Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

Ok, but Lord of the Rings presents a story, presented as true, of the doings of four Hobbits of the Shire. But you never answered my question about whether that's therefore a prima facie case for the existence of Hobbits.I'm sure you think it's not. I'm wondering if you're able to explain why in a way that isn't either plainly tautological - "it's not a case for the existence of Hobbits because there's no such thing as Hobbits" - or corrosive to your position that the Gospels are a prima facie case for Jesus. Just like The Lord of the Rings, the only thing they establish prima facie is that a person sat down to write them. Beyond that they support nothing on their own. Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.It's the utter implausibility of the "historical Jesus" starting Christianity that leads me to believe that there was no historic Jesus, no more than there was a historic John Frum or a historic James Bond or a historic Jesus Malverde. The very simple fact is that once you discard as much of the Gospel accounts as "historical Jesus" proponents have to in order to arrive at a plausibly-existing human individual, you've denuded the "historical Jesus" of anything that would actually result in him being the focus of a major world religion.Ergo, even "historical Jesus" proponents deny the existence of an actual historical Jesus.

How about John Frum? His cult seems to have spread throughout the South Pacific within about 15 years after the time he supposedly was around dropping cargo on people. That's well less than half the time between Jesus's supposed range of activity and the earliest records of the Jesus cult.Would you describe that comparison as more apt? (For the record, it's the basically-universal consensus that there was no such person as John Frum.)

So what's the evidence that there was ever a guy named Jesus who people called "the Christ"? Or "the anointed"?

