# Did Paul hijack Christianity?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 25, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342 "2010-02-25T01:48:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 15
### Author:  [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/281 "2010-03-19T20:01:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> Yes, I’d be a moron to expect people in this near-theocracy to apply a single rational standard to assessing the validity of claims, inclusive of both ones agreeing with and ones contrary to their preferred religion.
>
> It is indeed true that we can’t be dead certain that some guy named Jesus (or something like it) existed at the time Jesus supposedly did (or, some other time) and did the stuff Jesus supposedly did (give or take most or all of it, especially the parts most people focus on). However, there is a _surprisingly_ strong argument against it, in my opinion, based entirely on Josephus’s peculiar hobby. The surprise of course is that Josephus had this odd hobby at such a conveniently relevent time.
>
> Absent Josephus and his odd hobby, what we have is a vague mishmash of conflicting and suspicious information, on a par with the information on Paul Bunyan. In other words, not enough to draw a firm conclusion on, but certainly enough to be highly dubious. And then Josephus shows up and nudges us just inside the “Okay, looks like he wasn’t real” line. In my not-so-humble opinion.
I’m just not seeing the double standard you’re referring to. I’m perfectly willing to look at the evidence and accept your opinion on the matter. I just don’t happen to agree with it. I look at the evidence and I see some evidence on both sides. I think Josephus nudges us down to about 60-40 in favor of Jesus existing. You think he nudges us just past that, say to 51-49 against. We differ on our informal estimates of the probability of an obscure preacher in Palestine living about 2000 years ago by about 11 pecentage points. So what? That’s not a double standard. It’s barely even disagreement.
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/282 "2010-03-19T20:37:05Z")
> [@I'm Not Dennis Bergkamp](#):
>
> I’m not seeing the hypocrisy. If anyone flatly asserts that Brian has no historical analogue, they might well be called to produce evidence to support their statement.
>
> Put another way, I’m reasonably certain that the squirrels in my backyard have never sent a manned (squirreled?) space flight to Venus and returned with a lifetime’s supply of Venusian acorns. And if I said they’d never done it, I wouldn’t expect anyone to call me out. But that doesn’t change the fact that I can’t actually prove they’ve never done it. That’s just the nature of proving a negative - it’s usually very difficult to do, even when it seems obvious.
You do realize that your example supports _my_ position, right? You can assert that the squirrels aren’t interplanetary, and people _don’t_ call you out on that. Wasn’t that supposed to be analogous to claiming that Jesus doesn’t exist? In which case, wouldn’t the analogy imply that calling me out for looking at the evidence and saying “Nope, no jesuses here” is the incorrect thing to do?
Though I think the evidence is stronger against the squirrels than it is against Jesus. Unless you have some severely freaky squirrels.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I think your affliction and double standard are as imaginary as anything you’ve mentioned.
>
> Was the story of JC which contains mythology based on an actual individual who lived in that era, is a much more legitimate question than the existence of fairies and you know it, even if the discussion is purely scholastic rather than religious.
> There’s no good solid evidence that Jesus was historically based on an individual may well be an accurate statement but since scholars don’t agree on what is more likely then that leaves a layman like myself to believe that we really don’t know.
>
> You,\*\* ambushed \*\*and his hero at welcome to draw any conclusion you wish from what little data we have. You are certainly welcome to say Jesus never existed as much as you like. I maintain the right to correct you and say, that’s only your opinion and you really can’t know that with certainty. I happen to think “we just don’t know” is a more accurate answer, at least for the time being. In this thread I tried to address very specific arguments and facets of specific arguments and that’s all.
By this standard, “we just don’t know” **anything** about history. Literally.
So either you failed history class due to refusing to answer questions, or there are multiple standards at play here.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> You’ve mentioned twice that Josephus never mentioned Jesus. I didn’t think we were certain about that either. Why do you seem to be?
Evidence presented in this thread alone solidly supports the position. I’m not so determinedly agnostic as to deny this - but then, I don’t have a bias or an agenda that’s favored by doing so. (Nor the opposite, believe it or not - Jesus the hairy wandering street preacher doesn’t bother atheist-me a bit, especially since I’d have no reason to think he said _anything_ that’s attributed to him.)
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> I’m just not seeing the double standard you’re referring to. I’m perfectly willing to look at the evidence and accept your opinion on the matter. I just don’t happen to agree with it. I look at the evidence and I see some evidence on both sides. I think Josephus nudges us down to about 60-40 in favor of Jesus existing. You think he nudges us just past that, say to 51-49 against. We differ on our informal estimates of the probability of an obscure preacher in Palestine living about 2000 years ago by about 11 pecentage points. So what? That’s not a double standard. It’s barely even disagreement.
I think the “odds” are closer to 80-20 against, actually - if the dude was real, the dudes who were there when he died would have _some_ idea of how many of them went to his tomb when, I’d think. The telephone game doesn’t work as well if the guy at the beginning of the line is repeating the correct version to everyone down the line.
And I think I’ve made explicitly clear what the double standard is here. I don’t think explaining it again can clarify it further. If you can’t see it…that’s the double standard in action.
