This Easter I have had the privilege of engaging with a devout Jesus Mythicist via Twitter on the topic of whether or not we have evidence that Jesus is a historical person. While I have written about this topic once before, I thought I would celebrate the season by laying out all of the evidence that persuades the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians that a human being named Jesus existed and was the subject of the New Testament writings. Let's investigate the data.
The writings of Paul contain 2.5 mentions of Jesus per chapter, so you would naturally think that this constitutes very strong evidence that the Jesus he writes about is a historical person too, but Mythicists argue that Paul believed in a celestial Christ who was not an actual human being as Christians have traditionally understood. Therefore, they claim, Paul does not provide evidence for the historicity of a man called Jesus. They cite the following New Testament verses as evidence for Paul's belief in a spiritual, non-human, archangel Christ:
Paul's purpose in claiming that his gospel did not have its origin in man is to emphasise his God-given authority over the Gentile churches and has nothing to do with believing that Jesus was a spiritual non-human being.
That Paul is declaring the divinity of Jesus rather than denying his humanity is made certain by verses 18 and 19 of the same chapter, where Paul describes a later visit to Jerusalem to check that his gospel message aligned with those who led the the Christian church in Judea:
Galatians 1:18-19 (NASB) - emphasis added
The implication of Paul mentioning that Jesus had a human brother is clearly that Jesus was human himself, which in turn shows that the earlier section in Galatians was not claiming that Jesus was a non-human.
James is cited as a historical person by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, meaning we have both biblical and extra-biblical evidence for him. This makes his existence basically undeniable and the reference to him very difficult to dispose of. Mythicists have to tie themselves in knots to explain how a cosmic Christ can have a flesh and blood historically-existent brother. While they do try to offer theories such as that perhaps James was only a fraternal brother and therefore Jesus was not genetically related and still possibly not human, these wilder explanations are less parsimonious than the plain reading of the text and scholars tend not to be persuaded by them.
In one of the clearest and most indisputable statements in Romans, Paul says that Jesus Christ was a man, using the Greek noun ἀνθρώπου (anthropou, from which we get the word anthropology). The plain meaning of ἀνθρώπου is a human man and it is consistently used that way throughout the letters of Paul.
It is clear from this passage that Paul thought of Jesus as an actual man, as opposed to being a celestial figure merely in the guise or form of a man, so the Mythicist claim that Paul believed only in a spiritual Christ is false.
The second part of the Mythicist explanation of Philippians 2:5-8 is that Paul believed that the crucifixion was not an earthly event but took place in a heavenly dimension just above the level of the earth. But this claim is also hard to take seriously when one looks at Paul's statements elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (NASB)
Paul believed in the same Christ every other Christian believed in at that time - the man Jesus, whose disciples believed they had seen him alive again after his death. This early tradition that Paul quotes, dated by even very skeptical scholars to have appeared within a few years of the crucifixion of Jesus, demonstrates that the belief of Paul in a human Jesus was shared with the Jerusalem leaders. Paul specifically names Peter (Cephas), James and the twelve. These men were known for exactly one thing - being disciples or relatives of Jesus, the man.
The gospel traditions may have emerged later than the writings of Paul, however they speak of the same people Paul appeals to as his fellow witnesses of the physically risen Christ. Mythicists have to ignore the obvious support the various texts of the New Testament lend each other in order to pretend Paul believed in an angelic Jesus.
The Writings of Paul
While the existence of Jesus is not really controversial among professional scholars, the existence of the apostle Paul is virtually unquestioned. Even radical scholars agree that Paul is the genuine author of at least 7 of the New Testament books traditionally attributed to him. A body of writing that can be tied to one consistent author is superb evidence of the author existing, so no objective scholar working in New Testament studies today advocates the view that Paul is not a historical person.
The writings of Paul contain 2.5 mentions of Jesus per chapter, so you would naturally think that this constitutes very strong evidence that the Jesus he writes about is a historical person too, but Mythicists argue that Paul believed in a celestial Christ who was not an actual human being as Christians have traditionally understood. Therefore, they claim, Paul does not provide evidence for the historicity of a man called Jesus. They cite the following New Testament verses as evidence for Paul's belief in a spiritual, non-human, archangel Christ:
Proof Text 1
Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB)For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Proof Text 2
Philippians 2:5-8 (NASB)Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Response to Proof Text 1
Mythicists argue that because Paul received his gospel not "from man", a non-human source of his message is required. They see this passage as bolstering their claim that Paul worshipped a cosmic Christ. However a contextual reading of Galatians 1 combined with the story of his conversion to Christianity documented in Acts 9 gives us a more satisfactory interpretation: Paul is reminding the Galatian church that his apostolic authority does not come from the Jerusalem council but rather straight from the risen Lord Jesus, who he believed had appeared to him and appointed him the apostle to the Gentiles.Paul's purpose in claiming that his gospel did not have its origin in man is to emphasise his God-given authority over the Gentile churches and has nothing to do with believing that Jesus was a spiritual non-human being.