The Pauline conversion is well after the supposed life of Jesus, so that doesn't substantiate a Christianity during the time of Jesus, only a Christianity after the life of Jesus. Saw, within a decade or so. Which is completely consistent with the geographic spread of other cults based on fictional saviors and no communications technologies. Better how? Non-existence is always more parsimonious. The case is the definition of parsimony - "do not needlessly multiply entities." A historical Jesus is a needless entity, and therefore most rationally discarded, if the existence of a historical Jesus is not needed to explain the characteristics and spread of the early church.Again that's just the definition of parsimony. Sure, but again - even in the "historical Jesus" position being defended, here, the beliefs of the early Church are based on an enormous amount of things that didn't actually happen. No Sermon on the Mount. No resurrection. No Last Supper, and so on. If nearly every aspect of the earliest Christian church was just legend, invention, fabrication - why couldn't it be based on an invented figure, as well? Why does the existence of Jesus have to be the one thing the early Christian church didn't make up? I've asked you several times and you don't seem to have an answer. Well, ok, so then what's the evidence that there's a "historical Jesus" under whom Christianity was a "minor Jewish cult" and not simply something that didn't exist at all? I asked you and you didn't have an answer. But it is begging the question, as I've shown. You're using the lack of any evidence for a Christian church contemporary with Jesus Christ as evidence that "under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea." But that can only be true if Jesus existed and was the leader or central figure in a minor Jewish cult.What is the evidence for that view? I've asked you several times now, and you've replied with various things - the Pauline conversion, the lack of any evidence for a Christianity under Jesus - but none of them are actually evidence for that view.If I told you that there's a race of Martians with invisible space ships, and you asked me for evidence of that view, it would be utter nonsense of the first degree for me to reply that the fact that nobody's ever seen a Martian space ship is proof that they're invisible. That's begging the question because I've not established the existence of Martians or their space ships; I've simply presented an ad hoc explanation for the lack of any evidence for them.That's clearly nonsense but it's exactly what you're doing with this "minor Jewish cult under Jesus" nonsense. Why should I believe that a Jesus existed who was the leader of a minor Jewish cult? What evidence exists for this position? Please be specific. Right, because that's how we test hypotheses - we examine their necessary consequences, and then inspect to see if those consequences are counterfactual. And that's exactly what happens with every necessary consequence of the historical Jesus view that isn't also a consequence of the mythical Jesus view - we find that every consequence is necessarily something that doesn't seem to have happened. Well, we have a bunch of Paul's letters, don't we? Copies, I mean. We have Paul's correspondence to the early Church passed down as part of the Bible. I assume the Pauline authorship is genuine - that's the consensus view, correct? - though I'm not aware of any of the evidence for that view so I can't defend it. But we don't have any of Jesus's correspondence? The early church saved Paul's stuff but not Jesus? Makes no sense. Well, we do have Judean records, if not execution records. And you deny that there was any execution-specific purge of Roman records.So perforce the loss of Jesus's execution records must be a coincidence, just as its a coincidence when you flip a fair coin five times and its heads each time. If you flip it a sixth time and it comes up heads again, that's a coincidence too unless you have some reason to believe the coin is heads-specific, which would mean it was an unfair coin.So, again, unless there was some execution-specific purge of Roman records then the lack of Roman execution records in general is no explanation at all for the lack of Jesus execution records. It can't be, unless you have some reason to believe that there's some shared reason for the lack of execution records. But if there's no connection, the loss of records not related to Jesus can't explain the loss of records related to Jesus, just as five flips of a fair coin coming up heads doesn't have anything to do with whether it'll come up heads on the sixth. Only if you propose an execution-specific purge of Roman records. And why would someone do that? If there was no purge then there's no connection between the lack of Jesus's execution records and a lack of execution records in general, and the latter cannot explain the former. It's just a coincidence that both kind of records happen to be missing. That's obviously true by the definition of "coincidence." Do you see, now? What "contextual facts identify LotR as fiction"? The fact that it's sold as fiction?That's nothing more than a reflection of the popular consensus that LotR is fiction, but that's nothing more than the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. If I moved all the copies of the Bible in my local bookstore over to the fiction section, would that be a prima facie case against the existence of a historical Jesus, by virtue of "contextual facts"?No, of course not. So as you can see there's no support for or against the truth of a work by the kind of "contextual facts" to which you refer. What was shown is that everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wouldn't be called "Jesus Christ", because that's a combination of a Greek translation of a Hebrew name, plus a title. You've said that, Mod said that, a couple people have popped in here to tell me it again. Everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wasn't called "Jesus Christ."I've never asserted otherwise and I'm not "ignorant" of anything. When I characterize the "historic Jesus Christ" as someone who wasn't named Jesus Christ, that's a completely accurate way to portray the "historic Jesus Christ" position. Well, ok. Would a proponent of the historical Jesus care to present evidence for that view? Would you like to, PaulK?If there's no evidence, then why should I believe that claim? That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected on the same basis. Well, it's one more aspect of the Biblical Jesus that turns out to be mythical, and every part of the Jesus biography that turns out to be mythical lends probability to the correctness of the mythical Jesus position. If 99% of the supposed characteristics and biography of Jesus are myths, why isn't it reasonable to extend that to his existence, as well? It's a natural progression. What are the minimal requirements that a person would have to exhibit to be considered the "historical Jesus"? If the answer is none, then how is Lou from New Jersey not Santa Claus? I have the same case I've always had: there's no evidence that supports the existence of a "historical Jesus." If I'm wrong about that, then by all means present the evidence.

