarify why historians think that Jesus existed, in contrast with your application of these criteria.

Your criteria as previously outlined:
"How old is the original document? The shorter after the events described, the better." - Age of the origanal documents do matter. However I find the part misguided. Rather than saying "the shorter after" I'd say the more contemporary the better. And there is nothing contemporary. So there is nothing that is particularly good. Decades later is better than nothing but it isn't good.

Of course, contemporary is better, but shortly after is better than very long after. Especially if you see that the sources as they get longer after the events described, are becoming more fantastic (Infancy gospel of Thomas) or less descriptive and more theological (gospel of John). The longer there is between the writing down of the source and the events that are described, the more imprecise and exaggerated they will be. The known gospels are not written in the same time. (As small aside here: only for this reason it is wrong to treat the NT as one source.) This clearly visible change in the gospels (not just the 4 that got into the NT) shows a tendency, from which you can extrapolate back (infrapolate?) to what the original events might have been. That is not specially good for finding truths, but it is good for formulating hypotheses.

Also Paul mentions how he met Peter the apostle, and James, the brother of Jesus. This is pretty close to contemporary. And as we have more sources that Jesus had a brother called James (a gospel, Josephus), we can be pretty sure he did exist.

"Are the events described by multiple independent sources? The more, the better." - the Gospels are one source. The claim that they are all independent accounts is not provable. Many of the Gospels were clearly inspired by other ones and there is authorship questions so it isn't known where the information comes from. Assumptions have to be made to accept the Gospels as multiple accounts. So Jesus does not pass the "more the better" test. Accepting the Josephus reference as legit rather than a forgery there is two references.

As said, the gospels are not one source. There have been about hundred gospels, but theologians in about the 4th century decided that these are the most authoritative. We don't have to believe them, of course they chose them also on theological grounds. But it is clear that the gospels do not speak with one voice. There are so much differences between the gospels in the NT alone, that they cannot be correct all 4 of them. Based on textual analysis, one comes to the following picture of the sources:


(I hope a picture says more than words...)
So there are 4 sources for the 3 synoptic gospels: 'Unique to Luke', 'Unique to Matthew', 'Double tradition' (also called Q) and Mark.

That they are not one source is also clear that the gospels (not just the 4 in the NT) are mentioned in ancient, but different times in documents of theologians. This is one method to estimate when they were written.

Another error you make is to apply the 'the more the better' criterion on complete gospels, instead on the individual events described. Two extreme examples: Jesus crucifixion is described in all the NT gospels (and in Paul's epistles, and in Josephus...), so it might very well be true. The story with the 'Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her' is only found in John. This story forms also a style break in the gospel of John, so it surely did not happen, and was added by a later Christian scribe.

"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." - The New Testament fits the agenda perfectly. Jesus is said to have been the Jewish Messiah. In the tradition of that story Nazareth, kings, donkeys, and solar events were all included. The story also dressed itself up with common stories of immaculate inception and resurrection.

Again, you must not apply the criteria on the sources as a whole, but on the individual events described in it. The examples you mention are exactly such events that do not make it as probably true, because they fit too well in the Christian agenda. But the 'facts' I mentioned before do pass the criterion of dissimilarity, because they do not fit:

• Jesus is born in Nazareth. Nazareth was at best a very small village, where just simple peasants lived. But the messiah should come from Bethlehem, according to the prophecies. And what do we see? Mark, the oldest gospel, lets it be by just mention 'At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan'. But Luke fantasises a story that should explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but still came from Nazareth. Matthew does it in another way (Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, but after their flight to Egypt, return to Nazareth). So both try to change history in a way that it fits the prophecy. So alltogether: Jesus very probably came from Nazareth.
• John the Baptist: it just does not fit that Jesus, as son of God, is baptised by John. It should be the other way round. Again, we have different sources for this fact, Josephus mentions John the Baptist even more extensively than Jesus, and John held also apocalyptic views.
• Jesus was crucified. It just doesn't fit in the ideas in those days what a messiah was, that Jesus was crucified. A messiah should be a king who would restore the relationship between God and the people of Israel, and e.g. would throw the Romans out of Palestine. Instead he was crucified (by the Romans!). Followers of Christ had to bend their theology in extreme ways to adapt to this fact. (Therefore Christianity has still the most unbelievable theology of all world religions.)
• Jesus as apocalyptic preacher. In Mark you find the most sayings of Jesus that the Kingdom of God is imminent, even might happen in Jesus' lifetime. The later the gospels, the less this point is stressed. 'The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!' 'Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.' 'Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'(Mark) And possibly the only mentionings by John: 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.' and 'Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.'. No indication when that will be. Why? The Christians of course notice that the apocalypse did not come. But the citations are in the synoptic gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew). A Christian scribe would have changed that if he wanted it to fit his ideas. So, it is very probable Jesus said such things.