That Paul is declaring the divinity of Jesus rather than denying his humanity is made certain by verses 18 and 19 of the same chapter, where Paul describes a later visit to Jerusalem to check that his gospel message aligned with those who led the the Christian church in Judea:
Galatians 1:18-19 (NASB) - emphasis added
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
The implication of Paul mentioning that Jesus had a human brother is clearly that Jesus was human himself, which in turn shows that the earlier section in Galatians was not claiming that Jesus was a non-human.
James is cited as a historical person by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, meaning we have both biblical and extra-biblical evidence for him. This makes his existence basically undeniable and the reference to him very difficult to dispose of. Mythicists have to tie themselves in knots to explain how a cosmic Christ can have a flesh and blood historically-existent brother. While they do try to offer theories such as that perhaps James was only a fraternal brother and therefore Jesus was not genetically related and still possibly not human, these wilder explanations are less parsimonious than the plain reading of the text and scholars tend not to be persuaded by them.
Response to Proof Text 2
The next Mythicist claim is that the meaning of Philippians 2:5-8 is that the archangel Jesus took on the appearance of a human body but was not actually a human being. They also claim that the events that happened to him need not have happened on Earth. Rather than his death being a physical/historical occurrence within human history, they say that the crucifixion Paul alludes to in this passage is rather a spiritual event taking place in one of the spiritual dimensions identified in pre-Christian Jewish beliefs. But do these claims hang with Paul's ideas expressed elsewhere?
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
In one of the clearest and most indisputable statements in Romans, Paul says that Jesus Christ was a man, using the Greek noun ἀνθρώπου (anthropou, from which we get the word anthropology). The plain meaning of ἀνθρώπου is a human man and it is consistently used that way throughout the letters of Paul.
It is clear from this passage that Paul thought of Jesus as an actual man, as opposed to being a celestial figure merely in the guise or form of a man, so the Mythicist claim that Paul believed only in a spiritual Christ is false.
The second part of the Mythicist explanation of Philippians 2:5-8 is that Paul believed that the crucifixion was not an earthly event but took place in a heavenly dimension just above the level of the earth. But this claim is also hard to take seriously when one looks at Paul's statements elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (NASB)
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
Paul believed in the same Christ every other Christian believed in at that time - the man Jesus, whose disciples believed they had seen him alive again after his death. This early tradition that Paul quotes, dated by even very skeptical scholars to have appeared within a few years of the crucifixion of Jesus, demonstrates that the belief of Paul in a human Jesus was shared with the Jerusalem leaders. Paul specifically names Peter (Cephas), James and the twelve. These men were known for exactly one thing - being disciples or relatives of Jesus, the man.
The gospel traditions may have emerged later than the writings of Paul, however they speak of the same people Paul appeals to as his fellow witnesses of the physically risen Christ. Mythicists have to ignore the obvious support the various texts of the New Testament lend each other in order to pretend Paul believed in an angelic Jesus.
Further Evidence from Paul
In addition to the verses supplied, the writings of Paul also give us several other details about the life of Jesus that make the Mythicist hypothesis highly improbable. They include the following:
1) That Jesus was a descendant of Abraham.
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
2) Jesus was a descendant of David.
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
3) Jesus lived under Jewish law.
Galatians 4:4
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
4) He was betrayed, and on that same evening instituted the Lord's Supper.
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
5) Jesus was crucified.
Galatians 3:1
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
6) The Jewish authorities had something to do with his death.
1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men,
All of this information comes from books that are considered genuine Pauline letters by basically all New Testament scholars. However 1 Timothy, considered a disputed book within modern scholarship but accepted as genuine by the church as early as the Muratorian fragment (circa 170 AD), also offers further evidence of the humanity and historicity of Jesus. If you accept it as a genuine Pauline letter, you get two bonus verses:
7) Jesus is a man (as already stated in Romans 5:15).
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
8) Jesus testified before Pontius Pilate.
1 Timothy 6:13
In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you
The evidence from Paul overwhelmingly points to Jesus being a historical person. The idea that Paul didn't believe in the existence of a man despite claiming to have met both the man's brother and also a disciple who followed him for 3 years is hard to swallow. On the basis of Paul alone, Mythicism is extremely unlikely to be true.
There are further sets of evidence that NT scholars and historians provide for the existence of Jesus, and we will look at some of those in a future article.
