I hesitate to create this Thread out of fear and astonishment. This Thread of course is the companion to my hilarious and than some Thread here:
Proofs That Jesus Existed
My fear is not so much that Believers will predictably use this Thread as Proof that Jesus did exist but that they will think this Thread is anywhere near as funny.
The mistake that Believers make of course in thinking that they have proved that Jesus existed is that their evidence does not support their conclusion. No matter how many times myself and spin explain the relationship between evidence and conclusions Believers still don't get it and that is understandable because Believers would not be caught dead here. But what is the excuse of Skeptics?
In order to consider the relationship between evidence and conclusions the process is as follows:
- 1) What would be good evidence for a contemporary event?
2) Good evidence for 1) would be multiple, credible, independent, first-hand evidence that lacks contradicting evidence.
3) 2) deteriorates with age.
If we look at what we have for Jesus there is a big difference between what would be good evidence and the evidence we have. Believers of course than switch the standards from absolute (what would be good evidence) to relative (what evidence do we have). Most of these Believers are beyond saving. Unfortunately some Skeptics do the same thing. They think that lack of quality evidence that Jesus existed is quality evidence that Jesus did not exist. But the standards for any conclusion do not change. They are always the same. So what quality evidence do we have that Jesus did not exist such as the known, credible author of GMark telling us that GMark is complete fiction and the author was not aware of any evidence that such a person ever existed? While it's true that the worse the evidence is that Jesus existed the more likely it is that Jesus did not, but without quality evidence in absolute terms that Jesus did not exist, you are not going to prove that Jesus did not exist because there is a huge difference between what would be good evidence to support that conclusion and the evidence you actually have. This difference is called uncertainty. So why would some Skeptics have such a problem with uncertainty? God knows.
So, gentlemen, start your Search Engines:
ARGUMENT FROM Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed
(1) GMark was the original Gospel narrative.
(2) All of GMark parallels The Jewish Bible, Paul and the first Jewish/Roman War.
(3) Therefore, Jesus did not exist.