I fail to see how it fails to address that point. By definition a mythical savior would not have saved anything or anybody. The "mythical Jesus" position is just as consistent with the lack of a genuine Jewish messiah as the "historical Jesus", in fact, much more so.In fact it's an as-yet unaddressed failure of the "historical Jesus" perspective to explain how a "real Jesus", denuded of any and all characteristics as described in the gospels, could possibly have become the center of a major world religion in the first place. What's your evidence that he was executed? Well, no. It's a position which you are attempting to defend, and which I am continually asking for the evidence for. It's not a premise because it can't simply be assumed. Sure I have. I've given you the mythical Jesus position, which better explains both the evidence and the lack of evidence, as I've explained.You've rejected it on the sole basis that it's not a position that assumes the historicity of Jesus, but as I've explained - that's rather the point. You say "just another" like there's a double handful of apocalyptic Jewish preachers who were viewed as Messiah - although just above you asserted that the historical Jesus wasn't ever viewed as a messiah, so now I'm confused - who were then executed by the Romans.But I'm not aware of even a single other such figure. John the Baptist, maybe, for whom there is also no evidence? Who were all these other "apocalyptic Jewish preachers" who were executed by the Romans, and what is the evidence that they existed, were apocalyptic, and were executed by the Romans? What is the basis for these "reconstructions", then, if there's absolutely no evidence of his existence? What is the difference between your "reconstructions" and mere post-hoc explanations for the lack of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus?Please be specific. Yes, you're right. Which is exactly what I said - there's no evidence for the existence of a Christian church until a decade or two after Jesus is supposed to have lived. That's most consistent with the life story of Jesus being a complete fabrication. You're right again. The way it was addressed was that every single "historical Jesus" proponent fell all over themselves to agree with me that the historical Jesus Christ wasn't actually named Jesus Christ, which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time.I don't understand why everyone is so convinced that I've been totally schooled about this. Literally nobody here is suggesting that the "historical Jesus Christ" was actually named "Jesus Christ", but you all seem to think it's some kind of deception when I describe the historical Jesus Christ as "not named Jesus Christ." Which is exactly what you're telling me is true. Yes, again you are correct, because you're saying something that literally everybody including myself already knew. Additionally, "Jesus" is the Greek translation of a Hebrew name. Which I already knew, but had I not, I would have learned it from the three individuals who were so kind as to remind me.Thus it's completely accurate for me to describe the historic Jesus Christ as "not named Jesus Christ", since one of those isn't even a name and the other is the Greek translation of the name of someone who, we assume, would have spoken Hebrew. So what are the "defining characteristics" of a "historical Jesus" who wasn't named Jesus, and how do we know that a person existed who had those characteristics? What's the evidence?Because there's now a Christianity? If that's your "evidence" it's better explained by a fictional Jesus. This is a falsehood, since I've contested it with the position of a mythical Jesus. And that contradicts the existence of a historical Jesus, as I've repeatedly explained. How could a Jesus who wasn't the messiah, who everybody knew wasn't the messiah, who was in fact not special in any way, possibly form the basis of a major world religion? Since you've stripped the "historical Jesus" of literally everything about him that would be attractive as a focus of religious devotion then how could he possibly become the focus of religious devotion?No - much more reasonable that Jesus never existed. Much more reasonable that Jesus is a legend into which the early Christian church simply poured its own hopes and needs. Much more reasonable that Jesus Christ is a cypher who was created to serve a specific religious need - not the need of Jews but the needs of Christians, hence Jesus being the messiah of Christians and not of Jews, as you continually remind us he is.

Well, no, none of this is accurate. Confucious was called Confucious, that just wasn't his name. Ghengis Khan was called Ghengis Khan. Charles IV was called Charles IV and when he became king that was his name. (Just like Prince William's name actually is "Prince William", and when he goes by "William Wales" or "William Mountbatten-Windsor to sound like a normal person, that's actually an alias.)All of those people were called by those names either during their lives or in the period immediately following their deaths, so it's 100% inaccurate to say that they were not. But the proponents of the "historical Jesus" propose an individual who was not referred to as Jesus Christ until many centuries after his supposed existence.Again it's amazing to me that we're still on about the historical Jesus Christ not being called "Jesus Christ" since every single response challenging that has been somebody falling all over themselves to agree that the historical Jesus Christ was certainly not called "Jesus Christ" and therefore that my statement that he was not is 100% accurate.If you don't believe that's relevant then consider it an empty rhetorical flourish; partly I like saying it because it's 100% true and apparently drives you guys up the wall. But it's not necessary for everybody to constantly interrupt me to tell me how right I am when I say that the "historical Jesus Christ" wasn't actually called Jesus Christ. So then there's even less evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ than I thought!How can you guys not be getting this? A lack of evidence lends support to my position, not to yours. If the only way there's "evidence" for the existence of Jesus is to turn the normal rules of evidence on their heads, then there's no evidence for Jesus Christ. After all, by that basis there's the same amount of evidence that "Life of Brian" was a documentary. Who says there can't have been a Jewish Cynic who was executed by the Romans after he was briefly captured by aliens?