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/283 "2010-03-19T20:44:33Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> And I think I’ve made explicitly clear what the double standard is here. I don’t think explaining it again can clarify it further. If you can’t see it…that’s the double standard in action.
That may be true or it may just be your own biases showing. Or maybe there is a double standard that I just haven’t seen. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest or biased is poisoning the well. Maybe we just disagree.
---
### Author:  [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/284 "2010-03-19T20:47:46Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> You do realize that your example supports _my_ position, right? You can assert that the squirrels aren’t interplanetary, and people _don’t_ call you out on that. Wasn’t that supposed to be analogous to claiming that Jesus doesn’t exist? In which case, wouldn’t the analogy imply that calling me out for looking at the evidence and saying “Nope, no jesuses here” is the incorrect thing to do?
>
> Though I think the evidence is stronger against the squirrels than it is against Jesus. Unless you have some severely freaky squirrels.
A statement about interplanetary squirrels is less likely to get called out simply because nobody has evidence to contradict it. But I still can’t accurately state a negative as an absolute, even on a matter as unlikely as that.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that statements like “Jesus never existed” draw more attention because there is _some_ evidence (generously defined) to support the claim that he did, even though we can debate the sufficiency and relative merit of the evidence (the evidence being, for example, the Josephus reference and the writings in the New Testament).
So while some statements draw more criticism, I still don’t see a double standard at play. Frankly, I don’t even see how any of this is really in question.
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/285 "2010-03-19T21:42:10Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> That may be true or it may just be your own biases showing. Or maybe there is a double standard that I just haven’t seen. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest or biased is poisoning the well. Maybe we just disagree.
I think I should point out that this little sub-discussion grew out of **cosmosdan** ’s assertion:
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Thank You. This was my basic point all along. If you want to explain the arguments as to why you believe it’s more probable that JC was not based on an actual person that great and interesting. Starting with an assertion you can’t prove is something else.
As best I can tell this _specifically_ means that “Resolved: Jesus doesn’t exist” is _unkosher_ to him - despite as best I can tell the classic way to open such a debate. Guess as long as you’re not debating Jesus’s existence…
More generally, he’s attacking the non-agnostic position on arguments in general. You’ll note that his protest says _nothing_ about the persuasiveness of the arguments presented - he just thinks that while you’re allowed to make the arguments, you’re _not_ allowed to assert your conclusion. It is forbidden to behave as though your arguments are persuasive - you must always act as though you believe your position is in perpetual doubt.
In one sense, this is correct for all statements outside of self-contained purely abstract systems - you say you’re not a blue monkey? Absurd! All your senses may be lying to you, therefore all statements based on evidence must be stated tentatively and with severe qualification.
In the other sense, **cosmosdan** ’s position is absurd. Of course we can make absolute statements based on merely observable evidence. Sure, we may be wrong. Sure, there’s a possibility of error. The squirrels may have a secret rocket, and Paul may have been kidding when he said that physical ressurection was impossible. But as we’re not inclined to be perpetually paralyzed by indecision, we can make positive assertions about things _anyway_.
There is no middle ground here - either it’s valid to make assertions based on a compelling evidence-based argument, or it isn’t. And I don’t believe for an _instant_ that everyone around here refuses to make assertive statements about anthing but math, logic, and “I think therefore I am”.
> [@I'm Not Dennis Bergkamp](#):
>
> A statement about interplanetary squirrels is less likely to get called out simply because nobody has evidence to contradict it. But I still can’t accurately state a negative as an absolute, even on a matter as unlikely as that.
>
> It should come as no surprise to anyone that statements like “Jesus never existed” draw more attention because there is _some_ evidence (generously defined) to support the claim that he did, even though we can debate the sufficiency and relative merit of the evidence (the evidence being, for example, the Josephus reference and the writings in the New Testament).
>
> So while some statements draw more criticism, I still don’t see a double standard at play. Frankly, I don’t even see how any of this is really in question.
So, then, the _existence_ of an opposing argument is sufficient to make it _invalid_ to make a positive assertion then?
'Cause if not, then the proper response to “Jesus doesn’t exist” is “You haven’t convinced me”, and **not** “You’re making some kind of _error_ by claiming certainty based on evidence!”
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/286 "2010-03-19T21:57:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> By this standard, “we just don’t know” **anything** about history. Literally.
>
> So either you failed history class due to refusing to answer questions, or there are multiple standards at play here.
In history class we accepted certain untruths to be true because they were written in books and taught by authority figures. That’s at least similar to Christianity. Later, we learn not to accept whatever we’re told and ask questions and do our own research. It’s in doing the research that I realized we have no solid evidence that Jesus was based on an actual individual. It’s in asking questions I came to the conclusion we just don’t know. Maybe yes maybe no.
> [@](#):
>
> Evidence presented in this thread alone solidly supports the position. I’m not so determinedly agnostic as to deny this - but then, I don’t have a bias or an agenda that’s favored by doing so. (Nor the opposite, believe it or not - Jesus the hairy wandering street preacher doesn’t bother atheist-me a bit, especially since I’d have no reason to think he said _anything_ that’s attributed to him.)
That’s the conclusion you come to. Others have looked at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion including a very knowledgeable atheist. I assume you don’t mind if I just disagree with your assessment of the evidence. You wouldn’t want to afflict me with anything would ya?