"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." - We don't know when and where do we? The time frame and location are estimates. There is a window for when Jesus is said to have live give a take several years. As for the location we know the region but that all. No X marks the spot for birth, baptism, or execution (3 things you say we know probably happened).

Yes, the events fit: the Romans under Pilate had no problem to crucify trouble makers, even without any process. There were several groups under the Palestinian Jews who believed in the coming Kingdom of God (John the Baptist, the Essenes, the Pharisees), so the facts fit in the cultural climate of those days. We find traces of Aramaic in the gospels, and Aramaic was the language in rural Palestine in those days. Nazareth was in such a rural area, and we see that Jesus followers were mainly peasants and fishermen.

You say Jesus probably existed but are not actually calculating the probability. This is why I mentioned Baye's Theorem. Using it you can actually calculate probability rather than just guess at. Every assumption you make like saying Jesus was Baptized by John or put to death has its own probability of being true or false. Once you calculate it all out the odds of there being a guess are not overwhelming.

 

I am looking forward to your calculations.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

Of course, contemporary is better, but shortly after is better than very long after. Especially if you see that the sources as they get longer after the events described, are becoming more fantastic (Infancy gospel of Thomas) or less descriptive and more theological (gospel of John). The longer there is between the writing down of the source and the events that are described, the more imprecise and exaggerated they will be. The known gospels are not written in the same time. (As small aside here: only for this reason it is wrong to treat the NT as one source.) This clearly visible change in the gospels (not just the 4 that got into the NT) shows a tendency, from which you can extrapolate back (infrapolate?) to what the original events might have been. That is not specially good for finding truths, but it is good for formulating hypotheses.

Also Paul mentions how he met Peter the apostle, and James, the brother of Jesus. This is pretty close to contemporary. And as we have more sources that Jesus had a brother called James (a gospel, Josephus), we can be pretty sure he did exist.

 

Let's give the information you support some numbers. We'll keep it very basic and follow your 4 criteria. Scale of one through ten. 10 = very likely, 5 = moderately likely, and 1 = very unlikely.

Documentation - you have already acknowledged that contemporary would be best. Of course contemporary isn't alway practical. If a person is illiterate, of little importance, and so on we wouldn't expect much written. However Jesus had followers. It is not a crazy idea to think one of them might've written something down. Jesus also had ditractors. Again, not unreasonable to assume they might've written something down. What writings we do have are "moderate likely" at best. The fact that they come within decades rather than centuries after Jesus estimated life time simply prevents them from being in the "very unlikely" category. So the number I would give is a FOUR.

This is a scale after all. Had Jesus written something himself and it survived that would be a TEN. Second and third hand accounts written decades after.....a 4 is fair.

 

 

As said, the gospels are not one source. There have been about hundred gospels, but theologians in about the 4th century decided that these are the most authoritative. We don't have to believe them, of course they chose them also on theological grounds. But it is clear that the gospels do not speak with one voice. There are so much differences between the gospels in the NT alone, that they cannot be correct all 4 of them. Based on textual analysis, one comes to the following picture of the sources:

 

So there are 4 sources for the 3 synoptic gospels: 'Unique to Luke', 'Unique to Matthew', 'Double tradition' (also called Q) and Mark.

 

That they are not one source is also clear that the gospels (not just the 4 in the NT) are mentioned in ancient, but different times in documents of theologians. This is one method to estimate when they were written.