Do you agree that Paul believed in a human Jesus? Do you have a counter-argument? Please leave a comment and continue the discussion.
As the actual 'devout mythicist' you are talking about responding to, let me address the points you make in this blog.
ReplyDeleteOk yes Paul was probably a historical person, but that isn’t what is in dispute. We know that there were Christians who just worshipped the celestial high-priest son of God Jesus(Joshua) and all indication says that that is what Paul believed also.
Ok so let’s start off with you defending Galatians 1:11-12.
What contextual reading do you mean? Pretty vague, non-substance based statement, when you consider the lack of evidence you say here, so its pretty dishonest and misleading.
Acts for example is demonstrated to be historical fiction, so Acts 9 is evidence of nothing.
Your using of Galatians 1:18-19, since it is not evidence of Jesus having a brother, (because it cant be shown he wasnt using the fraternal term) is meaningless.
As many times as you try to say otherwise it can’t be done, because it isn’t evidence one way or another. It’s not evidence that he was a fraternal brother and not evidence he was a maternal brother.
You are using non-evidence to disprove actual evidence of something else.
If you would like to discuss the other references of James in Josephus and The Gospels, then let’s do so.
Josephus is talking about Jesus ben Damneus and not Jesus of the Gospels, but it never specifies anyways who this James person was. James was a very common name. The word “Christ” in the passage has a high probability of being a forgery, since Josephus was an orthodox Jew who wouldn’t have called anyone “Christ”.
Josephus writes about four other people in his writings that he writes as having ‘messianic status’ and he writes about them in fine detail. He does not do this for this ‘Christ’. Instead he only briefly talks about him.
It also makes no sense that nobody mentioned any of these Josephus entries (which are also not evidence) until Eusebius came along in the 4th century, with people like Origen who scoured Josephus and Tacitus looking for evidence in the 3rd and 4th century.
There are multiple other reasons of why the James entry in Josephus isn’t evidence of Jesus being historical, but you can read about those here:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071
http://trueorigins.us/josephus-christianity/4581821472
https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/josephus-the-jesus-forgeries/
Any further evidence you wish to see (with references galore) are there.
The Gospels are demonstrated to be fiction so any talk of James in the Gospels is pretty meaningless as evidence.
All the Gospels copy Mark, they are written 40-80 years later, they are
written in ancient fictional writing style like the way that they wrote fiction then, the people in the Gospels have symbolic names, they contradict history, they are heavily plagairized from the OT and contain forgeries.
Your saying that mythicism has to tie itself up in knots is dishonest and misleading. Mythicism simply doesnt take anything on faith. If something doesnt qualify as evidence then it doesn’t qualify as evidence. It’s that simple.
So Galatians 1:11-12 still stands as evidence for mythicism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(I see that I made an error in a previous response in this spot for which I replaced with this one. I made a mistake without even checking sources, which is a good example that people should double check their sources in case they make careless mistakes as I did without double checking. At least I saw it and had the decency to say I made a mistake regarding Philippians 2 and humbly admit that I did, but the particular mistake I made of what I said and the irrelevant comments I said, don't work for or against historicity anyways, but I thought I would mention that)
DeleteSo moving along the next piece of evidence you give is Phillipians 2:5-8
I found it odd that you used this quote since you were writing this article in response to what I tweeted you and I never sent you this one.
I tweeted you these:
“2 Corinthians 12:1
2 Corinthians 12:2
Galatians 1:11-12
Galatians 4
Hebrews 4:15
I also said:
Combine that with 2 Peter which talks a lot about the belief in a celestial Jesus
and 1 John 4:3
Also, if you read the entire 1 Clement book it never talks of Jesus as a man and only talks as though he has never read or heard of the Gospels, just the words of Paul.”
So again I find it odd that you did this in response to me when I never tweeted that to you.
You would think that you would attack the arguments of evidence I sent you and not something else.
As for Romans 5:15 it doesn’t help the historical argument case at all in the slightest. It isn’t evidence of Jesus as a person who had a history and simply just goes along with what the belief at the time was (that Jesus died in the 7 heavens and took the form of a man at some unknown time to when Paul wrote that).
We know that’s what Christians at that time believed because it was written in The Ascension Of Isaiah, which was a Jewish Gospel at the time that wrote about what they thought happened to the Jewish high priest Jesus. The dating of TAOI is mid first century, but it is based on traditional stories that were passed on about what the early Christians believed.
But as you said though, it is what Christians believed. It is what Paul believed. Philippian 2:5-8 (or more extensively 5-11).
Unfortunately for you that you can’t say that you have rebutted the mythicist claim that this supports mythicism, because these verses in Philippians 2 are consistent with what mythicism says.