FTR I don’t care if hairy teacher Jesus existed or not either. Does that make me less or more likely to have conformation bias? You and ambushed seem to value your critical thinking skills so highly that you think you’re immune and anyone who disagrees just isn’t thinking clearly.
> [@](#):
>
> And I think I’ve made explicitly clear what the double standard is here. I don’t think explaining it again can clarify it further. If you can’t see it…that’s the double standard in action.
Now there’s some assertion for us. It exists because you say so and those who don’t see it are guilty of it. Priceless.
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/287 "2010-03-19T21:57:43Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> I think I should point out that this little sub-discussion grew out of **cosmosdan** ’s assertion:As best I can tell this _specifically_ means that “Resolved: Jesus doesn’t exist” is _unkosher_ to him - despite as best I can tell the classic way to open such a debate. Guess as long as you’re not debating Jesus’s existence…
Well there you go. My comments were not evidence of a double standard at work, I just had no idea what you were talking about. But thanks for assuming I was arguing in bad faith.
I suspecty that you may similarly be misunderstanding **cosmosdan** , but I’ll let him speak for himself.
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/288 "2010-03-19T22:13:54Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> Well there you go. My comments were not evidence of a double standard at work, I just had no idea what you were talking about. But thanks for assuming I was arguing in bad faith.
I was assuming nothing of the sort - I was assuming that you were most probably influenced by a standard of belief that has almost completely permeated modern western society. Perhaps surprising coming from an atheist, in my opinion that doesn’t make you dishonest or an idiot. Bad premises don’t make an argument invalid, after all.
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> I suspecty that you may similarly be misunderstanding **cosmosdan** , but I’ll let him speak for himself.
Looks to me like he just said that there are no known evidence-based facts - that crap we were taught in history? Lies!
But he’s free to correct that read of him.
---
### Author:  [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/289 "2010-03-19T22:18:10Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> So, then, the _existence_ of an opposing argument is sufficient to make it _invalid_ to make a positive assertion then?
>
> 'Cause if not, then the proper response to “Jesus doesn’t exist” is “You haven’t convinced me”, and **not** “You’re making some kind of _error_ by claiming certainty based on evidence!”
No, of course not. All assertions of something as **fact** are open to scrutiny and requests for evidence. In practice, many such assertions aren’t subjected to scrutiny for a variety of reasons. Maybe it’s because nobody holds any contrary beliefs (ex: Napoleon never had a twin) or because nobody has any interest one way or another (ex: my interplanetary squirrels).
So, while it’s always proper to ask for evidence, the question’s not always asked. It should come as no surprise to anyone that a statement about which many people hold strong beliefs (ex: the historicity of Jesus) gets challenged more than others.
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/290 "2010-03-19T22:53:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> I was assuming nothing of the sort - I was assuming that you were most probably influenced by a standard of belief that has almost completely permeated modern western society. Perhaps surprising coming from an atheist, in my opinion that doesn’t make you dishonest or an idiot. Bad premises don’t make an argument invalid, after all.
Well you were still wrong. I would actually be thrilled to learn that Jesus never existed. It would be a fascinating discovery that would cause us to re-evaluate almost everything we think we know about 1st century religion. I’m an atheist, so I have no real concern with whether he existed, but I have to admit a part of me would feel slightly smug about it if he didn’t.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/291 "2010-03-19T22:58:15Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> I think I should point out that this little sub-discussion grew out of **cosmosdan** ’s assertion:As best I can tell this _specifically_ means that “Resolved: Jesus doesn’t exist” is _unkosher_ to him - despite as best I can tell the classic way to open such a debate. Guess as long as you’re not debating Jesus’s existence…
Completely incorrect. In debate it’s fine to make such an assertion providing you are willing to then back it up. I never asserted that Jesus did indeed exist historically , even though \*\*ambushed \*\* accused me of it fairly often. My position was and is that the evidence is not as conclusive as he first presented. I then proceeded to examine his arguments and read the links he provided and came away believing I’m still correct. We’ll also note that he backed off his original assertion and then admitted he couldn’t really provide adequate evidence and arguments here. That’s his problem not mine.
> [@](#):
>
> More generally, he’s attacking the non-agnostic position on arguments in general. You’ll note that his protest says _nothing_ about the persuasiveness of the arguments presented - he just thinks that while you’re allowed to make the arguments, you’re _not_ allowed to assert your conclusion. It is forbidden to behave as though your arguments are persuasive - you must always act as though you believe your position is in perpetual doubt.
This is a load. I specifically addressed the arguments more than once. Read from the links provided , took notes and returned to address them again.
I prefer accurate language so IMO “I believe the evidence is fairly conclusive that Jesus did not exist as a living person in history” is an accurate statement. “Jesus did not exist” is not. If you make such a statement , which true scholars disagree on you’re welcome to present your case. Good luck. \*\*ambush \*\*tried and failed and had to eventually admit he couldn’t do it. In the meantime, he took the opportunity to piss all over {rather than rationally discuss} my disagreeing with him and made a couple of blatantly incorrect assumptions about me and my position. You called it having a temper. I call it ego. I can appreciate the fact that he did a lot of research to come to his conclusion but if you willingly enter GD with an assertion then back it up or admit you can’t. That’s what he eventually did.