 

Another error you make is to apply the 'the more the better' criterion on complete gospels, instead on the individual events described. Two extreme examples: Jesus crucifixion is described in all the NT gospels (and in Paul's epistles, and in Josephus...), so it might very well be true. The story with the 'Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her' is only found in John. This story forms also a style break in the gospel of John, so it surely did not happen, and was added by a later Christian scribe.

So let's give it a number:

Independent sources - Surely you accept the notion that sources with known authors are better than sources with unknown authors? I also think it is fair to say that unrelated sources are preferred over collective group sources? So we are not in the "very likely" ball park here. We don't have Roman historians writing about the fallacious Jesus in biographies about Pontious Pilates. Such would be gold and on the "very likely" end of the scale. As would anything written by a Jesus ditactor. Rather what we have are gospels written by a variety of authors (not factually known how many) with assumed levels of relationships based primarily on writing style and continuity of narrative. Plus as you point out the account got worse each time it was written. And all the authors are spiritual believers by their own word. I can't get above "moderately likely". Again, a 4 seems fair. I could even go lower on this one.

 

Again, you must not apply the criteria on the sources as a whole, but on the individual events described in it. The examples you mention are exactly such events that do not make it as probably true, because they fit too well in the Christian agenda. But the 'facts' I mentioned before do pass the criterion of dissimilarity, because they do not fit:

How true in overall terms something is matters. Once it is established that something is friction or exaggeration it lowers the probability that other parts are true.

1. [*]Jesus is born in Nazareth. Nazareth was at best a very small village, where just simple peasants lived. But the messiah should come from Bethlehem, according to the prophecies. And what do we see? Mark, the oldest gospel, lets it be by just mention '

At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan'. But Luke fantasises a story that should explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but still came from Nazareth. Matthew does it in another way (Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, but after their flight to Egypt, return to Nazareth). So both try to change history in a way that it fits the prophecy. So alltogether: Jesus very probably came from Nazareth.Nazarene, Nazarite, Nazareth, and etc have religious meanings that pre-date Jesus.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(title)

 

Arguing over Nazareth is actually counter productive to your point. Everything has its own prability of being true or false. So arguing about Nazareth only increases the amount of evidence you need because it makes your claim that much more specific. The more specific the claim more specific the evidence must be to support it. So not only do you now need to prove that Jesus is more likely to have existed than not existed you also have to prove that Nazareth existed and that Jesus was from there. That requires more evidence, not less. So to address the Nazareth claim we'd have to do another scale against your 4 criteria (Documentation, Independent Sources, Agenda, Time & place). Because Nazareth can't be used to help support that Jesus was most probably real until it in itself is proved to have been most provably real. Even then "most provably real" information has a less likelihood of being correct that provably real information. So even if you could factor Nazareth out to the "very likely" end of the scale against your 4 criteria it doesn't actually help your argument much as you want it to or seem to suspect that it might.

 

[*]John the Baptist: it just does not fit that Jesus, as son of God, is baptised by John. It should be the other way round. Again, we have different sources for this fact, Josephus mentions John the Baptist even more extensively than Jesus, and John held also apocalyptic views.

[*]Jesus was crucified. It just doesn't fit in the ideas in those days what a messiah was, that Jesus was crucified. A messiah should be a king who would restore the relationship between God and the people of Israel, and e.g. would throw the Romans out of Palestine. Instead he was crucified (by the Romans!). Followers of Christ had to bend their theology in extreme ways to adapt to this fact. (Therefore Christianity has still the most unbelievable theology of all world religions.)

[*]Jesus as apocalyptic preacher. In Mark you find the most sayings of Jesus that the Kingdom of God is imminent, even might happen in Jesus' lifetime. The later the gospels, the less this point is stressed. 'The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!' 'Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.' 'Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'(Mark) And possibly the only mentionings by John: 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.' and 'Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.'. No indication when that will be. Why? The Christians of course notice that the apocalypse did not come. But the citations are in the synoptic gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew). A Christian scribe would have changed that if he wanted it to fit his ideas. So, it is very probable Jesus said such things.

