David on 6PR now

[Lee]

David is on radio now

[Lee]

Listen to the interview here.

http://www.6pr.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/6pr/Audio/mornings_151210_christmasatheist.wma

[Goldenmane]

Listening now.

David makes some good points, though I'd happily argue with him on some points.

[David Nicholls]

David makes some good points, though I'd happily argue with him on some points. Goldenmane,

You do realise this was a radio interview and not a history lesson, don't you? :D

The idea is to stir the emotions to attract critical thought and be friendly about it.

I consider it worked in this instance.:)

David

[Goldenmane]

Of course I do, David.

Which is why I didn't bother actually dissecting it.

:D

[RealityRules]

The fact there is no supporting information for the Jesus story is well worth pointing out.

Good general discussion. Well presented David.

[David Nicholls]

David makes some good points, though I'd happily argue with him on some points. Goldenmane,

Curiosity has got the better of me. Can you expand on that. Might help me next time.:D

David

[gruber]

oooo christmas, the time of year when you meet up with ya family and dont wanna see em for another year

[Goldenmane]

Goldenmane,

Curiosity has got the better of me. Can you expand on that. Might help me next time.:D

David

Righto, mate. I'll need to listen to it again. Would be useful if I had a transcript, but I'll see what I can do.

First thing is I'd contend is regarding the whole 'did a bloke who the whole myth was based on exist?' question - my own view is that it seems more likely than not, simply because I've not come across any rigorous treatments that present convincing arguments otherwise. I certainly don't think the bloke was a son of a God, or a god incarnate, or performed miracles, or any of that shit. Nor do I think that three Magi followed a fucking star to find the magical god-baby having just been born in Bethlehem - that all looks much more like someone had to come up with an excuse for why the Messiah who was supposed (due to prophecy) to come from Bethlehem was known to have come from Nazareth.

But that's pretty much irrelevant, except inasmuch as you conflated three things: the birth myth, the god-man myth, and the possible (probable, in my view) actual existence of a bloke it was all stuck upon. I realise, of course, that it was an interview, and that means that detail and nuance can be lost. There's not much point, for example, trying to delve into this stuff in a ten-minute interview - and I guess I'm just irritated that people have such short attention spans that this stuff has to be so broadly drawn. Possibly that's a failing of my own.

Second, I'd have taken a different approach to the "there's probably two or three million people who would have your guts for garters" argument. You responded to ad populum with ad populum. Fuck that noise. Doesn't matter how many people believe it or what they threaten in case of disagreement, if it's wrong it's wrong. And one thing that's patently fucking wrong is removing intestines from someone who simply disagrees with you on matters subject to actual rational inquiry... and making them into garters. Or wearing garters, for that matter. That's just... wrong.

I'm tired, have had a long day at work, so I'll just leave this as it is for now, and get back to it in the morning (after coffee). I think this deserves more attention than I can realistically give it right now, being half-way down a bottle of red and tired to boot.

[RealityRules]

First thing is I'd contend is regarding the whole 'did a bloke who the whole myth was based on exist?' question - my own view is that it seems more likely than not, simply because I've not come across any rigorous treatments that present convincing arguments otherwise.

Perhaps you might be able to present a "treatment" that supports your 'view'.

... you conflated three things: the birth myth, the god-man myth, and the possible (probable, in my view) actual existence of a bloke it was all stuck upon.

Using a straw-man red-herring like that isn't a convincing argument.

[David Nicholls]

Goldenmane,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, which you may consider differently today as I often do when red + tired is involved. :)

Asking for a convincing argument that a Jesus didn’t exist is the same as asking that about a god. It is not up to us mere mortals to prove a Jesus didn’t exists. The existing evidence that he did makes me think the highest probability is he didn’t exist. I know others have an opposing opinion.

To mention three aspects of the New Testament Jesus is not conflating. It is mentioning three aspects of the New Testament Jesus.

I used the ad populum argument about Islamic beliefs to demonstrate that ad populum is a fallacious way to prove anything. I really am mystified you did not get that point.