As for 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
ReplyDeleteAll this says is that Paul was saying that he read scripture and it was sending him messages. Whatever scripture that might have been. Possibly even Hosea 6:1-3.
When he says “the twelve” he never specifies what he means. He couldn’t mean the 12 disciples because (even if we didn’t know that the Gospels are entirely fictional) Judas killed himself, so there would only have been 11.
He could have metaphorically been talking about the 12 tribes of Judah for all we know. Paul only talks about ‘apostles’ and never mentions ‘disciples’. When he talks about “apostles” Paul only means ‘Christian messenger brother of Jesus’. If someone was an “Apostle” they had some sort of revelation of Jesus and they preached his message.
When Paul says ‘Jesus appeared to 500 brethren at one time’ he meant that that they had visions, or dreams, but the reality was probably that people were just claiming visions, or messages to acheive some sort of status, or acceptance (that’s all it would take and even today you hear about people saying the same thing). Anecdotal claims went a long way back then.
“Then James” (one of the many apostles) and then the rest of the people who claimed to have a “revelation” of Jesus. So nothing that is evidence of a physical man Jesus, or anything about his life.
I find it dishonest of you to post this quote of yours below the 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 verse that says “Paul believed in the same Christ every other Christian believed in at that time - the man Jesus,”.
I say this because in the past 2 weeks I showed you that Bart Ehrman had changed his views and even admitted he was wrong and wrote a book that talks about how he changed his views. On how the original Christians actually did believe that Jesus was a celestial archangel. The book is called How Jesus Became God, which Dr. Richard Carrier who is Ehrman’s biggest critic, said it was a good book overall.
Read his review here:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/6923
If you read the many comments below you will see that they are pretty positive to the review and what flaws Ehrman makes about Jesus mythicism, but agree that that is what Bart Ehrman is talking about. I sent you this review in a tweet days ago but you never responded back about it, but then you make this comment that EVERY Christian believed in Jesus at the time”.
I showed you that the biggest advocate for the historical Jesus and the biggest Christian ‘goto guy’ Bart Ehrman (because he’s atheist and apologists like to throw that in opponents faces) admits that he changed his mind and that Christians believed in a Celestial Jesus originally.
The day before you posted that article, I sent you the tweet that I posted above that showed you in Paul’s authentic letters his verses that showed he believed Jesus was a celestial archangel.
I think you are being very dishonest by pretending that you are unaware of this and by saying that ALL Christians then believed in Jesus as a man, when you knew that wasn’t true. So what happened? Did you forget, or just decided to ignore it and not respond to that tweet?
You then make comments that I found to be very silly because they really aren’t used by mythicists and aren’t evidence for Jesus being mythical or even historical, they are just silly arguments..
ReplyDeleteLike Galatians 3:16 for instance is a perfect example.
How is this ever even used historically? Please tell me what mythicist thinks that Abraham was real and thinks that God saved Abraham’s sperm in a cosmic sperm bank? Mythicist acknowledge that Abraham was a fictional person who was said to have lived like 4000 years before and God.
Paul is writing metaphorically and is still referring to celestial space Jesus in the 7 heavens.
Similar to Romans 1:1-3 it is all just metaphorical and copying OT scripture.
Like 2 Samuel 7:12-14 for instance:
“And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.”
All Paul is doing is talking metaphorically and allegorically. So not only is this not evidence for Jesus, but no mythicist, or even historical believing secular person thinks this as evidence for Jesus.
Galatians 4:4 now is just another example of Paul talking in metaphor and an apologist giving a claim of evidence that no mythicist, or even secular historical sided person believes that God saved David’s sperm in a cosmic sperm bank either. This is of course silly because mythicists generally don’t believe in King David and using this as evidence is like saying that life on Mars exists because of Marvin the Martian from the Looney-Toons cartoons.
Now if Christian believers want to believe in King David giving God his sperm, or God magically taking it, then fine, but if they try to use it as evidence with a mythicist, or even just an atheist then they will just be laughed at, or not taken seriously.
As for 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
ReplyDeleteIf that is attempting to prove that the last supper happened, but Paul distinctly says “received from the lord” which means ‘in revelation’ which basically means that Paul had a vision, he had a dream, or the scriptures were talking to him. Why would anyone who is secular think that Jesus was actually talking to Paul?
Maybe believers in a divine Jesus might think that, but that’s just preaching to the choir. Atheists don’t think Paul was talking to Jesus, or think Paul was getting actual messages from reading scripture, or that Paul’s dreams were really worthy to take seriously either.
As for Galatians 3:1 where the claim is that Jesus was crucified.