All he had to say from the outset is here’s part of the research I’ve done and authors I recommend. Instead he chose to bluster and get nasty and waste a lot of bandwidth that didn’t help the discussion.
> [@](#):
>
> In one sense, this is correct for all statements outside of self-contained purely abstract systems - you say you’re not a blue monkey? Absurd! All your senses may be lying to you, therefore all statements based on evidence must be stated tentatively and with severe qualification.
>
> In the other sense, **cosmosdan** ’s position is absurd.
No, this is absurd. Your comparisons are ridiculous and irrelevant. When scholars start doing historic research on whether or not someone’s a blue monkey get back to me. I repeat, the question of whether JC was based on an historic real life individual is a legitimate question that true scholars have tried to answer and there are actual historic facts to consider.
> [@](#):
>
> Of course we can make absolute statements based on merely observable evidence. Sure, we may be wrong. Sure, there’s a possibility of error. The squirrels may have a secret rocket, and Paul may have been kidding when he said that physical ressurection was impossible. But as we’re not inclined to be perpetually paralyzed by indecision, we can make positive assertions about things _anyway_.
Make all you want. When you make one in GD you can expect to be challenged. If you can’t support it adequately, or if someone looks at your argument and doesn’t find it compelling ,choose something other than whining and mocking. Present your argument and allow people to disagree with you without lashing out at them.
> [@](#):
>
> There is no middle ground here - either it’s valid to make assertions based on a compelling evidence-based argument, or it isn’t. And I don’t believe for an _instant_ that everyone around here refuses to make assertive statements about anthing but math, logic, and “I think therefore I am”.
> So, then, the _existence_ of an opposing argument is sufficient to make it _invalid_ to make a positive assertion then?
>
> 'Cause if not, then the proper response to “Jesus doesn’t exist” is “You haven’t convinced me”, and **not** “You’re making some kind of _error_ by claiming certainty based on evidence!”
It can be both or at least, “You’re making an error by claiming certainty based on inadequate evidence”
It’s valid to make an assertion even if you don’t have compelling evidence. You’re just expected to defend it. I believe I said quite a few posts back that I didn’t find the argument or the evidence presented compelling. You dropped by to say you did, and then didn’t respond to me until now when you misrepresented my position. Evidently I did exactly what you now say is the proper response.
The point is, there’s rather large difference between, I believe, I strongly believe, and I’m certain. All of them require some evidence and convincing argument here in GD yes? If you admit you can’t be certain, or that you don’t have time to really present all the available evidence that’s perfectly okay. That changes the discussion. All I’m saying is that when you start with an assertion of fact, one you evidently know you can’t really prove, then take responsibility for that and spend less time pissing all over disagreements and making false assumptions about other posters.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/292 "2010-03-19T23:03:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> Looks to me like he just said that there are no known evidence-based facts - that crap we were taught in history? Lies!
>
> But he’s free to correct that read of him.
total bullshit. I didn’t come close to saying that. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith or just screwing around to entertain yourself.
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/293 "2010-03-19T23:06:27Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#):
>
> Well you were still wrong. I would actually be thrilled to learn that Jesus never existed. It would be a fascinating discovery that would cause us to re-evaluate almost everything we think we know about 1st century religion. I’m an atheist, so I have no real concern with whether he existed, but I have to admit a part of me would feel slightly smug about it if he didn’t.
Then we’re in the same boat, except that I apparently find the arguments for his non-historicity to be a little more compelling. Not that it’s been proven beyond doubt, at least not to me. (Though it’s certainly not incorrect for a person who _is_ so convinced to make an affirmitive factual statement of the fact.)
Of course, with regard to smugness, by the time you _get_ to the historicist position being defended in this thread, you’re already to the point that for most believers, Jesus didn’t exist. No ressurection? _No christmas story?_ No **_miracles_?** \ 😃
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/294 "2010-03-19T23:32:46Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> total bullshit. I didn’t come close to saying that. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re arguing in good faith or just screwing around to entertain yourself.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> In history class we accepted certain untruths to be true because they were written in books and taught by authority figures.
* * *
Let’s presume for a moment that you’re arguing in good faith and not screwing around. If so, you can reasonably reach the conclusion that **ambushed** ’s arguments and evidence are not convincing, and that there is no reason to reject the conclusion that Jesus was a historical figure.
You haven’t stopped there.
This endless noise about how how _dare_ he assert as fact a statement that _you_ are not convinced of is complete garbage. Completely unconstructive. An impediment to debate. Adding nothing. Wasting time. Semantic sealawyering. Worthless.
You say that he backed off his original assertion and then admitted he couldn’t really provide adequate evidence and arguments here. I disagree. I am certain that all along he knew that it was literally impossible to prove an existential negative. I suspect he merely assumed that he would be dealing with people who would argue in good faith, and simply say “I’m not convinced”, if he didn’t convince them.