But, as you have said, you had a bad day. On the bright side there has been no harm done here.

Keep on questioning,

David

[Goldenmane]

Asking for a convincing argument that a Jesus didn’t exist is the same as asking that about a god. It is not up to us mere mortals to prove a Jesus didn’t exists. The existing evidence that he did makes me think the highest probability is he didn’t exist. I know others have an opposing opinion.

My bold.

I disagree. I must make it clear here that I'm not in any way asserting that the bloke wholly as depicted in the New Testament, that collation of fantastical literature written many years after the events it purports to depict, existed. I don't think there was a god-son, miracle-worker, walker-on-water, sacrificial lamb who died for the sins of the world. But that is very far from the conclusion that a bloke it all accreted to never existed.

For one thing, you have to explain why the whole cult started up in the first place. Then you have to explain why stuff like the spurious 'birth in Bethlehem' narratives got composed - two contradicting narratives which seem to exist only to counteract the fact that the bloke came from Nazareth, when the supposed prophesied Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. If someone just made the whole thing up, why include stuff like that? You'd just have him being from Bethlehem full stop, and Nazareth would never even get a mention.

On top of this (and a raft of other things) one has to ask: if someone just made the whole thing up entirely, who did so and when? You can't just dismiss it as entirely fictional without addressing that point. And as I've pointed out before, there is as much or more contemporary evidence for the existence of a wandering mendicant rabble-rouser who got nailed up for sedition and went by the name Jesus (or Yeshua, or however you want to render it) at the time and place in question as there is for (for example) Boudica and any number of other historical figures that almost no-one claims to never have existed.

Seems far more likely to me, though I am not an historian and have only read the evidence and arguments presented by historians (both religious and non-) that there was probably a bloke who was wandering around the arse-end of Palestine preaching a bunch of shit about how Yahweh was going to deliver the Jews from under the crushing foot of the Romans, occasionally doing faith-healing (shit which is still done today, and people still believe it works), who pissed off the Romans sufficiently for them to nail him up... and then some time later, his little cult (which probably suffered a significant set-back when their leader got killed, but didn't die out because people will continue to believe all sorts of bollocks in the face of overwhelming evidence if sufficiently wedded to it - witness those who have broken away from the Church of Scientology but still believe the thetan crap for one modern example) got a shot in the arm when Paul came along and decided to market it to the Gentiles.

That's the simplest explanation, from what I can tell. Fits with the evidence, fits with what we know about how people behave, doesn't require some conspiracy theory about someone (who?) making it up from whole cloth at some undetermined time and including a whole bunch of stuff that they had no reason to include.

It's all merely academic, though, and of no real relevance to anything of importance, since Christianity is wholly bollocks and morally repugnant into the bargain.

To mention three aspects of the New Testament Jesus is not conflating. It is mentioning three aspects of the New Testament Jesus.

Not when you don't differentiate the three. For example: the birth-in-Bethlehem narratives seem to exist purely to make up for the fact which was apparent to the people who knew that actual bloke came from Nazareth - not where a messiah was prophesied to be born - and the whole god-man thing was added in later anyway, since the bastard wasn't supposed to die at the hands of the Romans but instead lead the armies of the Jews to rise up and destroy everybody who wasn't a Jew. That's what a prophesied 'King of the Jews' was supposed to do. He wasn't supposed to be a god - there being only one of them, and never before in any Judaic tradition had the bugger incarnated as a person/his own son. That was a peculiarity that seems to have arisen later.

Besides, 'messiah' simply means 'anointed one'. It carries no implications of god-like status or sacrifice, or scapegoating. The Christians had to come up with the "sacrificial lamb of God" bullshit later on to explain why their leader managed to get himself killed in the first place - and, you know, "he'll be back real soon now, and wipe out our oppressors".