Ok, well, now you're directly contradicting Jon who insists that there was no early Christian church until decades after Jesus's supposed death. (If the crucifixion was supposedly in 33AD, which is what I thought everybody accepted, then there's no way Paul could have converted to a religion that wouldn't have existed for two years in 31AD, or have persecuted any Christians beforehand.)Do you think you "historical Jesus" proponents could gather amongst yourselves and produce an agreed-upon timeline of the history of the early Church, so that I don't get whiplash? Thanks. So you keep saying, but I can't get you to show me any of it!What is this evidence for the existence of Jesus? Please be specific. How the hell should I know? You tell me. What evidence do we have for those things that leads us to believe that Paul really was persecuting Christians and really did convert? Well, I have. I've demonstrated that the mythical Jesus explains all of the available evidence of the existence of Jesus - to wit, that people in the first century were telling each other stories about a guy we would later call "Jesus". All of that can be explained by a mythical Jesus, just as all the John Frum stories can be explained by a mythical John Frum and the mythical Jesus Malverde stories can be explained by a mythical Jesus Malverde. And those are only two examples that happened in the 20th century. Does the existence of Great Britain prove that Casino Royale is a documentary? Surely not. Even Shakespeare knew to set his fiction in real places. I've been to Verona, Italy but that hardly lends historical veracity to Romeo and Juliet.The significance of real people and places appearing in fiction isn't evidence of anything but a skilled storyteller, who knows to pepper his stories with authenticity to increase their impact to he audience. I don't see how this follows, you'll have to elaborate. I don't see how making up stuff to blame Jews somehow establishes the veracity of the Gospels in this regard. Isn't it just more likely that the Gospels are fiction that just happens to attack Jews? It wouldn't be the first time people have made things up to attack Jews. Well, but you are - you're asking me to accept the existence of a historical Jesus, which I've demonstrated is implausible to say the least.Absolutely the existence of a historical Jesus Christ is every bit as implausible as the existence of Martians in invisible space ships. It's not right. Not at all. You are, by implication.If there was no execution-specific or Judea-specific purge of Roman records, then all the records were lost coincidentally. And if it's all just a coincidence that all the records are gone, then there's no reason that the lack of execution records or records from Judea should imply that there may have been a Jesus execution record that also was lost - just as five heads in a row on a coin specified as "fair" doesn't imply anything about the result of a sixth toss, making a sixth heads result a complete coincidence. No. I'm arguing that the odds of the loss of a Jesus-specific execution record are unrelated to the number of documents that survive in total, once you've stipulated that there was no purposeful purge of execution-related or Judea-related (or any other characteristic-related) documents.That it's just a coincidence that both Jesus-specific and Jesus-nonspecific documents are missing, once you've stipulated that there was no effort made to purge those types of documents.By definition that's true, PaulK. The only way that the lack of documents in general would lend support to the lack of documents specific to Jesus is if the two are somehow related - by a specific purge. But you keep insisting that there was no purge. You keep insisting that it's a coincidence.Thus, the lack of documents from the era is no explanation at all for the lack of documents related to Jesus. No more than a sixth heads is related to the first five on the toss of a fair coin. That's what "fair" means. By definition these things are true. But again, the fact that it is published as fiction is nothing but a reflection of the popular consensus - the argumentum ad populum - that the work is fiction. Similarly that a book is published as non-fiction reflects nothing but the popular consensus that the work is non-fiction.But that consensus isn't evidence. For instance, John Frey's A Million Little Pieces, published as a non-fiction memoir, achieved wide notoriety when it was revealed that most of it was actually fabricated. The same thing is happening to Greg Mortensen's Three Cups of Tea.So the classification of a book is not in any way a reliable guide to the truth or falsity of the claims made therein. Thus the fact that the Gospels claim that there was a real Jesus who existed is not a prima facie case for anything; it's only evidence that the claims have been made, not evidence that they are true. PaulK, don't be a total idiot. Obviously I don't think that LotR is anything but a work of fiction. Everybody knows it's a work of fiction despite the fact that the preface claims that the book is a true translation of the Red Book, which itself is the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo Baggins of the Shire. That's a well-known literary device (it's also at the beginning of The Scarlet Letter, for instance.)What I've successfully demonstrated is that your prima facie case is logically invalid, by argumentum ad absurdum. The same argument that leads you to falsely conclude that the Gospels present a prima facie case for the existence of Jesus would also lead you to conclude that LotR is a work of non-fiction, which you know by other means cannot possibly be the case.Thus we can dispense with the argument that the Gospels present a prima facie case for the existence of Jesus. In fact, they present only a prima facie case that someone thought Jesus existed which is easily explained by a combination of a mythical Jesus and credulous religious believers. By which I mean, only, that when the individual under discussion was greeted in the street, nobody uttered the words "Jesus Christ, it's Jesus Christ!" when doing so.It's not an argument, it's just a completely accurate description of the putative characteristics of the "historical Jesus Christ." Clearly I've not quoted any of it because none has been presented. Of course it's valid to point out that you're engaged in an argument from ignorance, arguing that because a lack of evidence doesn't eliminate the possibility of a historical Jesus, it lends support to the possibility of a historical Jesus.But it doesn't. That's turning the ordinary rules of evidence on their heads. By the same basis I could argue that Monty Python's Life of Brian is an accidentally-accurate documentary. Hey, there's no Roman execution record for Brian, right? And the "historical Brian" certainly wouldn't be called "Brian" since that's a Celtic name. Again, maybe you could kindly let Jon know? Since he's adamant that the "historic Jesus" didn't actually found Christianity. It's a little difficult to keep up with the arguments for the "historic Jesus" when you can't seem to agree amongst yourself what they actually are. Already refuted.