Then you roll in, get pissed off at him, and get pedantic. You whip out the philosophical agnosticism stance of being unable to prove an existential negative, which is, like the solipsism position, 1) impossible to argue against, and 2) argumentively bankrupt. As that’s impossible to argue against, he conceded it, and you have now claimed victory! Doin’ the victory dance, oh yeah, pelvic thrusts included. Wee-hee, he has conceded that he can’t make statements of logical certainty about anything but math, logic, and cogito ergo sum! I win! Weehee!
What a steaming crapload. All this noise and all you’ve done is say “You haven’t convinced me” in two thousand words or more. With a dollop of completely unjustified self-superiority and a cherry on top.
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> The point is, there’s rather large difference between, I believe, I strongly believe, and I’m certain. All of them require some evidence and convincing argument here in GD yes? If you admit you can’t be certain, or that you don’t have time to really present all the available evidence that’s perfectly okay. That changes the discussion. All I’m saying is that when you start with an assertion of fact, one you evidently know you can’t really prove, then take responsibility for that and spend less time pissing all over disagreements and making false assumptions about other posters.
No. Nobody is expected to prove _certainty_ with evidence and a convincing argument in GD, because as you _know_, because it is _impossible_ to achieve certainty with an evidence-based argument, beyond cogito ergo sum.
Which completely kills your argument here. Certainty isn’t on the continuum, so “strongly believe” is all that’s implied when a person makes a positive assertion about an evidence-based statement. And his argument is sufficient for that - for him. So he wasn’t making any statement that he couldn’t prove sufficiently to justify his positive assertion on the subject. So there is no unmet responsibility for him to take. Despite you wasting all this time pissing all over the thread about it.
You are now going to shit all over me some more, and I’m going to let you, because having said my peice I’m going to shut up, in the hopes that _you_ shut up, and maybe some interesting dicussion on the _thread topic_ might resume. Maybe.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/295 "2010-03-20T01:20:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> * * *
>
> Let’s presume for a moment that you’re arguing in good faith and not screwing around. If so, you can reasonably reach the conclusion that **ambushed** ’s arguments and evidence are not convincing, and that there is no reason to reject the conclusion that Jesus was a historical figure.
Which is exactly what I did. I addressed the specific arguments didn’t I, even though you falsely claimed I didn’t, and I said I found them unconvincing and not compelling and tried to explain why. Now go back and count how many times \*\*ambushed \*\*,rather than address my argument specifically, simply called it stupid or worthless and not worthy of a response. Had he explained himself early on as he did towards the end we could have avoided all that.
> [@](#):
>
> You haven’t stopped there.
>
> This endless noise about how how _dare_ he assert as fact a statement that _you_ are not convinced of is complete garbage. Completely unconstructive. An impediment to debate. Adding nothing. Wasting time. Semantic sealawyering. Worthless.
Kindly point out specifically where I did that. What I responded to was his mistaken attempts to shift the burden of proof after starting with a definitive statement. What I did was repeatedly remind him that I was not arguing for a historic Jesus so there was no burden of proof on me. What’s really worthless here is your assessment of my postings.
> [@](#):
>
> You say that he backed off his original assertion and then admitted he couldn’t really provide adequate evidence and arguments here. I disagree. I am certain that all along he knew that it was literally impossible to prove an existential negative. I suspect he merely assumed that he would be dealing with people who would argue in good faith, and simply say “I’m not convinced”, if he didn’t convince them.
Were you actually reading his posts? He did say fairly early on that his original assertion was merely to get things started and I accepted that and went on to consider his arguments and read the links he provided. I specifically addressed his arguments and Doherty’s. How is that not arguing in good faith. I explained why I was unconvinced and got pissed on for my efforts. First by him and now by you.
> [@](#):
>
> Then you roll in, get pissed off at him, and get pedantic.
So you read my posts and his and conclude I was the one pissed off? That’s pretty realistic. :rolleyes: I was the one trying not to stoop to his level of mockery and continued to address his points in spite of the BS.
> [@](#):
>
> You whip out the philosophical agnosticism stance of being unable to prove an existential negative, which is, like the solipsism position, 1) impossible to argue against, and 2) argumentively bankrupt.
A gross misrepresentation of my position and posts. After he conceded early on that his original assertion was just to get the ball rolling and he knew he couldn’t actually prove it I tried to address his specific arguments and those of his hero. I explained why I found them unconvincing and riddled IMHO with conformation bias. I explained with specifics. He then implied that those who have done a lot of research and used critical thinking don’t or can’t have confirmation bias. I called BS on that because that’s what it is.
You’ve displayed an incredible amount of selective reading in my posts to create this position. To use a ploy you repeat quite often, it puts your credibility in serious question. {sound familiar?}
> [@](#):
>
> As that’s impossible to argue against, he conceded it, and you have now claimed victory! Doin’ the victory dance, oh yeah, pelvic thrusts included. Wee-hee, he has conceded that he can’t make statements of logical certainty about anything but math, logic, and cogito ergo sum! I win! Weehee!
Let’s not mistake your own tactics for mine. I’m sure \*\*ambushed \*\*still believes Jesus never existed. I find the arguments interesting and I said so. I’ve also said I appreciate the research he has done and Doherty’s scholarship. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with those arguments.