ReplyDeleteThe Greek does not say the Galatians saw Jesus crucified. Nor could that be what he means. Galatia is in Turkey, hundreds of miles from Jerusalem, and these Galatians are later converts, not early witnesses. The Greek actually says they saw his crucifixion foretold in scripture (prographô, “forewritten”). There is no mention here of that crucifixion occurring on Earth. Paul is talking about being crucified in the 7 heavens, like the Ascension of Isaiah gospel says, which is what the early Christians believed at the time
As for 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15.
ReplyDeleteThe line about the Jews having killed Jesus and receiving God’s wrath for it is widely agreed by mainstream experts to be an interpolation. Paul never wrote it. This was a later addition made by anti-Semitic historicizing Christians, not the words of Paul.
So if people are not misinformed about this verse and aren’t witheld the truth, then they will just dismiss this as meaningless (as they should). People who are told this and are misinformed might believe it, but they will only be believing it from deception, not from having any real evidence.
As for this claim that the 1 Timothy verses have any legitimate evidence, is just dishonest and used out of desperation, because I can’t think of any other reasons.
The day before you wrote this article, I sent you this Christian link, that is in my opinion slightly biased towards being in favor of Christianity and therefore Jesus being real:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html
It overwhelmingly says that 1 Timothy (and 2 Timothy) are forgeries written in the mid 2nd century. So believers can deny that that might be true (which is a symptom of faith is denial) but no mythicist, or secular person will be convinced if they are aware of this. So to say otherwise to someone that this book is not overwhelmingly acknowledged as a forgery, is just deception.
Again, your attack on mythicism is outclassed by the evidence and the truth of the evidence and arguments. I suggest that you actually attack the verses that I sent you before you wrote this article and in your next article attack the actual reasons for mythicism and the actual arguments and evidence that mythicism has?
ReplyDeleteAs the mythicist writing this, who you are talking about in your first paragraph, let me tell you the most basic arguments of Jesus mythicism that you have to attack as not having a case:
The Gospels are not allegorical and plagiarized fiction.
That there weren’t original Christians (or Jewish sects) who believed in a celestial high-priest son of God that lived in the 7 levels of heaven well before the time of 30AD.
That the other Gospels weren’t copying from Mark and each time adding their own fiction onto them. Even though Mark has 3 different endings and people are generally only aware of one of them and was originally just written as a gigantic parable.
That it’s meaningless that all the Gospels are written in a fictional writing style called ‘Inclusio’, or ‘Ring Theory’.
Try those just for starters. But if you do, then actually get the peer reviewed book by Dr. Richard Carrier, On The History of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason For Doubt, so you can see the evidence and attempt to debunk, or counter argue its hundreds of pieces of evidence and counter arguments inside it.
We look forward to your next few articles on this topic and I appreciate your efforts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat if I told you that literally all of these objections have been answered already on this website? It’s run by an atheist, so you can’t really accuse him of a pro-Christian bias.
Deletehttps://historyforatheists.com
If you comment on his posts, he usually gets back to you very quickly. I’m sure he’d LOVE to meet you, as he has criticized you and Carrier’s “Chrestus” app. Perhaps you’d like to discuss mythicism with him? He’s very knowledgeable on the subject.
He once gave Carrier quite a thrashing here. Carrier has yet to respond.
https://historyforatheists.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased/
I've looked. I think his arguments are not convincing and when people try to have a convo with him and explain things he just starts name calling and generally that's all I really see him doing. If people say anything positive about Carrier he just insults them and ignores them. He seems like a not very reasonable person and his "fans" seem even worse than him. I haven't seen anything on his entire blog that counters mythicism, unless being condescending and insulting are supposed to do that, but apparently the people on his blog think that's enough, so whatever.
DeleteI did enjoy Carrier's article on him and if you read the comments below it you'll see that people can see the same things I said.
I would just be wasting my time going on his blog and would either be ignored, or insulted and then ignored. Rather pointless really.
So he doesn't like our app eh? Terrific, please point me to the link for his review of what he thinks are arguments or mistakes against it and we will add what he says with arguments and counter arguments in it. That is the beauty of CHRESTUS, the more you argue against it the more we add the counter arguments to it. If O'neill sees mistakes in it then that's great, then we'll correct them in an upgrade. So again, please send the link.
Maybe we'll add a section of the app that counters what he says and shows why he's wrong, but I don't see anyhing that is worth adding to be honest so far, but that could change. I hope he gets our app and does a big article with all his critique and usual insults.
As for mythicism, here is partly what demonstrates it to be true and Jesus not to be historical:
The research I have seen has shown this;
Gospels-fiction
Acts-fiction
13 forgeries in NT-so not credible
Paul speaks of an archangel Jesus only
All outside sources-rebutted
Well let’s see...