What doesn't it explain? Be specific. As far as I can tell you keep saying it:

quote:

---

As the messiah, which his followers claimed him to be, he was supposed to:

​

Build an army.
Be a king.
Drive out the Romans.
Reestablish Jewish rule in Palestine.

​

Instead he:

​

Had a following of twelve peasant fishermen.
Was a pauper.
Was executed by the Romans without raising so much as a fist.
Sat in his grave and rotted as the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 a.d.

​

His failure was such an embarrassment to anyone who knew anything about the Messianic hopes, expectations, and prophecies that the majority of the new converts came in not as Jews, like Jesus himself, but as Gentiles who knew nothing about Judaism or the actual beliefs regarding the Messiahpeople who could be duped and never know it.

---

That's all from your first post in the thread. And then in a subsequent post you wrote:

quote:

---

As far as we know, prior to the early first century a.d. no one held the Christian views of the Messiah. The revolutionary redefinition of the Messiah can easily be explained by the existence of a man thought to be the Messiah in the traditional sense who then failed on that account but was instead executed by the Romans.

---

Your words or not? If I've misunderstood you, then I do apologize and I ask you to clarify the remarks you've quoted above. If I genuinely misunderstood you then I'm very eager for you to help me arrive at a better understanding of your remarks. But as near as I can tell your assertion seems very clear: you believe that the historical Jesus, unlike the Biblical Jesus, was not considered to be a Messiah - that his "messianism", if you will, was a later invention of the Gospels or something.If that's an inaccurate characterization of your remarks then I invite you to set me straight. I'm most interested in refuting your position as accurately as possible, not in accidentally misrepresenting you. What is it? Where was it presented? Name the post.Otherwise I consider this statement another instance of the weird lacuna where "historical Jesus" proponents believe they've presented evidence even though they've simply waved their fingers over the keyboard without actually producing text. Well, no. It wouldn't. When real people produce religions based on their own philosophies, they quickly ossify and don't change substantially in the period after their death, don't spread rapidly after the leader dies, and so on. For instance, look at Scientology - almost all of its spread and growth occurred during the life of L. Ron Hubbard. When Hubbard died, the growth and evolution of Scientology died with him and decades after his death, it's almost the same religion with the same adherents as it was in 1986. Basing a religion on a real live human being is like anchoring it to a stone, and as soon as that person stops being able to change - because he's died within living memory - the religion does, as well. It takes centuries before a religion is able to overcome the retarding effects of having been based on the life and views of a real historical person.Contrast that with early Christianity, which was in a period of enormous flux and geographic growth. That's most consistent, like South Seas cargo cults, with a formation based on legends about a fictitious person. Since the founder is a fiction, nobody's able to convincingly discount new stories, so they quickly become canon. The result is rapid growth, rapid adaptation to local culture, and the rapid splintering into heterodox or even competing sects, all of which characterized the growth of the early Christian church. Its not meant to prove anything. It's never been meant to prove anything; it simply highlights the incredible gulf between the Jesus of the Bible - the Jesus who is the central figure of Christianity - and the maximally suitable figure who could possibly have been a "historical Jesus." It's just an element of rhetoric, it's not an argument. It's never been one, which is why I'm surprised it's gathered so much attention. I've never made any claim to the contrary. Rather, "historical Jesus" defenders have fallen all over themselves to tell me that Jesus Christ would not have been named /ʤi.zəs kɹaɪst/ (to copy and paste your phonetics) and I've done absolutely nothing but take them completely at their word about it. That is incorrect. What it explains is the rise of a major world religion based on the veneration of a figure for whom no independent, verifiable evidence of existence can be produced. And it does so much better and much more parsimoniously than the "historical Jesus" position which is so inconsistent with the evidence. Then what makes the person you're talking about the "historic Jesus Christ"?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Then I apologize for my error. With the exception of Confucious, though, my argument stands (caffiene's statement is no more than 80% inaccurate.)