Again, with each additional claim you are increasing the amount of evidence required to prove Jesus' likelihood. Each claim requires it own scale of likelihood against your criteria before we can even account for them.......

 

Back to our scale we've already started:

Agenda - It is clearly there. This is the formulation of a religion after all. I can't even imagine what time of NT exclusive information there could be that would make it "very likely"? What would a 10 look like this criteria in your opinion? I give this one a TWO

 

Yes, the events fit: the Romans under Pilate had no problem to crucify trouble makers, even without any process. There were several groups under the Palestinian Jews who believed in the coming Kingdom of God (John the Baptist, the Essenes, the Pharisees), so the facts fit in the cultural climate of those days. We find traces of Aramaic in the gospels, and Aramaic was the language in rural Palestine in those days. Nazareth was in such a rural area, and we see that Jesus followers were mainly peasants and fishermen.

I am looking forward to your calculations.

Yes, the behavior fits an era and a region. Surely specific time/dates and locations would be better than an era and region though? All referencing the behavior does is support the liklehood you have your era and region correct. A 10 here would be a known location at a known time. A 1 would be unknown location at unknown time. What we have is a known window of time with a general area for location. Again, we are in the ball park of "moderately likely". Since neither location or time is known I lean toward the lower end of "Moderately likely". After all we have exact locations for Moses but that isn't believed because the time isn't known. Here we diffinativele have neither time or location. Just estimates. I give it a THREE.

 

So for your 4 criteria on a basic 1-10 scale of "very unlikely" to "very likely" to have existed I gave Documentation a 4, Independent sources a 4, Agenda a 2, and time and place a 3. The average being 3.25 which falls on the lower range of moderately likely.

 

 

 

That of course is just a very basic scale. To do it properly would require seperate scales for all hypnosis' being presented. We'd have to create probabilities for all claims and average them against each other well as know the history for such speculations being accurate. As previously stated Baye's theorem would be the way to do it. That said my silly 1-10 scale at least quantifies what I mean by probably this, might that, or if whatever. You keep stating outcomes built a top of things that are "probably" true and never quantifying what probably means. Probably isn't evidence for something else that in itself is also only probable. Give me a number. 10 being the best evidence imaginable (with in reason) and 1 being the worst evidence. Then applie your 4 point criteria to everything you accept as probably true in regards to proving the existence of Jesus.

[Robittybob1]

Have a watch of this video. Faith healing is a series of techniques to fool perception, and prey on confirmation bias.

 

That does not prove a case against the texts that speak of Jesus doing miraculous healing. Maybe it was confirmation of your own bias.

[Acme]

That does not prove a case against the texts that speak of Jesus doing miraculous healing. Maybe it was confirmation of your own bias.

This strikes me as rather disingenuous. Whenever evidence is presented that doesn't sit with your belief you reply with the equivalent of 'nuh uh'. We have well established there is no 'proof' for any of this, so continuing to ask for it is...erhm...unrealistic shall we say.

[Robittybob1]

This strikes me as rather disingenuous. Whenever evidence is presented that doesn't sit with your belief you reply with the equivalent of 'nuh uh'. We have well established there is no 'proof' for any of this, so continuing to ask for it is...erhm...unrealistic shall we say.

I haven't given up my search for proof yet. That video showed how it would be possible to dupe and con people but that does not prove the case against Jesus.

If Willie71 feels a demonstration of duped faith healing proves his case against Jesus, has he used that to confirm his bias?

Edited November 27, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

I haven't given up my search for proof yet. That video showed how it would be possible to dupe and con people but that does not prove the case against Jesus.

There you go again. THERE IS NO PROOF! Get it? What's more I get the distinct impression you wouldn't accept proof even if there were such a thing.

[Robittybob1]

There you go again. THERE IS NO PROOF! Get it? What's more I get the distinct impression you wouldn't accept proof even if there were such a thing.

It is you who said "there is no proof". So is it not you who won't accept proof rather than me? I don't follow your logic there.

[Eise]

Well, Ten oz, if just giving wild estimated points of probability to past events, then I already discovered Bayes calculus during my primary school time... But I leave that to probability calculation experts. I am not, but I think it is more than what you do here.