Let’s go down the list
1
Gospels are fiction
Plagairized from OT
All copy Mark
Characters are symbolic
Written in inclusio ring style of fiction
Allegorically written as giant parables
Full of contradictions and interpolations
2
Acts is historical fiction
Even more plagairized and symbolic than the Gospels
Contradicts Paul’s letters
3
13 forgeries
This isnt an argument
They arent credible and were created to mislead
4
Paul only speaks of an archangel Jesus
Paul doesn’t speak of the life of Jesus
The James reference is 50/50 at best which isn’t evidence
Considering THAT is the only claim of actual evidence and its 50/50, that isnt anything worthy
5
All outside sources for Jesus are thoroughly rebutted
Tacitus-debunked
Josephus-debunked
Talmud-debunked
Pliny TY-debunked
Celsus-debunked
Lucian-debunked
Phlegon-debunked
Thallus-debunked
Suetonius-debunked
Mara bar Serapion-debunked
You know, I kind of figured that would be your response, that you would just blithely dismiss O’Neill’s valid critiques of the fringe theory that is mythicism. Considering I’ve seen you call the author of this blog post a coward on twitter for not immediately replying to you after pestering him for days on end, this is extra rich coming from you that you don’t care to talk with Mr. O’Neill simply because he doesn’t suffer fools gladly. I also got a good chuckle when you said that you think his followers can be kind of mean when you are a fan of Richard freaking Carrier, who has some of the most rabid and easily offended supporters on the planet, next to Jordan Peterson or something. If you’re going to peddle as wildly unpopular (for good reason) a theory as mythicism, then you need to grow a thicker skin.
DeleteAs for your claim that you’ll be ignored, well, as far as I know, he replies to practically everybody that asks questions or has critiques of his work. He welcomes constructive criticism. That’s not to say that he might not terminate a conversation if he’s tried his best to get through to a person and deems further interaction a waste of time.
Why not have a friendly discussion with him? He only insults if you insult first. If you’re polite enough, he will be polite in turn. And I know for a fact that he will be willing to admit when he’s wrong. Why aren’t you willing to even try? Remember, attacking a person and attacking their ideas are two different things.
You enjoyed Carrier’s article on him? You mean the one that O’Neill compeletely refuted and Carrier hasn’t responded to yet? That one?
As for his critique of your app, well, I admit I made a mistake there. It wasn’t an actual article. It was in the comment section on one of his posts (I can’t remember which one, I do a lot of commenting). The subject came up about the Chrestus app and he said he had read Carrier’s blog post on it and was uninterested in what he read, citing Carrier’s obsession with trying to quantify historical analysis (Rank Raglan, Bayesian calculator, etc.).
There’s a difference between attacking a person and attacking their ideas. Surely you know that. I always got the impression that you were at least open to new evidence/reasoning, what with your whole “teaching people how to think, not what to think” schtick. Am I wrong?
P.S. why are you linking atheist sites to me debunking the Resurrection story? I’m an atheist, so I don’t really care about that.
I found this comment quite amusing for the following reasons:
Delete1 You never said in your previous comment you are an atheist, so the comment about saying that you are one is pretty silly and also implies that you aren’t an atheist by your tone.
2 Your cowardly tactic of pitting me against Tim O’ Neill and saying “go to this website and debate him” was even more amusing because you couldn’t just use the arguments on his website to counter what I said if you felt they were so good (I guess you didn’t think they are good enough either).
I would like to thank you though personally and sincerely. I say this because we had no interest in Tim O’Neill before and he really wasn’t on our radar, because if you actually are able to see the fallacies he commits you can see why he isn’t really countering anything, but you and multiple others have repeatedly sent me his links in the past 2 weeks (including the cowardly author of this blog) rather than his arguments and now others have also today on Twitter, but after reading hours of his articles and comments underneath and listening to his podcasts in the past 4 days, it only seems logical to add a section in our app about him and isolate every single argument he makes for Jesus and his counter argument from his websites and podcasts.
So you really have made an improvement in CHRESTUS that I know a lot of people should thank you people for, since he seems like the new “go to guy” for Christians (because he’s an atheist).
So pretty soon every time someone sends Tim’s links to someone rather than give any actual argument, they can say that they have all the counters to everything he says with just a couple clicks on our app. Any argument or counter argument will be there. So look for the Tim O’Neill section coming out in a couple months. They can then say to pick any argument or counter argument they want.
I hope he doesn’t ignore it though and instead keeps attempting to counter its content, because that really is the goal is to get every argument and counter argument for or against the historical Jesus in the app, but my guess is that he will just tell everybody to ignore it and that everything in the app is stupid (because he says so) and not waste their time, but hey there’s always the hope that he doesn’t do that, gets the app and responds to his content that we put in it. We’ll see. Either way, everything he says is going to go in there.