Again, correction accepted and that's an error for which I apologize. And I take that utterly at face value, since this is at least the tenth time I've been told so. The "historic Jesus Christ" was not called Jesus Christ. I don't understand why there's the persistent belief that I'm confused on this issue. But there is no "historic Santa Claus", just as there's no historic James Bond.

Ok, but what's the evidence that there's an early Jewish sect of Jesus followers?That's kind of the point. If this is really what PaulK meant then he's engaged in a sleight of hand where evidence for the early Church - after the supposed death of Christ makes it possible to say "we know there was Christianity in the First Century" which is not at all contentious, and then that's equivocated to mean that we somehow have proof of an early Jewish set of Jesus followers and by transitive property, Jesus.But we don't. We have evidence for an early Christian church sometime in the mid-first century. We don't have anything before that for a "early Jewish sect of Jesus followers." If we did, I would accept that as evidence for a historical Jesus so I invite you to present it. How is that evidence for Jesus? This seems like evidence against Jesus as the leader of a "early Jewish sect of Jesus followers" since why would they follow him if they didn't meet any criteria of the Jewish messiah?The fact that the Christian Jesus has never been considered by Jews to be the Jewish messiah is evidence against his existence and for his fabrication, not against it. You consider it evidence against only because you assume that Jews would be the ones to fabricate Jesus but why would that have been the case? Well, we do. We have two reasons - his claims are self-serving and there's no evidence that supports them. I have explained. As I explained, the "mythical Jesus" position explains more than the historic Jesus position: it explains why there's a Christianity, why it spread and grew in a way consistent with other observed examples of religions based on fictional individuals, why Jews don't recognize him as the Jewish messiah, and why there's no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. And additionally it's more parsimonious than the historical Jesus position because it doesn't propose the existence of the unnecessary entity "Jesus" (or whatever his name was.)So, merely from that basis it's both more probable and more parsimonious. You're free to disagree but that will require actually grappling with the argument, not just pretending it hasn't been made. Again I don't see how that demonstrates the veracity of the Gospels. Can you elaborate? But Christians don't believe in "a savior who doesn't save, a messiah that isn't a messiah, a king that doesn't rule." They believe that Jesus did save, that he was the messiah, that he was the King of Kings. And the Jesus that they made up was all of those things; the Gospels say so.It's Jews who don't believe that stuff, but Jesus isn't the considered the messiah of Jews, he's considered the messiah of Christians. All that indicates is that Jesus wasn't invented by Jews for Jewish purposes, he was invented by Christians for Christian purposes. Proving that Jews didn't invent Jesus doesn't prove that nobody invented Jesus or that Jesus was historically real. You seem to be under the misapprehension that it does but it's completely unrelated to that. I've not asserted that anybody has. PaulK has attempted to assert that the lack of Jesus execution records is insignificant, but he's wrong in that view as I've demonstrated. Well, ok. That's something you and PaulK clearly disagree about. You believe that somebody or some thing specifically expunged Judean execution records.Well, ok. What's the evidence for that view beyond the fact that the records are gone? And, I'd just like to point out, a Judea-specific or execution-specific redaction or purge of Roman records is one more unnecessary entity that the "historical Jesus" position proposes, and the "mythical Jesus" position does not. Ergo that's another example where my position is more parsimonious than yours. You're right. And Christianity is clearly a work of fiction because its main character has never been demonstrated to exist. So do James Bond and Romeo and Juliet. Verona, Italy is a real place, Jon. I've been there! I've been to James Bond's Great Britain as well. Yet that provides no veracity to either Shakespeare's greatest romantics or the world's sexiest secret agent.The presence of a real historical setting in a work of fiction is nothing more than tradecraft. It's nothing but an indication that the storyteller wants a claim to authenticity. It doesn't present a requirement that we provide it. Not at all undetectable. You read it, quoted it, and were unable to rebut it.