> [@](#):
>
> What a steaming crapload. All this noise and all you’ve done is say “You haven’t convinced me” in two thousand words or more. With a dollop of completely unjustified self-superiority and a cherry on top.
You’ll be disappointed to find out I’ve seen your posting style enough to not take this transparent bait. Compare \*\*ambushed’\*\*s words and then tell me about feeling superior. I had to keep correcting his false assumptions about me and deal with his dismissal and mockery while trying to specifically address the arguments presented. I acknowledge , as he did, that the subject is to deep and complex to discuss and resolve in this thread. All I could do is deal with the arguments presented here. I even made a suggestion about presenting the argument since his tendency just to use mockery wasn’t working. Had he recognized his mistake earlier there would have been a lot less words form both of us. {mostly him}
> [@](#):
>
> No. Nobody is expected to prove _certainty_ with evidence and a convincing argument in GD, because as you _know_, because it is _impossible_ to achieve certainty with an evidence-based argument, beyond cogito ergo sum.
So my statements were absolute and wrong while his were never intended to be and correct. More BS. When you make a strong statement you’re expected to provide strong evidence and a strong argument. His argument was legitimate and interesting but IMO bias and overstated and not compelling, so I said so. You obviously don’t agree. Should I care?
> [@](#):
>
> Which completely kills your argument here.
Nothing you’ve offered so far.
> [@](#):
>
> Certainty isn’t on the continuum, so “strongly believe” is all that’s implied when a person makes a positive assertion about an evidence-based statement.
Do tell. Gosh that’s good info
> [@](#):
>
> And his argument is sufficient for that - for him.
Great, except he made that argument in a debate forum remember?!!
> [@](#):
>
> So he wasn’t making any statement that he couldn’t prove sufficiently to justify his positive assertion on the subject. So there is no unmet responsibility for him to take. Despite you wasting all this time pissing all over the thread about it.
Now I suspect you haven’t actually read all the posts but just the last few and decided to come in and try and jerk me and others around.
> [@](#):
>
> You are now going to shit all over me some more, and I’m going to let you, because having said my peice I’m going to shut up, in the hopes that _you_ shut up, and maybe some interesting dicussion on the _thread topic_ might resume. Maybe.
I think your decision to shut up is what’s best for everybody, especially you.
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/296 "2010-03-20T01:40:05Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> That seems a marvelously large assertion. I think you’ll find any number of people who’d fully well agree that Jesus was altogether unremarkable, if he existed.
I don’t follow your reasoning. Why posit an unremarkable person for whom no historical evidence exists and arbitrarily assert on zero evidence that Jesus the alleged founder of Christianity was this non-entity? It makes no sense. What distinguishes this non-entity from Augustus’ bathroom slave number 47’s (you know, the one with the missing leg) mother’s next-door neighbor’s childhood’s friend’s drunk brother in law if he was so unremarkable?
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> Given that the oldest existing anti-Christian work we have (Celsus’) as much says that the real Jesus was just some grubby guy with a couple strange, poor followers, it’d be truly remarkable that since then secularists entirely skipped over this possibility. In fact, it would be singularly implausible for them to say anything other than that he was most likely any other random street preacher, a dime a dozen at that time as it is now.
Those are not accurate statements, nor does it reveal an accurate picture. It’s a highly distorted representations that’s far from the reality.
Celsus’ _True Doctrine_ was at least partly (no way to know how extensively) destroyed by Christians who didn’t want his work to survive simply _because_ it was critical of Christians and Christian tenets and dogma. All we have left is whatever Origen chose to comment on in his cafeteria-style, cherry-picked, easy answers-only retorts.
Celsus makes no comments or arguments about any historical founder (though he read at least two Gospels, the Gospel references are no such historical references, of course) and so he does not challenge the existence of one because he simply never mentions a historical person. But since if Celsus had known of one, he _would_ have mentioned it, so Origen is aiding the _mythicist_ case, not the historical one!
Instead, Celsus criticizes the Christian followers and their belief system and also the Gospel myths. No historical Jesus is ever mentioned, let alone defended.
Unsophisticated historicists hark on Origen and Celsus and almost always misrepresent the case. They point to the lack of a challenge to a historical Jesus’ existence and fallaciously transmute that magically into Celsus’ belief he _did_ exist! That’s obvious logical absurdity.
The arguments that historicists who employ that type of rationale seldom, if ever, reveal the enormously important fact that Christians spent the intervening centuries destroying any and every work that challenged their beliefs. Had arguments against the historicity of Jesus been documented outside of apologetic works, they would **never** have survived.
Obviously, we mythicists cannot possible argue that such _did_ exist merely because of that! I, for one, am not that stupid. However, historicists also cannot argue that no such challenges existed merely because none of have passed through the gauntlet of wanton Christian destruction of everything that challenged their beliefs that wasn’t embedded in some apologetic work.
Moreoever, by the time of Celsus, given the lack of **any** historical references to Jesus at all, how could they have challenged them? How could they possibly debate that which didn’t exist?
Note also that Justin preceded Origen by quite some time. Although Trypho in Justin’s dialogue was primarily a literary device, Justin makes Trypho cast doubt on the messiah’s existence, as follows (from _The Christian Fathers_ by Browne (1838) in the Ante-Nicene Library):
> [@](#):
>
> But Christ, _ **if he has indeed been born and exists anywhere** _, is unknown and does not even know himself and has no power until Elias come and make him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a _ **groundless** _ report, _ **invent a Christ for yourselves** _…
(Italics mine).
So how does Justin rebut that? He cannot and does not provide any rebuttal to this existential skepticism other than meekly retorting with the infantile: “We do not give heed to vain and idle stories”. **That’s all!** Not one historical reference whatsoever to rebut the mythicist argument he himself puts in Trypho’s mouth!
In summary, **Sage Rat** , your arguments fail utterly.
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/297 "2010-03-20T01:41:42Z")
> [@FriarTed](#):
>
> Do we have ANY trial records of that time’s Sanhedrin or Roman Gov’s of Judea, assassination orders from Herod (and he had to have issued some!_L_) or records of Pontius Pilate? I do know we have some accounts of crucifixions, but I’m sure what we have are few in number compared to how many actually occurred.
You can’t take a portion of one paragraph completely out of context and ignore everything else and consider that an argument.
Try again.
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/298 "2010-03-20T01:49:54Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#):
>
> Based on my reading of Theissen and Merz _The Historical Jesus_, p.64-74, this presentation is misleading. Josephus mentions Jesus on 2 occasions. For the _Testimonium Flavianum_, which you refer to, the authors list a number of hypotheses. Never mind though, methinks that the passage as written fails the laugh test. Heck, in the 1500s scholars noted that TF was assuredly written by a Christian and Josephus was a Jew. Still, it’s possible that the passage existed in some format prior to later editing (which would be unsurprising if Josephus’ quill was as sharp as you say), though I’m inclined to toss it out entirely.
>
> But Josephus also “mentions the condemnation and stoning of James and others…” and James is introduced as, “the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.” T&M think it improbable that the passage is a Christian interpolation. (Yes, you discussed this with **DtC**.) The flow of this earlier passage reportedly is consistent with the writing style of Josephus. And the terminology and language is apparently Jewish rather than Christian - Christ would later become a proper name.
Sheesh. I’ve heard that third-rate blind apologetic, anti-rational rubbish hundreds of times and it just keeps getting funnier. I’m not going to debunk it again for someone who ignores 99% of the argument as a whole and just tried to re-pick nits that have failed time and again. That whole thing has already been debunked more than once right in this thread. Gainsaying is not an argument. Appeal to your personal authority is not an argument, either.
If it were someone more reasonable, I’d debunk it yet again, but the cost/benefit ratio in this case is far too unsatisfactory in this particular case. Sorry.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/299 "2010-03-20T01:53:01Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> It’s so simple. Paul believed he was receiving divine revelations from God , which is what Jesus taught according to the gospels. Once you believe you can get your spiritual knowledge directly from God through revelation there’s no need to get it from any human being is there? In that case it simply doesn’t matter if some other apostles walked with an earthly Jesus of Nazareth. Ultimately their source of spiritual knowledge and Paul’s is the same source. The Holy Spirit. Paul has no need to go to them and ask them to teach him about Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> Keep in mind that I’m not saying this is conclusive in any way. It isn’t. What I am saying is that since there is a very plausible and reasonable explanation that fits with a living earth walking JC then your interpretation of this passage doesn’t have the weight you want to give it. You and Doherty keep stressing Paul’s fixation with the spiritual realm. I see that in his writings. I’m saying that belief and fixation is part of the explanation as to why Paul wasn’t really concerned with historical Jesus. Jesus was still in charge and still teaching through the Holy Spirit.
>
> I’m not taking it at face value. I’m saying it offers a plausible explanation. The apostles , including Paul were taught that divine revelation was the ultimate source of spiritual knowledge by Jesus of Nazareth. Once they understood this , let’s say, after his resurrection, which Paul speaks of often, then the focus would be on that source rather than an earth bound Jesus as teacher.
> \
>
> how is it contrary to the evidence? Isn’t the fact that so little evidence exists the point you’re trying to make? You and Doherty use the scriptures and interpret them to make claims about what is likely. I’m saying that if this specific facet of the Jesus story is true , earth bound Jesus taught them about looking for divine revelation, then Paul’s fixation on the spirit fits with a former living, dead and then resurrected Jesus. The one Pauls often refers to.
>
> and I don’t have time for your assumed unearned sense of superiority and automatic dismissal and ridicule of any argument you don’t like or understand that contradicts you and your hero.
> well, one of us doesn’t seem to.
>
> I hope you’re not saying that those who have done a lot of research and examined the arguments are no longer capable of confirmation bias, because that would be ridiculous. The fact that Doherty is a true scholar with a ton of research or that you have studied his work and his arguments does not free either of you from the possibility of conformation bias. Perhaps the problem is Doherty’s writing style and the difficulty in expressing complex ideas to a layman like myself but I call it as I see it. When he consistently uses biblical passages and insists passage X must have one obvious interpretation or when he stresses passages that seem to agree with him and brushes over passages that don’t as insignificant I see it as confirmation bias.