If you mention those three things without differentiating, you are in effect conflating them. Especially when you take into account that the vast majority of the 'thousands (or was it millions?) of people who would have your guts for garters' don't actually have the faintest clue regarding the actualities of their supposed beliefs. Most Christians, in my experience, haven't actually studied the Bible in any depth, let alone the environments from which it sprang.

I used the ad populum argument about Islamic beliefs to demonstrate that ad populum is a fallacious way to prove anything. I really am mystified you did not get that point.

Oh, I got the point, I just think that's a silly way of going about it. That said, I think this whole fucking issue is silly in general, and can't quite get my head around why people insist on believing utter crap like Christianity and the whole Baby Jesus thing anyway. So maybe I'm just jaded. Still, you've been doing this far longer than me, and I admire the tenacity you display. Perhaps you've got a better approach than I do.

My approach would be more along the following lines:

-Millions of people would have your guts for garters for saying that.

-So what? Millions of people are wrong. Numbers don't make for 'correct', and having someone's guts for garters because they disagree with you is fucking barbaric, so they're wrong on that count too.

As I say, it's just a difference in approach. I wouldn't use other victims of delusion (Muslims, for example) to argue the point. It doesn't seem as effective, to me.

On the bright side there has been no harm done here.

Of course not. I see no harm and only benefit to be had discussing these things openly and frankly. It's the only way any progress gets made.

Now, time for coffee.

[David Nicholls]

Goldenmane,

If you think I am going into a guessing game of how Christianity started, well you are wrong.

You state you are not a historian and neither am I. The reason I have an ‘opinion’ that there was no actual bloke by the name of Jesus is that historians cannot decide so I have decided on the evidence I have read, the same as you. And as some historians can also be biased towards wanting there to be a Jesus it muddies the water.

This is a pretty good summation of the issue although the person who wrote it is Greek and English his second language. There is a another version waiting to go up on the web but that needs the luxury of time. If you read this and pass by the spelling and grammatical errors, you might not be so convinced that a Jesus lived.
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/historicity-jesus-christ (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/../articles/historicity-jesus-christ)

Your explanation about me conflating was unconvincing and not worth me taking the time to answer, any more than I already have.

I used the ad populum argument against the idea it has any merit. I would appreciate if you stopped trying to convolute what I said.

You may not use my methods of getting the point across. So what.

This is a storm in a tea cup to me but to you it has a serious note not worthy of the subject matter. I don’t have time for frivolity when it doesn’t even matter if a Jesus lived or not, as you would know.

David

[Goldenmane]

This is a storm in a tea cup to me but to you it has a serious note not worthy of the subject matter.

I beg your pardon?

Where on earth did you get the impression I think this has a serious note or is anything more than 'a storm in a teacup' (or even a storm at all)?

If you don't want to continue the discussion, or don't have time, then simply say so. I understand you're a busy bloke. But ascribing motivations (and I'm curious as to how me simply saying, "you used an approach I wouldn't" is 'convoluting what you said') that simply aren't there is laughable.

Me, I thought we were having a lightweight friendly conversation. :confused: When did it get all serious?

[David Nicholls]

Goldenmane,

It is a lightweight conversation from my side. But when you bombard a post with a lot of rhetoric that would take a book to answer adequately, I can only guess you have a serious hold on the notion that a Jesus existed.

I have said this once but I will repeat it. If historians cannot come to a consensus on the existence of Jesus, I am not going to spend time disputing it.

From my investigations, it would appear he did not.

From your investigation, it would appear he did.

My opinion is just as valid as yours.

What is the point of an endless discussion on the matters you have raised?

I could raise endless matters also.

David

[Goldenmane]

David,

You asked, mate. If you'll recall, I stated

David makes some good points, though I'd happily argue with him on some points.

Your response:

Curiosity has got the better of me. Can you expand on that. Might help me next time.

I expanded. 'Happily argued', in fact.

I think we'll leave it there. You're a busy bloke, and I seem to have already taken too much of your time. Do remember, though, that my first statement was actually supportive.

