Guys guys. I'm starting to stop thinking Jesus existed.

Great Debates
161

Nothing I’ve said constitutes “very fine hairsplitting.” It may appear to be hairsplitting to you, if you are not used to making clear distinctions. But I am used to making clear distinctions, and from my viewpoint, there is nothing “fine” about the “hairs” that I am splitting.

In what follows I will argue that you are not used to making clear distinctions. This will be further evidence for my thesis that the hairsplitting problem is yours, not mine.

A common misconception, so I can’t fault you too much for this one, but this is false. First of all, existential vagueness is a macro- as well a quantum phenomenon. (See the “problem of the heap.”) Second of all, there’s nothing special about the quantum world in this regard. You’ve probably got in mind the idea that somehow when it comes to quantum phenomena, they end up both in a state and not in a state at the same time, in superposition. But that’s wrong. To be in a superposition is not to be in and not-in a state at the same time. It is to be in a single state: The superposition. And there is absolutely nothing ontologically vague about this.

There’s a clear distinction between tautological and non-tautological statements. In the most usual case, tautological statements are not informative. Yet here you have typed a tautology, with an apparent intent to be informative. A certain clear distinction exists here, which you have not kept straight in your head.

There’s a clear distinction that can be made between “the previous sentence” and all other sentences. But you have failed to succeed in keeping this distinction in mind, and in this way, have failed to succeed at making it clear what sentence you’re referring to. In fact the word “seems” appears nowhere in the post you’re referencing, much less the “previous sentence.”

Indeed, there’s a clear distinction between what I have said in this thread and what I have not said in this thread. I don’t mean in the sense of subtle reconstruction of arguments. I mean in the sense of simply reading the words that I have written. This “seems” fiasco is yet another case of you not keeping that distinction in mind. This marks at least three posts in which you have ascribed ideas to me which I have never expressed. Not in some subtle sense. I simply never said them–and in some cases, said the opposite.

Here I take it you are referring to what I said about “intent” before. (Though there is a clear distinction between well-organized writing that makes its references clear, and poorly-organized writing that does not–and in this case you have failed to keep that distinction clear in your head, and so have produced a bit of poorly-organized prose that fails to make its references clear.) Since when I have referred to what Paul intended, I have in each case been referring to literal meaning and not psychological import, your comments here appear to be irrelevant. (Once again, there’s a fairly clear distinction–between literal meaning and psychological import,) which you yourself claim to use, but which you yourself have failed to keep in your head. (Also, possibly, the distinction between relevant observations and irrelevant ones.)

There is a clear distinction between, on the one hand, “failing to be persuaded,” and “holding to a viewpoint no matter what the evidence.” You’ve failed to keep these straight. The former does not imply the latter. It does not even give evidence of the latter. It might, if the evidence that fails to persuade is strong enough to compel rational assent. Yet in this case, whether the evidence compels rational consent is the very question at issue. So to draw conclusions from my failure to be persuaded is to beg the question. There is another clear distinction that you’ve failed to keep clear in your head–the distinction between begging the question and arguing well.

There’s a very clear distinction between giving reasons and not giving reasons. Here you say you’ve given reasons why you can’t challenge my viewpoint, but a repeated reading of your post (even on a charitable reading of your claim, that what you mean is that “it’s useless to challenge my viewpoint”) shows that you’ve given no reasons for this at all. Not that you haven’t given “good” reasons, but rather, that you’ve given no reasons for it. Not even tried to do so. Your entire text contains not even a single comment about my viewpoint until the very last few sentences, and those sentences do not contain reasons for the claim you make here, but instead, simply formulate the claim itself.

On this last point I will admit some uncertainty. I think, about some of your sentences, that they were intended to give the reasons you refer to here. But your post is such a disorganized and unclear mess, it is impossible for me to say with any certainty what any of it is intended to do in any more specific sense than to say “Frylock bad.”