>
> Well of course. Since you’re convinced then **all** the confirmation bias must be coming from those who have the nerve to disagree with you. I see.
> You continue to address my posts as if I’m arguing for a historical Jesus. I’m not and never have. My first post to you was “We’re not sure”
> Like you I assumed Jesus was a historical figure for years. Now I’ve accepted that we just don’t know and whether JC was based on a historical figure or not really doesn’t matter to me. Do you think you’ve got that now?
> Which is what I just said. The fact is I haven’t claimed there was a historical Jesus. I’m discussing the strength of the mythacist argument and how certain we can be , according to that argument, that JC was not based on a living individual.
> I don’t know. Why are you wasting your time insisting I’m making an argument I never made. It’s a mystery to me.
A set of gullible blind assertions without evidence does not become an argument merely by repeating it over and over again.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 20, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/300 "2010-03-20T02:08:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> It’s true that the perception that we have extensively kept records from the Roman Empire is greatly exaggerated, especially in backwater provinces like Judea. The fact is, we don’t have any records from Pilate whatsoever. We have physical confirmation that he was a prefect in Judea from an inscription found in Caesarea, and he’s mentioned by Philo, Josephus and Tacitus, so we know he was a historical person, but we don’t have anything from Pilate himself, or any official records from his adminstration.
>
> The summary execution of troublemakers like Jesus are unlikely to have generated any official records anyway. Rome didn’t care. The Emperor was only concerned about its provincial governors keeping the peace and collecting taxes. They had neither the inclination nor the physical capability or reading through stacks of bureaucratic paperwork from every province. Local law enforcement was left up to the local governors, and wasn’t monitored or intervened in unless they were completely incompetent, or (as was actually the case with Pilate) so brutal that they were risking insurrection.
>
> There are no records of Sanhedrin trials either. Most of what we know about the Sanhedrin in the 2nd Temple period comes from the Talmud.
>
> This is one point that a lot of skeptics really do get wrong or overstate. It’s true we have no official records of the trial and execution of Jesus, but we don’t have any official records at _all_ from Pilate’s tenure in Judea, and the execution of Jesus is not something he would have had any reason to record in the first place. I think a lot of people don’t really appreciate how insignificant and casual the incident would have been to the Romans. They rounded up troublemakers and crucified them all the time, and were especially ruthless at Passover. The summary arrest and execution of a Galilean peasant causing a ruckus at the temple would have made very little impression on them. It was literally just part of an ordinary day’s work. If you’d asked Pilate about the incident a month after it happened, he’d probably be hard put to remember who you were talking about. It just wouldn’t have been important to him.
C’mon, **Dio**! You should have recognized what a garbled, intolerably out-of-context piece of non-responsive junk **FriarTed** ’s argument was. He was responding to a tiny piece of a much longer argument that we have _zero_ record of a historical Jesus. The list I gave was **not** a list of everything we _should_ have, it was a sample listing of a few arbitrary things we _don’t_ have that would have helped establish a historical Jesus! Sheesh!
You can’t tell me an honest reading of my post to which **FriarTed** is responding was accurately represented by his **-or-** _your_ reply! Here is what you both should have been responding to:
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> At last! A good, solid argument! I commend you most heartily, **Pleonast**! Excellent thinking!
>
> First you must understand that the historicists – even the purely secular ones – don’t argue that Jesus did _nothing_ notable, else they wouldn’t bother trying to claim he was a historical figure.
>
> So even the secular ones posit that Jesus overturned the money changers in the only Temple that mattered – the Jerusalem Temple. They also posit he was – if nothing else – one of the many “messiahs” of the time, competing for attention with the others.
>
> Yet by pure luck, there happened to be living – right at the perfect time – an enormously important and notable historian, Josephus, who had a huge personal interest in all the “messiahs”. He asked people for tips and was constantly on the lookout for them. Not that he admired them, far from it! He relished making fun of them and tearing them down for his adoptive Roman family and the rest of the Roman Empire. Hey, everybody needs a hobby, right?
>
> Josephus lists 21 bogus “messiahs” named Yeshua/Jesus. None of them fit. But there is one entry that we find no earlier than the 11’th century (and we can be sure it would have been referenced by previous Christian apologists and church fathers had they known of it earlier) that says: “Jesus the Christ”, of whom very flattering things are said later even if we arbitrarily remove the blatantly Christian elements. That Josephus – whose goal was to mock these guys – found one deserving of high praise that he never refers to again beggars belief. Both portions are very obviously deliberate Christian forgeries. If you remove them completely, the text flows far better and makes much more logical sense – more reasons to believe they’re 11’th century forgeries.
>
> And that’s it. No mention of overturning the Temple; no mention of any preaching or ministry; no mention of any rebel matching the description; no mention of any trial; no mention of any assassination order from Herod; nothing in the records of the hated Pontius Pilate; no record of a crucifixion matching Jesus; nothing. Nada.
**In other words, that was a very short listing of a few things we MIGHT have had that could have helped establish a historical Jesus; NOT an exact list of all the things we MUST have to establish such! Very poor reading comprehension, gentlemen, and very unfair taking things out of necessary context.**
C’mon, now!
-
-
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342.md?page=14)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342.md?page=16)