I never said that they got everything wrong or that if they did, that would be proof of the non-existence of Jesus.My contention - and please pay attention to it this time - is that getting some things right doesn't lend them any veracity. It's the most common thing in the world for works of fiction to contain elements of truth. Many of Shakespeare's plays refer to real places. It's possible to go to nearly every location in the James Bond books because those are real places. But they lend no veracity to the inventions of either Shakespeare or Ian Fleming.All that it indicates is good storytelling. Maybe that Jews don't crucify people? Wouldn't that be even more unrealistic?And isn't it possible that all the "blame the Jews" stuff is a later invention by Christians who really did want to blame Jews? We know that things were added and subtracted from the Gospels. But that doesn't lend veracity to the story. Not in any way. For all you know, the Gospels adapt, to blame the Jews, a story that was already widely known that blamed the Romans. Certainly the Gospels present a kind of "forget what you heard, here's the real story" kind of tone. Jesus, Paul, it's been in all these posts you keep replying to! I did. I've never contended that your argument was anything but wrong.

I've not gone to any trouble to misrepresent you, and again, if I've done so unintentionally then by all means, please explain how I've misinterpreted your remarks. It's my utmost desire to correctly understand your argument not flail about with straw-men. That doesn't do either of us any good.Please - I'm doing you the courtesy of trying to put forth my arguments as clearly as I can, and correct your misunderstandings where they arise. It would be nice for you to return the favor, not simply construe my mistakes and subsequent efforts to rectify them as bad-faith efforts to mislead. That's certainly the case. So what's the relevance of the fact that Jews don't think he's the messiah, if Christians do? Doesn't it make sense that Christians would invent a messiah for Christians and not for Jews? Oh, I see. So this is actually personal for you.In point of fact, Jon, you don't know me, you don't know anything at all about me, and if my protestations of innocence can only convince you that I'm even more guilty than I submit that you're not here to pursue a rational discussion, but to pursue a personal vendetta. I get it - I'm the big fish around here, sometimes, and people think I'd make a good trophy.Smarter men than you have tried and failed, Jon. Regardless, thank you for finally admitting what this is all about. You're right. Over and over and over and over, "historical Jesus" proponents keep talking about all the evidence they've presented.Only one problem: they never present any of it. They just say they're about to, and then say that they did. It's really very astounding. Why? They're not different. Well, no. A prediction is what you do when, before something happens, you state that it will happen. What you're doing - what "historical Jesus" proponents are doing when they try to explain why there are no contemporary records of the life of Jesus - is a post-hoc rationalization of a fact that is disconfirming to the "historical Jesus" hypothesis.It's certainly the case that Christians have, in the past, either believed that contemporary historical records existed, or believed that they would certainly be found. So it's hardly a "prediction" from Christianity that there would be no records - indeed, Christians frequently hold up this or that as a contemporary record of Jesus. For instance, the James Ossuary which was widely celebrated as a contemporary record of Jesus and his family until it was revealed to be a complete forgery. Contrary to your statement what Christians actually predict is that we should be hip-deep in relics, records, and other contemporary evidence for Jesus. Indeed the majority of them believe we already are! By the same way that they developed in the presence of the historical Jesus you're defending, the one about whom almost nothing in the Gospels and epistles accurately recounts: complete and utter invention.I mean, you either have a historical Jesus about whom nearly everything Christians believe is a fabrication, or you have a mythical Jesus about whom everything Christians believe is a fabrication. In either case, the explanation for the development of early Christian beliefs and practices is identical: invention. I have - it's the "mythical Jesus" position that I've been advocating. It hardly consists of "nothing." It consists of everything that is in the "historical Jesus" explanation, minus a historical Jesus.