[David Nicholls]

Goldenmane,

I agree that I asked you to expand on your original statement. I expected something in the context of a radio program and not a high end discussion of the did Jesus exist or not argument.

I guess I am programmed to place doubt in the minds of believers rather than engage them in endless banter. One only gets a few minutes to respond off the cuff with these things. I am very wary that the time has to be productive.

But getting back to your thoughts. Maybe you have too much New Testament orientation about the time of the alleged Jesus. The history before the NT holds many clues as to how the story got going and the history after is an additional insight into how it perpetuated itself.

And a point you are relying on is a mistaken idea. There have been about 4,000 gods down through history and how many of them had an actual person at their roots. Did Horus, Ra, Onedin, Mithra etc actually exist as humans? I think not. Not all of these gods were depicted as having a human form, but some did.

They may have originated from the deeds of vague historical characters over time or a number of characters, with the myth forever being expanded upon, and that is what is the likely case with the alleged Jesus.

But the main point is, if suddenly some solid proof of an actual person Jesus as depicted in the NT appeared, it would not change anything but my mind. It wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the god argument amongst opposing partisans and that is why I think it a pointless enterprise.

But, to publicly state that I don’t think a Jesus ever lived is a very powerful message. One that many common people have never contemplated as is obvious from talk back callers every time I get the chance to give it a mention. I will continue broadcasting it.

It’s not that I don’t value what you have said, I just think we are on different trains in what we understand of the subject. :D


David

[RealityRules]

I like the view espoused here -


There is virtually no evidence for Jesus of the Bible outside the Bible narrative -

Virtually all references in contemporary historians (Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Tacticus, Suetonius) were

(i) to "Chrestus", "Christus", "Christos" (or other such names meaning at the time 'anointed one', or 'useful' as was often applied to servants or slaves)*, or

(ii) to his followers - often called "Christianos" (Tacticus).

A lot of Josephus's references to Christ are considered later additions, and Origen later wrote Josephus did not believe Jesus was *the* Christ.

Considering Jesus is supposed to have lived amongst 500 people for 40 days after his resurrection, it is very surprising nothing of that [time] was recorded by the contemporary historians then or in ensuing decades.

Jesus was a common name at the time [eg.Jesus ben Ananias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_ben_Ananias)] and self-appointed messiahs were too.
It is likely there has been a condensation of more than one character into the one that was eventually portrayed in the Bible.
----* There have been difficulties with translation and transcription -

χρηστός (Latin transliteration chrestus) means "useful".

χριστός (christus) means "anointed".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11364&page=0#192966
.

[davo]

2nd Medicean manuscript of Tacitus (Codex Mediceus 68 II fol. 38 r: Annales 15:44.). showing the word Christianos. The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Highlight_of_MII.png

Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century) spells Christian with an 'est' in all three New Testament occurrences of the word .. in Acts 11:26, 26:8 .. and 1 Pet 4:16

χρηϲτιανουϲ

Chrestianos was given as a title of respect equivalent to a 'belief not well known', with chrestus being 'followers of kindness'

See it for yourself here :

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx?book=51&chapter=11&verse=26

[davo]

Summary from wikipedia referenced in the text : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Christianity#Tacitus

The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library, and written in Latin. It is the second Medicean manuscript which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians. In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent long s. Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'[21].

In 1950, at Harald Fuchs request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'.[22] In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'. "I believe that in our passage of Tacitus the original reading Chrestianos is the true one" says Professor Robert Renehan, stating that it was "natural for a Roman to interpret the words [Christus and Christianus] as the similarly-sounding χρηστός".[23] The word Christian/s is in Codex Sinaiticus (in which Christ is abbreviated - see nomina sacra) spelled Chrestian/s in the three places the word is used. Also in Minuscule 81 this spelling is used in Acts of the Apostles 11:26.[24]

[Logic please]

Apols, a bit late to this thread, great interview David. :) Was just disappointed that if there were calls taken, they were not included in the 6PR link,. I would've been interested to hear them :confused: