I took it to mean he was claiming to have an objective basis for his disagreement (i.e. that his disagreement was based upon relevant evidence).
If it doesn’t mean that, then complete word salad is my best guess. Maybe I was being overly-optimistic in assuming (evidence to the contrary) that there was some meaning to his statement, but the alternative was to just shrug in bemusement (which is my current state).
To the extent that we’re talking about the simple existence of somebody whose name would be Latinised to “Iesus” (Greek “Iēsous”) from the Aramaic “Yeshua”, I think that that is entirely probable, given that (as far as I know) that was a common name for the period and locality. (It is only when we ask the question of to what extent that such a person would have matched the details in the Gospels that I think the issue quickly becomes inscrutable.)
I think the relevant issue is more specific than that. The position that Jesus existed as an historical person would entail that the Christian religion was inspired by a real person who led a group of followers, upset the leaders of the local Jewish community for some reason, and was therefore executed by the Roman authorities. At some point thereafter, his followers or the followers of the faith he inspired came to believe that he had been resurrected after his death.
if you or anyone questions those points, then I stand corrected. But I would also suggest that we leave discussions of Jesus mythicism out of the present thread, as it is unwieldy enough as it is and @PhylogenyFallacy has already said he is having trouble keeping up.
Paul, in fact, explicitly says that his belief in the resurrection of Jesus is not based on any eyewitness testimony. He goes to great lengths to make this perfectly clear:
Galatians 1
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
Strange how apologists never seem to mention this.
That still leaves the question of how the Christians he was persecuting before his conversion arrived at their beliefs. And those beliefs, despite Paul’s disclaimer, must have influenced his vision.
Yes, I don’t disagree. The point is that, according to Paul’s own words, he did not arrive at his beliefs as a result of talking to people who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection first hand and finding their testimony convincing. So his writings are of no help to those who want to argue that there exist, or even existed, eyewitness reports of the resurrection. If Paul had said he had spoken to people who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, that would mean we at least have one 2nd hand report. But we don’t have even that much.
I’m not advocating for outright Jesus mythicism, I’m merely ambivalent about how many the “specific[s]” would have to be before I would start to have serious doubts about them – hence “quickly becomes inscrutable” rather than immediately becomes inscrutable.
This is why I started out on this thread by asking a question relating to the transmission of information, rather than staking a position on the veracity of any specific element (then or now). This interest is more due to native curiosity than to prove some position – as I don’t see that Jesus mythicism offers a stronger argument against Christianity than a naturalistically-maximalist position (that everything in the New Testament is true, except for the miraculous elements), or anywhere in between.
I think that’s exactly right. I would add that in my view, the credibility of the mundane portions of the stories of Jesus is seriously harmed by the inclusion of a great deal of miraculous material, including stories like the bit with the Gadarene swine which are downright silly. Clearly some parts of it did not happen at all; but those parts are so pervasive that it leaves one wondering whether one can safely believe any part of even the possibly-true bits.
Anyone who has had the experience of reading and critiquing legal briefs, I should add, will understand that when one has nothing but “advocacy” documents, and only from one side, one effectively has next to nothing to go on. The statement of a claim is a very different thing from evidence of that claim.
Historical evidence is of course entirely incompetent to establish miracles. For that one would need evidence of a wholly different character.
Where I wind up is that it seems more plausible to me that the story of Jesus is the product of folkloric embellishment of the story of a real person than that it is entirely made up. But history can only help one weigh such probabilities; it cannot definitively decide them. And the degree of folkloric embellishment is exceedingly hard to judge.
A note there: 1 Corinthians 15:5 - 7 says the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter) and to James, and Paul does specifically state in Galatians 1:13 that he met Cephas and James in Jerusalem. That’s not much, but it’s a speck.
Could be. And he also could just be repeating one of the stories that were already known among the Christian community. Much like the 500 witnesses he also mentions in 1 Corinthians. I don’t think many people believe he actually met with each one of these 500 people and confirmed their story.
Yes, but in 1 Cor15:8 he goes on to say that he appeared to Paul himself, which we know to have been in a vision. This therefore muddies the waters as to whether Paul might have believed the appearances to the rest had been in visions as well.
It is interesting that people here discount scholars to stay with their preconceptions.
It is a great game to play. No matter the evidence or opinion of scholars people can just claim “I don’t think it is reliable”.
At what point do you guys realize it’s an emotional argument and not a factual argument?
You did argue that point, you argued your conclusion 3.
Either you were misunderstanding the position of conclusion 2, or you were arguing for the ‘Mythisist’ theory.
Conclusion 3 does not argue for the non-existence of Jesus. Frankly, I cannot even understand how you could arrive at that belief:
That says nothing about Jesus not existing. It even acknowledges that he died (which one cannot do if one did not live in the first place) and that he inspired a religious cult. Of course, a cult could be inspired by a fictitious character. But it is not necessarily so.
People can believe something that is not true without being victims of “trickery”. Maybe that is what confused you.
So care to actually answer the points I raised now that you (hopefully) understand them correctly?
Formulate your argument for position 3 or point to a source in which the argument is already formulated.
I have already made it. So stop dodging and answer my question. Here, I’ll repeat it for you:
Show me how the evidence that exists would have to be any different than it is now if Conclusion 3 was true and Conclusion 1 not. My contention is that all the evidence we have is consistent with #3 and no further supernatural event is required to account for the existing evidence, based on the things we observe and know to happen in everyday existence.
Please restate the argument.
Edit for clarity of “dodging the question”.
Since I have stated I do not understand your method to coming to position 3. How do you expect me to answer the differences between position 1 and 3?
Since we both love analogies, I have stated everyone believes trucks are better than cars or vice versa, no one takes another position. You state there is a third option of a van and insist it is a valid conclusion. If I do not understand you method used to arrive at the van, how can I answer a question which assumes full knowledge of your method used to arrive at the van?
People, or person? Are you not in fact the one discounting scholars to say with your preconceptions? You have refused to even read the scholarly article I posted for you.
Which scholar did I discount?
Answered, if indeed your memory is working correctly, in the very post you’re responding to here. Which scholar did everyone else discount?
I quoted Dr. Ehrman and used his arguments to discredit a 3rd position. Never once have I discounted him.
I am assuming you are referring to infedels source? I don’t do well with vague answers and interpretations, so my assumption could be incorrect.
If so I never discounted Dr. Ehrman.