As I have demonstrated here, you are failing to keep many central and important and clear distinctions straight in your writing. (I have said “in your head” above but I should make it clear here that I mean something like “the authorial head.” For all I know you’re perfectly clear on all this stuff but have chosen to write as though you weren’t.) If you’ve failed to keep these distinctions clear in this context, it is a reasonable hypothesis that you’re simply not used to keeping clear distinctions clear. And if that’s true, then what is actually a clear distinction will seem to you to be exactly like “hairsplitting” with a “blunt instrument.” And that, I submit, is exactly what is happening with you in this thread.

162

I might have at least attempted to take the rest of what you’d written seriously if somewhere in there you’d found some small opportunity to explain how someone could have no opinion but also an opinion on something at the same time. Or in lieu of that, if you had in someway had managed to clarify whatever argument it is that you are actually trying to make as it appears that it has not only escaped my notice but that of others here as well. However if it is just me, that’s quite alright as I think I’ve already made it fairly clear that I don’t expect to get much more out of discussing the topic further with you anyway.

As for comments directed to other posters, why don’t you let them speak for themselves. Tripping over yourself just to respond to someone is bad form - to say the least.

163

I’ll take this one back–you did not express the tautology I thought you were expressing, since there’s a third possibility, namely, that the evidence fails to either support or contradict a hypothesis. But if that’s the case, it seems you’re claiming that the third possibility isn’t actually possible (or at least doesn’t actually ever happen) which seems blatantly false. There’s a clear distinction between truth and falsehood etc you get the idea by now.

164

I haven’t said I both have an opinion and don’t have an opinion. Agnosticism is not the same as not having an opinion. You’re simply wrong about that.

And I have clarified my argument to at least one other poster’s satisfaction (who also complained about a (ahem purported ahem) lack of clarity in the OP). See post number 122.

I don’t know what you mean here. I’ve only replied to your comments to me when addressing you.

When I said “I am not sure you understood the full thrust of the comment you’re replying to,” I was referring to my comment “I’m not sure what your argument is and to be honest I don’t think you do either.” And my point was, by saying this, I was simply literally saying, word-for-word, what you’d already said to me earlier.

165

  1. No, you’re wrong. Here is the primary definition of agnostic: "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."But you can find online dictionaries that conflate the notion with atheism. If you find a decent one and look at the greek roots, you’ll see that I’m correct.

  2. When you quote someone else’s post and lead with “I am not sure you understood the full thrust of the comment you just replied to” I’m not sure how else you expect someone else to interpret that short of reading your mind.

edit: as to (1), when used as and adjective, it means doubtful or noncommittal. IOW, you’re attempting to say you are not committed to either argument and then say that you have a strong preference for one side or the other. It simply doesn’t work that way.

166

“One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.”

Exactly. And: to think it’s impossible to know whether X is true is perfectly compatible with having an opinion as to whether X is true.

This is utterly clear. That you take the label on for yourself and quote this sentence and very specifically and explicitly fail to realize, after much prompting, that it’s compatible with having an opinion about existence is spectacular. Tons of fail here.

I accidentally quoted a line of yours that I didn’t intend to quote, that’s certainly true. You understand what I meant now, though, right?

167

It simply does work that way. I am not sure how to argue for this, as it’s utterly, dumbfoundingly obvious.

“I don’t know whether there is life on other planets or not, but I’m inclined to think there is.”

“I don’t know if Goldbach’s Conjecture is true, but I’d bet it turns out to be so.”

“I don’t think it’s possible to know if God exists, but I think probably not.”

168

Clear distinction: On the one hand, there’s the concept of “knowing.” On the other hand, there’s the concept of “having evidence.”

“It is impossible to know” is conceptually distinct from “It is impossible to have evidence one way or the other.” That it is impossible to know does not imply that it’s impossible to have evidence. Hence, even as one believes it’s impossible to know, one may still think the evidence supports suspicions that fall short of knowledge.

169

Actually I don’t really agree with that definition. The only decent one I’ve found online is from Merriam-Webster but that one came up first and suited my purposes for this discussion. But since you seem so interested, here’s one I actually DO agree with.

edit: Oh, my point. I still have no idea what you’re getting at, but as I keep saying. I simply don’t care anymore.

170

I maintain you’re confusing “suspicion” with “commitment to believe,” or some related confusion. (I’m trying to rephrase the confusion with each revision you make in your phraseology.)

As to the clarity of what I’m saying and how I’m arguing for it, I have given my hypothesis explaining that and supported that hypothesis with ample evidence from your posts. The problem is that you are misperceiving clarity as hairsplitting, and seeing it as being done with a “blunt instrument” because you’re not used to being clear (at least in writing, if not also in your head) yourself.

I’d say it’d be impossible to make further progress on the Jesus issue until we’ve settled the antecedent issue. You’re welcome to engage or not, as you prefer.

171

That it’s impossible to know if Jesus ever existed is so painfully obvious as to not even be deserving of discussion. If that has really been, from the beginning, the simple dichotomy, it would have been nice to have been informed of that sooner in plainer terms - for those of us that don’t have your incisive mind.

172

Yeah, I’m just going to leave it at that, I think.

173

Haha oh wait, I can’t not ask this!

Are you saying it’s obvious that we can’t know if Jesus existed, and at the same time, that you think he probably did exist?

174

I’m saying knowledge, in the sense of scientific certainty, is a non-starter and a pipe dream for all but religious fanatics and true believers. I make a distinction there because having known many of the latter I’m reluctant to lump them in with the former. And personally it is quite beyond me how this could not be obvious to virtually everyone else.

I suspect however you are using the word knowledge much more loosely in which case it would be you is now being sloppy but I’ll reserve judgment on that for the time being.

175

You define agnosticism concerning X as the view that X is unknown and probably unknowable.

Previously, you said that

A. agnosticism concerning Jesus’s existence is incompatible with suspecting Jesus didn’t exist.

Here, you’re saying that

B. it is rational both to think it’s impossible to know whether Jesus existed and at the same time to think Jesus probably existed.

Given your definition of agnosticism, A implies:

A’: It is irrational both to think it’s impossible to know whether Jesus existed, and at the same time to think Jesus probably didn’t exist.

Meanwhile, surely anyone who thinks B would also think that

B’: It is rational both to think it’s impossible to know whether Jesus existed, and at the same time to think Jesus probably didn’t exist.

A’ and B’ are in direct contradiction with each other. Yet each is implied by what you have affirmed.

176

Look. I really don’t think this is going anywhere since we seem to be talking at one another. Knowing with certainty is not the same as knowing with a high degree of probability which in turn is not the same as knowing with some lesser degree of probability. And none of these are the same as never even being able to quantify what the probabilities are at all.

Yet you proceed to compose a completely meaningless example oblivious to any of these nuances when I specifically told you I was using knowledge in the sense of ‘a scientific certainty’ in my previous post. And yet you want to pretend that you’re the one being rigorous.

177

You also said if I’m not using in the sense of “a scientific certainty,” then I am using it loosely, and you said that this implies that I’m using it sloppily.*

So then I have to ask you: Are you intending to imply in the abovequoted that you used “know” in the sense of “a scientific certainty” in your most recent posts, and in a different sense in your other posts in the thread? If so, then you have been sloppy by your own lights, correct? But if you have been using it in the sense of a “scientific certainty” all throughout, then my argument (which you inexplicably call an “example”) works exactly as intended.

You see, I’m trying to get clear on exactly what you’re saying, but “not to be rude but I’m not sure you” are clear on what you are saying either.

*“I suspect however you are using the word knowledge much more loosely in which case it would be you is now being sloppy.” – Deltasigma

178

At this point it’s pretty obvious to me what your primary purpose is and I don’t think it relates in anyway to the topic of this thread. Please feel free to disagree while I continue to see if anyone else might have something interesting to say. For the time being, you’ve made it clear that there is no point in responding to you.