I reread the article you spoke of that you said Dr. Carrier never responded to and I don’t see anything that isn’t already countered in the very article that Tim is responding to. He makes a lot of claims though. But it’s all good, because they’ll go in our app if people are going to quote him, or use his links and arguments.
So again, thanks.
PS- The article I linked from Ferguson shows there are no historical facts about the resurrection, which last I saw was about Jesus. Just goes to support what I said that there is no evidence for Jesus, the Gospels are fiction and Jesus of the Gospels is just a fictional parable story written allegorically that is based on a belief of Jesus as an archangel.
Have a nice day though.
Huh. This comment of yours is all over the place. I’m seeing a lot of deflection and justifications for not discussing with O’Neill and not a lot of actual committal.
DeleteYou’re right I never said I was an atheist beforehand. However, it was more to head off your gish galloping tactic of linking to refutations of things that didn’t really have anything to do with a HISTORICAL Jesus. It is pretty telling that you would rather assume someone is lying about themselves than accept that they might just disagree with you (I’d also like to know how you can tell someone is lying by their “tone” on the internet). Oh well, that’s not important.
Now, unlike yourself, I’m actually honest about my capabilities as a source of knowledge. I recognize that I’m not nearly as well versed in historical analysis as Mr. O’Neill. So why would I presume to speak for him and most likely get things he says wrong when he’s so easily accessible and willing to speak for himself? Again, why aren’t you willing to at least try? You say you’re putting a Tim O’Neill section in your app and that it can be accessed in a “couple clicks,” but that’s not entirely true. You also have to pay for the app. So it’s not like this is some easily accessible fountain of knowledge like O’Neill’s blog is. This also seems like a very roundabout way of debating (which is all it is). Carrier makes a claim, O’Neill responds to it, you put it in the app and respond to it, O’Neill buys the app and responds to the response, you guys update the app, O’Neill responds to the update and so on and so on. Why make it so difficult? Could it be that you’re not that confident in your answers and that you have to bury them in an app and tell people “buy the app and find out.” Who exactly is the coward again (since you seem to like using that word)? Why not just make a blog dedicated to this stuff and respond to arguments that way? Why a priced app when there are better alternatives? Oh I know, because it’s hard to make money off a blog (and don’t bring up Bart Ehrman. All those funds go to charity). That’s all you’re in this for is the money. I’ve heard that Dr. Carrier is strapped for cash these days.
I also find it hard to believe that you are worried about O’Neill declaring your app a waste of time when that’s exactly what you said about his blog a couple comments ago. Only through this discussion did you agree that O’Neill is worth countering, and even then you’re doing it in the most sleazy, roundabout way, instead of just putting the arguments out there for all to see. You’d rather people pay you first. Tsk tsk.
You basically said you reread the article and found lots of inaccuracies in it. Again, why not float on over to the comment section and let Mr. O’Neill know? If you don’t want to post a comment in the comment section, you can post it here as well.
https://historyforatheists.com/contact-blog-author/
You say you’ve read O’Neill’s blog yet you didn’t comment? Why not? Why hold your arguments back if his are so easily refuted? It could be educational for his followers. Isn’t that what’s most important, teaching people how to think, not what to think?
Your P.S. is also inaccurate. Here’s what you actually said about the article:
“Matthew Ferguson shredded that myth that there are ANY historical facts in the Gospels years ago.” (Emphasis mine)
You didn’t mention the Resurrection. You spoke of the entirety of the Gospels, saying that Ferguson declared them to not have one historical fact in any of them, when that’s not what he said. We call that a “straw man.” C’mon dude.
Ok, look Nathan. You’re making yourself look worse here. Everyone knows this is you.
DeleteYou have given me something to think about though and yes, I will definitely be getting in contact with Mr. O’neill on his blog and bringing up all kinds of points with him and asking him all kinds of questions.
I will do this though only after we have cataloged and listed every argument and counter argument on his websites, other people’s websites with him on them and his podcasts he did.
We wouldn’t want to misquote him, take anything he says out of context, or say something that he has changed his mind about. What better place to do it than his blog. You are right.
Again, I wanted to thank you for all the great ideas. You’ve helped make our app so much better.
By the way, why don’t you go to Google and type in “how much does it cost to make an app?”
https://www.google.ca/search?ei=Z23WWsOAAa_v5gLSlZ3QCQ&q=how+much+does+it+cost+to+make+an+app&oq=how+much+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.35i39l3j0l2.15710641.15712928..15716424...2....108.783.8j1..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-serp.....3..0i131j0i67.JxZgbL6aLcU%3D
It’s funny Dave that you are saying the same things as Nate on twitter. Nathan said the exact same thing with pretty much the exact same words.