Sure, but we agree that's probably a fabrication, since Jesus wasn't the messiah of the Jews, didn't in any way meet the requirements to be messiah of the Jews, and wasn't considered by any Jew to be the Jewish messiah. I mean, you said all that, as I understand you. Until it makes sense, because I can't make heads or tails of it. Can you elaborate? Did they? What's the evidence for this view? Jon, at this point I have to believe that you're just trolling me. You know there's not nothing because you quoted a lot of not nothing.You can continue to insist that the mythical Jesus view is just a great big "nothing" but by now you must know that it's not; it's as much "something" as the "historical Jesus" view minus an actual historical Jesus. That's false, as I did present an origin for both: they were invented. That happens to be the same origin proposed by the "historical Jesus" position as well - another example of the "something" shared by both my position and yours. It's not at all "void of content." The content is "somebody invented it." Somebody took the direct action of making up a story. That's not nothing; that's an incredibly common human act that happens all the time. For instance, it happens every time you characterize my position as being "nothing."Where did all the Earth's fiction come from, Jon, if the act of creating a story that isn't true is "nothing"? Where do lies come from if not human acts? In particular where do all your many and scurrilous lies about me and about my position come from if lies cannot be produced because it's all a big "nothing"? You need to come up with a way to grapple with arguments besides misrepresenting them or ignoring them in their entirety. He's not? By all means then, Jon, what significance does PaulK place on the nonexistence of Jesus's execution documents? It's the necessary implication of a position you've adopted, but you change your mind so frequently who can possibly know what you believe? No, I said that, Jon. Believe me, I'm very much under the impression that you are arguing that Jesus was a real historical person and I'm attempting to rebut that view. How did you possibly get confused about that? Yes! My point exactly. And now that you accept it, it's clear that you no longer believe that the inclusion of real historical places in the Gospels is relevant to the veracity of their historical claims.Your retraction is accepted. No, this is incorrect. What it proposes is that Christianity and the early church are founded on stories invented about a figure who, likely, did not ever exist.That's very much a "something"; it's proposing that the very common act of inventing stories occurred in First Century Palestine the same way it has occurred at every other point in history by every human being living or dead. It's as contentious a proposal as suggesting that the residents of First Century Palestine breathed air and not water.

Right, they were Christians. Since Jesus is held to be the Christian messiah I'm at a loss about what could possibly be significant about this claim. Well, prove me wrong and present it! I've only been asking for 150 posts. This is exactly how historians study history because history, by definition, has already happened. You can't rewind history and then make predictions about what's going to happen because it already happened and therefore you know it happened. Predictions, as I've said, are statements about what is going to happen before it happens. Nobody calls it a "prediction" when you open the paper and read last night's Lotto numbers.Historians, as a rule, also avoid post-hoc rationalizations for lack of evidence because too much of that makes you look like a total boob. Enough post-hoc rationalizations and the lack of evidence can be evidence for anything at all, including first century Martians with invisible space ships. ("Nobody saw them? Of course not, stupid, they're invisible!") You're right. But invention of the story both explains the lack of a Jesus who was crucified and the belief that there was a Jesus who was crucified.The "mythical Jesus" position isn't just "no Jesus." It's everything that's in the "historical Jesus" position, minus the historical Jesus. Done and done. Are you prepared to do anything but lie about my position in response?