179

I’m an atheist and have recently started to study the New Testament historically. I should be a target audience for the OP, but so far, I’m not persuaded. I’ll get to that later.

I have outlined what I see as the argument from the OP, as follows. If this is not what is intended, please let me know and we can compare what has been said, how I interpreted or misinterpreted and what is the intent. I’ve assigned arbitrary numbers to the points for convenience.

  1. Carrier’s claims

First, the premise seems to be based on Carrier’s claims that the standard arguments for the historicity including the criterion of embarrassment and multiple attestation and other reasons are incorrectly applied or bogus and do not point to a historical Jesus.

  1. Carrier is authoritative, and this claim can be accepted

  2. Biblical historians are wrong

The inference if not the direct claim is that the vast majority of biblical historians (opposed to apologetics) who accept these standards arguments for the historicity are wrong.

  1. The founder taught myths
    That whoever founded the Jesus movement taught about a mythical Jesus and not a historical one.

  2. No Pauline evidence
    That there is nothing in the Pauline letters which point to a historical Jesus.

  3. There are only a (very) few exceptions

  4. Paul’s knowledge

All of the Paul’s information concerning Jesus only came from the scriptures (OT) and his visionary experience.

  1. Paul not the founder

Paul did not originate the Jesus movement and joined an existing group

  1. Mythical reading of Pauline epistles

A reading without the presupposition of an earthy Jesus (clearly) point to a mythical Christ in a different realm

  1. Mark as intended fiction

That after Paul, Mark’s Gospel is clearly intended to be taken as fiction and not as supporting a historical Jesus.

  1. OT and a suffering Messiah

That there is a OT backing for a suffering Messiah and that this can be seen in numerous passages, three of which were given as examples. Isaiah, Daniel and Wisdom.

  1. The OT passages are “clearly” read in a way that supports this claim.

  2. Evolution of theology

That there was a revolution in theology in which the historical Jesus was invented

  1. Timing of the evolution

This change in theology occurred sometime after Mark.

  1. Original intent lost

Because of this change in theology, the clear intent of Paul and Mark have been lost.

  1. That because of this, the evidence does not suggest a historical Jesus.

  2. The conclusion:
    “(I)t is plausible that the NT evidence doesn’t make Jesus’s existence the most probable hypothesis”

There may be more, but I believe this covers the basics. Again, this is intended to be a summary of Frylock’s argument.

The good news is that I agree with something in the list. Point 8, that Paul didn’t invent Christianity. Unfortunately, I don’t see much which strongly supports any of the other 16 points, let alone a majority or enough to provide a preponderance of evidence to support the conclusion.

Not all of the points carry equal weight and not all would be required to reach the given conclusion. However, there are certain point which would clearly be required and the arguments are not persuasive.

Taking a quick look at the claims:

  1. Carrier’s claims of standard tools by historians are bogus.

This was not addressed in the OP, and without demonstrating this point, the evidence for a historical Jesus remains unchallenged. Unless that evidence is impeached, the standard to reach the conclusion that a mythical Jesus is the most likely becomes much more difficult. This is directly related to questions such as why was the manner of dealth crucifixion, which I will argue strongly point to a historical Jesus over a mythical one.

As others posters have pointed out, it makes more intuitive sense that the crucifixion occurred first, and then justification had to be made to match the reality.

  1. Carrier is authoritative, and this claim can be accepted

The arguments outlined in the link given to examining Carrier’s book on a mathematical basis seem very strong, and need to be specifically addressed. This would almost warrant a thread of its own. I was not impressed with his review of Doherty’s The Argument to Ahistoricity

  1. Almost all biblical historians are wrong

This is related to but not limited Point 1. Studying the historicity of the NT, I have been very impressed on how the narratives can be shown to fit within the Greco-Roman period and world.

  1. The founder taught myths

If the claim is that a historical Jesus is not the most plausible, then what is the most plausible and where did the myths come from?

  1. No Pauline evidence

I’ll let this web site offer the rebuttal.