Please tell me the source that you are talking about Dr. Carrier being strapped for cash though? I’m sure he would like to know.
Yes, you were correct and I was wrong about O’Neill’s blog, so again thank you for showing me all the things to add and bringing it to our attention. I’ve been very busy combing everything that he’s ever said as an argument, or counter argument. I am honest enough to admit I was wrong and should have given his work more attention. So again thanks and also thanks for encouragement to go on his blog when I otherwise wouldn’t have. I look forward to going on there after the cataloging to exchange with him and clarify everything.
As for your quotation of what I said. You are only partially correct and it is an irrelevant part. The article by Ferguson counters the “Minimal Facts Of Jesus”. They are called “The Minimal Facts” but what they are are historical facts that are claimed to be what we know is true about Jesus. For which as I showed you Ferguson smashed. These minimal facts consist of everywhere, which includes the Gospels.
You sure seem to take this believing in Jesus thing pretty personally for someone who is an atheist Dave. A lot like a Christian apologist named Nathan I’ve come across on Twitter. Not on this blog though. He just ignores me on his blog for some reason.
For a guy who champions the whole "teaching people how to think, not what to think" motto, you sure seem reluctant to be intellectually serious.
Delete"Everyone knows this is you." Everyone meaning just you, right? Got evidence for your claim?
Really? you're going to debate O'Neill only after you've cataloged and listed his over 10,000 pieces of work? Good luck with that. Methinks you're just trying to avoid discussing with him. "No, I can't debate yet, I'm not done cataloging his work!"
I am glad that you're finally coming around (sort-of) to actually discussing with Mr. O'Neill. I told him about you and he said he already has the app and that he looks forward to what your responses might be. He also said he got a good chuckle out of what's on the app right now about him.
I never doubted that it's expensive to make an app. But holy cow, man. $8:00? And it's got like 2.5 stars on the app store!
Again, assuming Nate is this Connect Apologetics guy, I would like to see where Nate said "the exact same thing with the exact same words." It would be quite a coincidence (or maybe not). I think you're trying to deflect, though.
As for Carrier needing money, here's what O'Neill says about him on his blog:
"But if anyone thinks I have been uncharitable to Carrier in this post, I can assure you that I am quite the opposite. Literally. You see, as I mentioned above, Carrier has separated from his wife Jenn after cheating on her and so cut himself off from his former gravy train. So it seems his main sources of income are speaking fees at various atheist and skeptics gatherings and sponsorship via the Patreon crowd-funding site. And it appears things aren’t going so well for him.
His Patreon page tells us that he has luckily 'escaped the interdepartmental politics and tanking fortunes of the formal academy to write independently and pursue his interests as an educator, activist, historian, and philosopher', which is a dizzying spin on 'I’ve failed to get an actual academic job'. He also formerly listed his annual income there, which was shockingly low. So being a kindly and noble sort of humanist, I have become a patron of Dr Richard Carrier, PhD (who has a doctorate). It would be cruel to see the poor little chap waste away."
https://historyforatheists.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased/
I looked it up for myself, and O'Neill appears to be telling the truth. Carrier needs the cash.
I'm glad that you were able to acknowledge my position. I take back my statement about you being intellectually dishonest.
However, the quotation you used was mischaracterizing Ferguson's article, which talked specifically about the Minimal Facts of Jesus' resurrection that apologists like to tout as proof Jesus was God. You said that Ferguson was denying ANY historical facts in all of the Gospels. If that were true, then Ferguson would be as hardline mythicist as they come. He's not, though.
I'm taking this personally you say? Or maybe I just like to call out obvious historical mistakes where I see them? How am I taking it personally when you actually went through the trouble to make an iPhone app about Jesus' existence? Seems kind of strange to me.
I hope you take the time and discuss with O'Neill. Maybe it can help put this mythicism thing to bed, though I highly doubt it will. Still there's hope. It should be pretty educational.
Edit: That should say $7.00 instead of 8.
DeleteAlso the fact that you don’t really have Gospels, you have one Gospel Mark
ReplyDeleteThe fact that even Ehrman and the consensus of serious secular scholars acknowledge that the writers of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses. They couldnt be. They would all be dead by 75AD-110AD
Matthew Ferguson shredded that myth that there are any historical facts in the Gospels years ago
And he isnt a mythicist either by the way
He’s agnostic to mythicism
https://celsus.blog/2013/06/29/knocking-out-the-pillars-of-the-minimal-facts-apologetic/
Thanks for the blog post buddy! Keep them coming... Mod Apk
ReplyDelete