You method in general is completely wrong. First I gave a few examples of how the criteria are used, and under point 3 I mentioned the events that historians take as 'really happened'. So, let's firs repeat the criteria:

• Sources shorter after the events are better than later (contemporary are of course the best).
• Multiple independent sources
• Dissimilarity
• Fit in the time and place where the events took place.

Then there are the events that we want to test:

• Jesus came from Nazareth
• he had a brother James
• he met John the Baptist
• he was an apocalyptic preacher
• he was crucified under Pilate.

As short for the source I will use: Mark (the gospel), L for what is only found in Luke, M for what is only found in in Matthew, and Q for what is both found (in nearly the same wordings!) in Luke and Matthew, John for his gospel

1. Did Jesus come from Nazareth?
It is mentioned in all sources, the earliest just states the fact, L and M try to force Jesus to be born in Bethlehem (according to the prophecies, it is David's city). It is also stated as fact by John. Parts of the gospels originate from Aramaic, which was spoken in the (rural) areas where Nazareth was supposed to be. This is consistent with the fact that all gospels tell that the followers of Jesus were mainly farmers and peasants. The question if Nazareth really existed is only marginally important, because nobody would phantasise that the messiah would come from a small unknown hamlet in Galilee.

2. Did Jesus have a brother, James?
This is stated by an (authentic) epistle of Paul, and it is mentioned in at least one of the gospels. Another gospel says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. We also have the completely independent source of Josephus (in two different versions!). From the epistle of Paul one can derive that it was at most 5 years after Jesus' death, that he met James (and Peter). That is not contemporary, but it is close. It also doesn't fit the idea that Mary was a virgin. The idea that Mary, after Jesus' birth was having sex does not fit in Christian ideas, before even works less...

3. Was Jesus baptised by John the B?
The event is described in all gospels. We also have independent knowledge of John's existence from Josephus (his paragraph on John is even longer than that on Jesus. It does not fit in a Christian agenda, where Jesus, as son of God, would need to have his sins washed away. On the other side, it fits perfectly with the fact that John was also a believer in the coming kingdom of God, and that the earlier Christian were apocalyptic too, which one can find in the Pauline epistles. So the least we may conclude that he met John. But he very probable was baptised, because no Christian would fantasise such an idea.

4. Was Jesus an apocalyptic preacher?
Mark, Q, L and M all state that Jesus said that the apocalypse would come very soon, probably in his own lifetime. Paul also states this in his epistles. John, as the latest gospel is not so clear about it, because as the latest gospel (nearly 70 years after Jesus' death), it was obvious that the apocalypse did not happen yet, and that in fact Jerusalem was destroyed, instead of heavenly powers throwing the Romans out of Palestine. Other Christians would have done the same, or reinterpret these sayings of Jesus even more (which in fact happened, and is still happening). Conclusion: Jesus really said these things.

5. Was Jesus crucified by Pilate?
Independently mentioned by all gospels, by Paul, by Josephus and Tacitus. It fits perfectly in the time and place, but does not fit the idea of a messiah at all. With that we already have passed all 4 criteria.

So how many points? And then: say you estimate this a little differently (an understatement I suppose...). With every added probable event, the chances that Jesus really existed increases. What you say is true: with every added event, with not 100% probability, the chance that the 'whole package' is true decreases. But not the fact that Jesus existed.

Now you must compare the hypothesis that Jesus existed with other hypothesis how all these stories, in this form (its consistencies and its inconsistencies), the for Christians unpleasant events that are described, the suddenly arising of Christianity in such a short time, and show how and why this all happened. Verily, I say to you, the assumption that there really was such a person is much more probable than that it was all fantasy, be it naturally grown by mass phenomena under the Jews in those days, or worked out by a few people. We would have found other stories.

 

Just to add, once again: I am not a Christian, I do not believe in God, and I think that what historians have to say about Jesus is far away of what most modern day Christians believe. I think this is a better basis of criticising Christianity than just deny that Jesus existed.

[Acme]

It is you who said "there is no proof". So is it not you who won't accept proof rather than me? I don't follow your logic there.

Ridiculous double talk. It is not just me saying there is no proof, it is the agreement of the rest of us here. You are locked into a fool's errand based on a dream of a decade and half ago. Please do tell us in no uncertain terms what 'proof' you would accept, whether it supports your belief or contradicts it.

Well, Ten oz, if just giving wild estimated points of probability to past events, then I already discovered Bayes calculus during my primary school time... But I leave that to probability calculation experts. I am not, but I think it is more than what you do here.

...

Your standards of 'proof' are as disingenuous as Bobbity's. You demand a particular type of rigor that is at its core mathematical, but when it is given you claim ignorance of the rigorous method and continue on with your default claims.

[Robittybob1]

Ridiculous double talk. It is not just me saying there is no proof, it is the agreement of the rest of us here. You are locked into a fool's errand based on a dream of a decade and half ago. Please do tell us in no uncertain terms what 'proof' you would accept, whether it supports your belief or contradicts it.

.

E.g. If it was claimed a cripple was healed we might have X-ray or video results before and after. In other words quite substantial proof.

[Ten oz]

@ Eise, I understand that my 1-10 scale is not how probability is calculated nor does it follow Bayes theorem. I am simply trying to get you to provide estimates in regards to how strong your assumptions are. You have a 4 part criteria. The probability of all 4 parts being true various significantly as the strength of each changes. Let's take Julius Caeser for example.

 

For each part of the 4 criteria you advocate Caesar has the best possible versions of the evidence we'd expect. So let's call that 99% of what we'd hope for.

With each of the 4 parts of the criteria being 99% likely the probability that all 4 are likely is 96% (99% x 99% x 99% x 99%).

 

Now let's pretend the evidence wasn't so strong and we were calling each of the 4 parts 70% likely. That is still good right? 70% is still measurably better than 50/50 right? We, that is not how probability works. The probability that any one of the 4 is correct may be 70% but the probability that all 4 is correct is much lower. That probabiliy is only 24% (70% x 70% x 70% x 70).

 

And this is the problem with using evidence based of likelihoods. The probability that all likelihoods are correct is rather lower even if the individual likelihood of any single one is actually good. Your assumptions that Jesus was probably real is contingent on ALL 4 of the criteria you outlined support being proved. ALL the assumptions being made. Unless those assumption are 95% likely or better (best possible evidence) the probability that all assumptions are true is low. Which means it is doubtful that all 4 of your criteria are actually being proved. This is why I asked you to assign a number to each and why you refused. Because we both know that any reasonable percentage of likelihood you would've assigned would factor out to a low probability. So the question becomes how much of what you think is likely can be wrong before you stop thinking it is likely?

[Acme]

E.g. If it was claimed a cripple was healed we might have X-ray or video results before and after. In other words quite substantial proof.

This is why I say your stance is ridiculous. Not only is there no contemporary process actually carried out such as you demand, there is not even the chance of such for Jesus' purported healings. (Let alone presuming that the causation of a healing such as you describe is attributable to faith and not something else. That's a logical fallacy and a scientifically untenable expectation.) I can't see that you have any genuine interest in any reasonable investigation here as you only present such standards as you know that no one can provide. Tsk tsk. Get a blog.

[Robittybob1]

This is why I say your stance is ridiculous. Not only is there no contemporary process actually carried out such as you demand, there is not even the chance of such for Jesus' purported healings. (Let alone presuming that the causation of a healing such as you describe is attributable to faith and not something else. That's a logical fallacy and a scientifically untenable expectation.) I can't see that you have any genuine interest in any reasonable investigation here as you only present such standards as you know that no one can provide. Tsk tsk. Get a blog.

Surely it is a difficult yet expected standard. You would expect cases to have the same degree of evidence. I am setting a high standard and a difficult one. But as the references to Jesus often point out his healing powers as his defining characteristic, we should list this characteristic. So if the deeds were real would they stand my test (verifiable evidence of these "surprising deeds"), and not just your test (of the magician, slight of hand and trickery)?

Looking at Josephus History of the Jews:

 

 

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly

Edited November 28, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

Surely it is a difficult yet expected standard.  You would expect cases to have the same degree of evidence.  I am setting a high standard and a difficult one.  But as the references to Jesus often point out his healing powers as his defining characteristic, we should list this characteristic.  So if the deeds were real would they stand my test (verifiable evidence of these "surprising deeds"), and not just your test (of the magician, slight of hand and trickery)? 

...

It's an impossible standard and yes I have come to expect it from you. No, the deeds don't stand your test but they do mine. I can reproduce the results by trickery and/or explain them by conventional reproducible trickery means whereas you can not describe or explain a mechanism that reproduces them by "surprise", i.e. as supernatural miracles. In prosaic terms I am operating in the real world and you operate in a dream world. As I have said before, good luck with that. Edited November 28, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

It's an impossible standard and yes I have come to expect it from you. No, the deeds don't stand your test but they do mine. I can reproduce the results by trickery and/or explain them by conventional reproducible trickery means whereas you can not describe or explain a mechanism that reproduces them by "surprise", i.e. as supernatural miracles. In prosaic terms I am operating in the real world and you operate in a dream world. As I have said before, good luck with that.

I don't see why you'd get upset that I set a super-critical standard. What does prosaic mean? OK "unimaginative" will do. These tests are to be recorded and experienced in the real world, and they will have to pass my veterinary/medical knowledge as well.

I can read blood tests and xrays plates as good as anyone.

It could be someone very proficient in magic tricks that will still fool me and beat my best efforts at verification. We'll see!

Edited November 28, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

... What does prosaic mean? OK "unimaginative" will do. ...

That is one meaning but if you read carefully what I wrote, that meaning does not fit the context in which I used the word prosaic. I meant "b. "Matter-of-fact; straightforward." So again, matter of fact and straightforward, you offer no valid logical reasoning in this discussion. With you it is one fallacy after another and I find that irritating from anyone. Edited November 28, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

That is one meaning but if you read carefully what I wrote, that meaning does not fit the context in which I used the word prosaic. I meant "b. "Matter-of-fact; straightforward." So again, matter of fact and straightforward, you offer no logical reasoning in this discussion. With you it is one fallacy after another and I find that irritating from anyone.

I had just edited my previous post, but could anyone ever provide a logical reason for what might be described as paranormal? I will have to find an example of it first and just like James Randi has been challenging those who feel they can beat his tests, I could do something similar. But would a true preacher do it for reward? So the prize might have to be disguised as a donation.

It truly is something I have challenged myself doing, to record a miracle, but lately I have too involved with work.

(it was an answer to you but I think we are bit off topic, but it was all to do with aligning evidence and Josephus' comment re Jesus doing his "surprising deeds".

Fallacy - that is your opinion. Are they really fallacies?

Edited November 28, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Eise]

Oh, my dear, Ten oz, now you have made a huge error. And you got a point for that too!

 

Let's take your Caesar example: say we have 4 events of his life, and we are 99% sure that these events really happened. You are right that the chance of all these events having happened is 0.99⁴ = 96%. But if we want to know if Caesar really existed, your calculation leads tot the conclusion that the more of this nearly sure events we know, the more unsure we get that Caesar really existed. If we have 100 events that we are 99% sure of then are only for 0.99¹⁰⁰ = 37% sure that he existed??? No: we are only 37% sure that all these events happened. But we are (1 - 0.99)¹⁰⁰ = 10^-198% sure that he did not exist.

 

Now to Jesus: your application of the criteria and the events is again too simplistic. E.g. the criterion fits time and place is true for every good historical novel. So it is only a negative criterion: if it does not fit, then it cannot be a real event. The opposite with the criterion of dissimilarity: the greater the contradiction between the event described and the Christian agenda, the greater the chance that the event really happened. More independent sources of course increase the chance, as the shorter time between the events described and the writing itself.

 

So, very rough, assume that the chance of the reality of these 5 events is only 50% per event, then the chance that Jesus did not exist is (1 - 0.5)⁵ = 3%. Of course, I estimate that the chance that the event really happened is higher, which makes the chance of Jesus' non-existence even smaller.

 

If you want my estimates, here they are:

1. Did Jesus come from Nazareth? 70%

2. Did Jesus have a brother, James? 85%

3. Was Jesus baptised by John the B? 75%

4. Was Jesus an apocalyptic preacher? 90%

5. Was Jesus crucified by Pilate? 95%

 

Chance that Jesus existed: 99.99%. Of course, chance that they are all true is only 38%. But I am wondering what these kinds of calculations are really worth.

 

Even in your (wrong) application of chances on the criteria per event you are wrong. If you say that the chance of every event being true is only 24%, then for the 5 events this makes a chance of (1 - 0.24)⁵ = 25% that Jesus did not exist, so 75% that he did exist. Still not too bad.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

@ Eise, you are doing the math wrong. You have presented a 4 criteria contingency. All 4 parts must probably be true. The numbers I referenced deal with the probability that ALL 4 criteria would be true if the information wasn't the best it could be. The numbers have nothing to do with individual arguments or a "100 events". You have 5 separate claims you are asserting and each claim needs to be measured against your 4 criteria. The probability that you are repeatedly meeting all 4 each time with will less than best evidence is very low. So rather than give me number for the 5 assertions you should be providing numbers for the 4 criteria which support the assertion. How well does each of the 5 stand up singularly against the 4 criteria contingent.

If the chance for each claim was 50% as you stated for example than the probability that they all happened would be low, NOT that Jesus did not exist. Probability is not a statement on what did or did not happen. It is a measurement of the likelihood of your conclusions. Ultimately everyone of your thoughts on the issue could be wrong but Jesus may have still existed and vice versa. Jesus' existence is not contingent upon our logic. I brought probability into this to show you how unlikely it is that all of your criteria is being met. Not prove Jesus wasn't real. You are conflating the two.

[Eise]

Sorry, Ten oz, you apply the math wrong. Let's just take one example:

 

Did Jesus have a brother, James?

1. Source shortly after the event: Paul, only at most 5 years after the event: 95% (contemporary would be 100%)
2. Multiple sources: one gospel, one epistle of Paul, Josephus (twice): 95% (we have to add quite a few assumptions to explain why the sources say the same, i.e. go back to one (forged?) single source)
3. Dissimilarity: 95% (before this stuff started to interest me I had not even imagined that a brother is mentioned in the bible! Jesus' mother was a virgin!)
4. Fits in history: 100% of course, people always have had brothers. (Again, this criterion is only useful to filter out obvious mistakes)

 

So 0.95³ = 85%

 

I won't do the rest, you get the idea.

I brought probability into this to show you how unlikely it is that all of your criteria is being met. Not prove Jesus wasn't real. You are conflating the two.

 

Sorry, this thread is about the question if Jesus existed. I showed you that based on the available sources we can be sure nearly 100%. Maybe we have one of the points wrong, but not the overall fact that he existed.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Eise

[Robittybob1]

Sorry, Ten oz, you apply the math wrong. Let's just take one example:

 

Did Jesus have a brother, James?

1. Source shortly after the event: Paul, only at most 5 years after the event: 95% (contemporary would be 100%)
2. Multiple sources: one gospel, one epistle of Paul, Josephus (twice): 95% (we have to add quite a few assumptions to explain why the sources say the same, i.e. go back to one (forged?) single source)
3. Dissimilarity: 95% (before this stuff started to interest me I had not even imagined that a brother is mentioned in the bible! Jesus' mother was a virgin!)
4. Fits in history: 100% of course, people always have had brothers. (Again, this criterion is only useful to filter out obvious mistakes)

 

So 0.95³ = 85%

 

I won't do the rest, you get the idea.

 

Sorry, this thread is about the question if Jesus existed. I showed you that based on the available sources we can be sure nearly 100%. Maybe we have one of the points wrong, but not the overall fact that he existed.

Based on that Jesus most likely had a brother James. Doesn't that equate to the same likelihood for Jesus too then for jesus to have a brother James should be equal to James having a brother Jesus.