  1. There are only a (very) few exceptions

This is part of the above

  1. Paul’s knowledge only from the OT and a vision

The same website offers a rebuttal to this was well. That can be

  1. Paul not the founder

While I said that I agree with Paul not being the founder, the friction described in the NT between Paul and the other Jewish leaders seems to fit much better within the context of the aftermath of group which lost its charismatic leader.

If other problems are cleared up, this would be an interesting topic to discuss.

  1. Mythical reading of Pauline epistles

I broke this out as a separate item because I wanted to point out that a plain reading of the Pauline epistles does not support a reading which you gave. This must be addressed and proven.

  1. Mark as intended fiction

Although there was one historian who supported this, most mainstream historians strongly disagree with this. Here is a book which argues against your claim.

  1. OT and a suffering Messiah, and
  2. The OT passages are “clearly” read in a way that supports this claim

The Isaiah, Daniel and Wisdom examples do not support the claim that they are clearly meant to be read as a suffering Messiah. While they can be construed as such, it is not the generally accepted opinion.

Again, this is something which would require much better analysis and explanation

  1. Evolution of theology

The evolution of theology is backward in your hypothesis. You are suggesting a high Christology which then became a lower Christology while the opposite occurred, with Mark containing the lowest Christology and the others becoming progressively higher.

A significant problem with your hypothesis is that it requires a fully formed myth with no apparent basis. There are other issues as well
14. Timing of the evolution

There doesn’t seem to be any good reason for the timing of the evolution, where the theological drift which actually did occur is well documented.

  1. Original intent lost
    No evidence.

  2. The argument that the evidence does not suggest a historical Jesus is weak

  3. The conclusion:

What is more probable or plausible? A historical or a mythical one? While you claim the mythical one, even a cursory look demonstrates the lack of support for the claim.

For example, the argument that it may not be impossible to discount a spontaneous generation of a suffering Messiah, it would seem unprecedented where the alternative of reality forcing the followers to find a theological basis.

I understand that this is a recent belief which has not been fully thought out. I’m looking forward to any corrections or comments.

180

TokyoPlayer, thanks for that post.

What I’m thinking is not based on this premise, but rather, it is that I’m persuaded by the arguments Carrier and others give against the way NT scholars use the method of Criteria. (It is Carrier’s particular presentation of those counterarguments that really do the work of persuading me, to be sure–but I just want it to be clear this isn’t just something Carrier says and no one else.)

Since writing the OP, btw, I’ve come to think that this is actually the crucial point, and pursuant to that I’m doing further research.

Every other proposition you quoted that I didn’t respond to above (i.e. all but one) is indeed something I affirmed in this thread. I’d arrange them differently to bring out inferential relations. Other than that, great!

Agreed, actually, and see previous comment.

Right, I think this was the intuition underlying a lot of others’ posts above. It will be good for me to construct an argument that this is not as intuitive as it may seem… or shouldn’t be.

That book is mostly about criticizing NT scholars’ methods, so what you’re saying here is, I think, of a piece with what you said above about methodological arguments being crucial here. Again, I agree, and this is my next target for research on the topic.

Can I ask why?

This doesn’t seem obvious. Paul’s got a pretty high Christology.

You made several other good points but I didn’t reply in every case where I thought I could because really, like I said, I do think there’s a central methodological issue that needs to be worked through first. If NT scholars’ methods are bad from the beginning, then there’s literally no reason to believe anything they’ve come to a consensus about! And if they’re not bad, or sometimes are and sometimes aren’t, then this needs to be taken seriously as well.

Carrier claims that he’s checked and found that in every case where someone wrote a paper actually evaluating the method of criteria for effectiveness, the result has been negative. He claims NT scholars are using methods that aren’t just questionable or controversial, but have been proven invalid in every case where someone actually tried to test them. I don’t know anything about the literature he’s referring to, or how many thinkers he’s talking about, but my hope is to go get into some of that, and follow up with some of those guys to see if they themselves agree that no one has been able to validate the methods.