The Historical Jesus II

[Brainache]

As I pointed out before that position would be MJ:

* The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a human being]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded - John Robertson 1900; Archibald Robertson 1946

* This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." - Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1982, 1995


* [The Christ myth] is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
Ehrman 2012


Note that these definitions of the Christ Myth do NOT say Jesus didn't exist as a human being. In fact, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia one expressly states it is regarding the story of Jesus that is "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" and NOT the man himself and that definition is written by a Pro-HJ person.

The reality is contrary to the picture may people try to paint the Christ Myth has a range just like the HJ does.

Seriously, this again? If people are saying that there was any type of HJ, they aren't talking about Carrier's Myth Jesus. I'm not too worried about what people considered a MJ in 1900 when questioning the historical accuracy of the gospels was considered "radical".

Continually trying to conflate a minimal HJ with the MJ of Carrier is at the very least intentionally misleading. Please stop.

I see this presented a lot but personally I don't see it.

The pro-HJ argument position is generally presented as Myth, Madman, or Messiah. Well, if Myth is out that leaves you with Madman or Messiah. It doesn't take much to throw out Messiah (as there were a bumper crop of would-be-messiahs running around) leaving you with Madman ie Jesus was the 1st century version of someone like David Koresh or Charles Manson.

In fact, if you go to the classic Christ Mythers like Drews and John M. Robertson and read them directly you find out they were NOT saying Jesus didn't exist as a human being but rather that the trail from Gospel to Man goes nowhere:

"In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. (...) If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." - Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth

Things have moved on a bit since 1910. We know a bit more about Apocalyptic Jewish practices thanks to the DSS. The DSS have only been generally available for scholars since 1989. I think they can tell us a lot about the HJ.

"Bigfoot" and "Psychics" are two vastly different beliefs. Psychic "powers" can be explained via the use of slight of hand tricks or cold reading.

Bigfoot on the other hand is more problematic because as the old statement goes you can prove a negative and Bigfoot believers can point to all the examples of actual living animals dismissed as wild imagination:...

This is entirely beside the point I was making about people spending time on this forum discussing all kinds of weird ****, why should HJ be any different? Also there is nothing extraordinary about a HJ, no one is saying that HJ was god or magical.

Anyway your list of weird animals in no way makes a population of undiscovered 9 foot apes in North America any more likely. But that is a discussion you can take to one of the many Bigfoot threads in the GS&P sub-forum.

 

[Brainache]

That's not entirely unreasonable. But it's not what Carrier says.

It is quite clear from what you have just stated that these earlier mythicists accepted that Paul and others believed that Jesus was a human being recently alive on earth - whether that supposition is justified or not. (I think it is.)

Here, however, is an account of Carrier's very different views. As I have been stating for years on these threads, there are two kinds of "myth" scenarios. One states: we don't have much evidence for Jesus, so he was probably a myth (in the loose sense of a non-existent person). I have much sympathy for that. The evidence is indeed sparse.

But the other myth scenario is as stated by Carrier, and such theories require to be substantiated by evidence. There is absolutely none supporting these speculations; they contradict plain statements by Paul - and the Gospels, which stress the physicality of Jesus.

Now, we must not permit ourselves to mix these things up in a "bait and switch" scam. Is the mythicism of Drews and Robertson reasonable? Well yes of course. That means Carrier must be reasonable, because he's a mythicist too? No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Indeed.

 

[dejudge]

But the other myth scenario is as stated by Carrier, and such theories require to be substantiated by evidence. There is absolutely none supporting these speculations; they contradict plain statements by Paul - and the Gospels, which stress the physicality of Jesus.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus also stress the DIVINITY of Jesus.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are about the Lord from heaven, born of a Ghost, the Son of God, and God Creator.

The Gospels stress that Jesus was born of a Ghost.

The Pauline Corpus stress that Jesus was God's own Son.

The claim that Jesus was a known man with a human father plainly CONTRADICTS the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

The NT Canon does not promote the historical Jesus [a man with a human father]

Christians do NOT worship men as Gods--Not even the Emperors of Rome.

 

[Brainache]

...
Christians do NOT worship men as Gods--Not even the Emperors of Rome.

That's right dejudge. In the Christian belief system they worship a god who became a man. A man who they believe walked around and talked to people, ate bread, drank wine and made a promise to his followers to come back and destroy evil forever...

Typical bloke making promises he couldn't keep...

So which is more likely: A human being with a cult following, or an unevidenced cult devoted to an ethereal sub-lunar Jesus?

Or it was all invented centuries later by lying hoax forgers a long way away for no intelligible reason?

 

[maximara]

That's not entirely unreasonable. But it's not what Carrier says.

Actually that is EXACTLY what Carrier is saying.

It is quite clear from what you have just stated that these earlier mythicists accepted that Paul and others believed that Jesus was a human being recently alive on earth - whether that supposition is justified or not. (I think it is.)

"Paul himself never disguised the fact that he had seen Jesus, not with mortal eyes, but only with those of the Spirit, as an inner revelation." - Drews 1910 Christ Myth

Here, however, is an account of Carrier's very different views. As I have been stating for years on these threads, there are two kinds of "myth" scenarios. One states: we don't have much evidence for Jesus, so he was probably a myth (in the loose sense of a non-existent person). I have much sympathy for that. The evidence is indeed sparse.

But the other myth scenario is as stated by Carrier, and such theories require to be substantiated by evidence. There is absolutely none supporting these speculations; they contradict plain statements by Paul - and the Gospels, which stress the physicality of Jesus.

Actually, Carrier's myth scenario is a logical extension of the first. Saying that Jesus was a John Frum or Ned Ludd like figure in of itself is not enough as you then have to explain how and why Christians would invent such a person. Anthropological parallelism only goes so far and you need something to fill the gaps where the parallel is not one to one.

Now, we must not permit ourselves to mix these things up in a "bait and switch" scam. Is the mythicism of Drews and Robertson reasonable? Well yes of course. That means Carrier must be reasonable, because he's a mythicist too? No, it doesn't mean that at all.

"But the effect of the documentary analysis which Strauss failed to make is to leave us no grounds whatever for ascribing any teaching in particular to any one teacher called Jesus; though it is historically possible, and not very unlikely, that there were several Jesuses who claimed to be Messiahs. What is certain, a priori and a posteriori, is that the gospels are no less absolutely untrustworthy as accounts of any man's teaching than as accounts of any man's deeds, because they gathered up both kinds of statement in the same way." - John M Robertson (1910) Christianity and Mythology

Even Remsburg, while the darling of many of armchair Christ Myther on the internet was actually a Pro-HJer, was saying any evidence of the Gospels Jesus (even stripped of all the supernatural stuff) was effectively nil.

 

[maximara]

Seriously, this again? If people are saying that there was any type of HJ, they aren't talking about Carrier's Myth Jesus. I'm not too worried about what people considered a MJ in 1900 when questioning the historical accuracy of the gospels was considered "radical".

But that definition still holds TODAY:

* This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." - Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1982, 1995

* [The Christ myth] is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." - Ehrman 2012

Kindly explain how these MODERN definitions of Christ myth put forth by Pro-HJers do NOT match John M Robertson's 1900 one? Fact of the matter is THEY ARE THE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME as his.

Continually trying to conflate a minimal HJ with the MJ of Carrier is at the very least intentionally misleading. Please stop.

When your fellow HJers stop doing it and admit they screwed up their definitions.

Note exactly what Carrier put forth as minimal HJ and what happens when any one of those Criteria fail:

1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death

2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his follower to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities

3) This is the same Jesus some of whose follower soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

"If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true."

As I have pointed out before Carrier is NOT just laying the foundation for a Christ Myth theory here but an ahistorical theory as well.

In fact in the hand out to one of his lectures he labels GA Wells works Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend ahistorical while nearly everybody else is calling them Christ Myth

The ahistorical theory is NOT Christ Myth (as either you or Carrier define it but it is clear Bromiley and Ehrman are defining it that way) and throughout his book Carrier is arguing BOTH.

Things have moved on a bit since 1910. We know a bit more about Apocalyptic Jewish practices thanks to the DSS. The DSS have only been generally available for scholars since 1989. I think they can tell us a lot about the HJ.

Carrier uses the DSS to help build his case so that door swings both ways.

And the 1995 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J and Ehrman in 2012 still agree with John M Robertson's 1900 deifntion of Christ Myth. You can hem, haw, and tap dance all you want but some of your fellow HJers are using John M Robertson definition TODAY.

Time to understand the difference between ahistorical Christ Myth theory and mythical Christ Myth theory.

 

[Craig B]

"Paul himself never disguised the fact that he had seen Jesus, not with mortal eyes, but only with those of the Spirit, as an inner revelation." - Drews 1910 Christ Myth

OF COURSE Paul never saw Jesus "with mortal eyes". Nobody has ever suggested he met Jesus during his life, and Paul makes no claim to have done so. But to conclude that this means that Jesus was never a human being in Paul's opinion is delusional or fraudulent. Paul simply never met him in life, but believed he had received revelations from him, resurrected after death. This is universally accepted by all, Christian or atheist.

 

[Brainache]

But that definition still holds TODAY:

* This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." - Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1982, 1995

* [The Christ myth] is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
Ehrman 2012

Kindly explain how these MODERN definitions of Christ myth put forth by Pro-HJers do NOT match John M Robertson's 1900 one? Fact of the matter is THEY ARE THE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME as his.



When your fellow HJers stop doing it and admit they screwed up with their definitions.




Carrier uses the DSS to help build his case so that door swings both ways.


And the 1995 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J and Ehrman in 2012 still agree with John M Robertson's 1900 deifntion of Christ Myth. You can hem, haw, and tap dance all you want but some of your fellow HJer are using his definition TODAY.

So, what are you talking about when you cite Carrier? Are you talking about a human being who was on earth and was associated with the group which was later led by James in Jerusalem, or are you talking about a mythical celestial god?

If all you are worried about is definitions, why do you cite Carrier's work on a sub-lunar ethereal Jesus?

Personally I would call a Jewish teacher associated with John the Baptist, James and the gang in Jerusalem, the HJ. Whether or not any of his original teachings made it into the NT canon is another question.

 

[maximara]

So, what are you talking about when you cite Carrier? Are you talking about a human being who was on earth and was associated with the group which was later led by James in Jerusalem, or are you talking about a mythical celestial god?

As I explained before you could have both be true and still have a "Jesus Myth" per Pro-HJer Walsh's definition:

[W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory. - George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History, New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998, p. 58

1) Say Paul (or someone before Paul) imagined a mythical celestial god Jesus c 31 CE (earliest date I have seen for his conversion) and starts preaching.

2) Somebody in Judea inspired by Paul takes up the name "Jesus" sometime between 32-36 and tries to take what Paul is preaching in his own direction and is either killed by the local officials for his troubles or looses support and fades into obscurity. In any case his particular variant disappears with him.

3) A splinter sect takes Paul's writings and the vague reports of his inspired preacher and uses them to write the Gospels putting their beliefs in his mouth. The then gloss over any inconsistencies with a lot of doubletalk.

While it doesn't meet Carrier's definition of Christ Myth it does meet his definition of "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" ie his ahistorical position. Note that also fails Carrier's three criteria for a HJ and meets both Walsh's and Ehrman's definitions of Christ Myth.

Remember:

1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death

2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities

3) This is the same Jesus some of whose follower soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

"If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true."

Here Carrier leaves the option open for other Jesus Myth theories besides his own. All said Jesus Myth must do to be called such is fail at least one of these criteria.

Personally I would call a Jewish teacher associated with John the Baptist, James and the gang in Jerusalem, the HJ. Whether or not any of his original teachings made it into the NT canon is another question.

Remember how broad Carrier's HJ can be:

But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade then Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite)[61] … My point at present is that even if we proved proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been Because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped."

 

[Brainache]

As I explained before you could have both be true and still have a "Jesus Myth" per Pro-HJer Walsh's definition:

[W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory. - George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History, New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998, p. 58

So now you agree with me? If you agree with what Walsh is saying there, you agree with me: " we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. ...The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory"

Carrier's MJ is myth from start to finish, no human Jesus at all. So I'm not sure what you point is here, unless you are trying for a false equivalence between Carrier's MJ and the old 1910 version of MJ that you keep dragging out.

1) Say Paul (or someone before Paul) imagined a mythical celestial god Jesus c 31 CE (earliest date I have seen for his conversion) and starts preaching.

2) Somebody in Judea inspired by Paul takes up the name "Jesus" sometime between 32-36 and tries to take what Paul is preaching in his own direction and is either killed by the local officials for his troubles or looses support and fades into obscurity. In any case his particular variant disappears with him.

3) A splinter sect takes Paul's writings and the vague reports of his inspired preacher and uses them to write the Gospels putting their beliefs in his mouth. The then gloss over any inconsistencies with a lot of doubletalk.

While it doesn't meet Carrier's definition of Christ Myth it does meet his definition of "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" ie his ahistorical position. Note that also fails Carrier's three criteria for a HJ and meets both Walsh's and Ehrman's definitions of Christ Myth.

Unless someone is actually arguing for this version of "Jesus", I can't see the point in this.

Remember:

1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death

2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities

3) This is the same Jesus some of whose follower soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

"If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true."

And for Carrier's myth Jesus, all of those things have to be false.

Remember how broad Carrier's HJ can be:

But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade then Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite)[61] … My point at present is that even if we proved proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been Because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped."

OK, but Carrier is arguing that such a person didn't exist. So, once again your point eludes me. AFAIK we aren't arguing about Carrier's Historical Jesus...

 

[Craig B]

"But the effect of the documentary analysis which Strauss failed to make is to leave us no grounds whatever for ascribing any teaching in particular to any one teacher called Jesus; though it is historically possible, and not very unlikely, that there were several Jesuses who claimed to be Messiahs. What is certain, a priori and a posteriori, is that the gospels are no less absolutely untrustworthy as accounts of any man's teaching than as accounts of any man's deeds, because they gathered up both kinds of statement in the same way." - John M Robertson (1910) Christianity and Mythology

That's what I stated. Lack of evidence is cited, and not unreasonably so, by these earlier authors. This in no way corresponds to Carrier's positive sublunar scenario.

Even Remsburg, while the darling of many of armchair Christ Myther on the internet was actually a Pro-HJer, was saying any evidence of the Gospels Jesus (even stripped of all the supernatural stuff) was effectively nil.

That's what I stated. Lack of evidence is cited, and not unreasonably so, by these earlier authors. This in no way corresponds to Carrier's positive sublunar scenario.

 

[IanS]

I think there was a HJ. I also think that the gospel stories are quite likely based on a conflation of more than one person (plus a fair bit of invention, OT "Prophecy" and sectarian propaganda).

As I pointed out before that position would be MJ:

* The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a human being]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded - John Robertson 1900; Archibald Robertson 1946.

In fact, if you go to the classic Christ Mythers like Drews and John M. Robertson and read them directly you find out they were NOT saying Jesus didn't exist as a human being but rather that the trail from Gospel to Man goes nowhere:

"In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. (...) If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." - Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth

That's not entirely unreasonable. But it's not what Carrier says.

It is quite clear from what you have just stated that these earlier mythicists accepted that Paul and others believed that Jesus was a human being recently alive on earth - whether that supposition is justified or not. (I think it is.)

Here, however, is an account of Carrier's very different views.

Quote:
Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 33: Carrier's Minimal Mythical Jesus:
"1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspi*ration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).
That all five propositions are true shall be my minimal Jesus myth theory".

As I have been stating for years on these threads, there are two kinds of "myth" scenarios. One states: we don't have much evidence for Jesus, so he was probably a myth (in the loose sense of a non-existent person). I have much sympathy for that. The evidence is indeed sparse.

But the other myth scenario is as stated by Carrier, and such theories require to be substantiated by evidence. There is absolutely none supporting these speculations; they contradict plain statements by Paul - and the Gospels, which stress the physicality of Jesus.

Now, we must not permit ourselves to mix these things up in a "bait and switch" scam. Is the mythicism of Drews and Robertson reasonable? Well yes of course. That means Carrier must be reasonable, because he's a mythicist too? No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Casual readers here (e.g. non-posters) should notice that in the above the two HJ posters are in fact both accepting versions of what are in fact myth theories of Jesus!

And just to be absolutelyclear about something - neither I, nor I think Max, have ever said that we are particularly endorsing the specific myth theory set out by Doherty and Carrier re. a sub-lunar death of Jesus.

All that I have said about the books by Carrier and Doherty, is that those authors do give a fully referenced and very detailed explanation of why in the 1st century religious fanatics like Paul did actually believe that the gods and their agents (such as angels and spirits), acted through various layers of heaven above the earth. That's not the highly implausible belief that many uninformed people might imagine today. At the time it seems it was the commonplace belief.

And what is certainly true, and very clearly explained by Carrier in his recent book, is that Paul's letters only ever describe a spiritual Jesus known to Paul and the 500+ "witnesses" he describes. There is no description of any human Jesus as far as Paul's letters are concerned. And we should not need to stress again why the gospels could never be regarded as a reliable source of historical fact about a miraculous Jesus figure who was completely unknown to any of those anonymous authors.

As I said right at the very start of these threads - there is actually no credible evidence of Jesus anywhere in any of that biblical writing. Instead the evidence there is entirely evidence of peoples religious beliefs drawn from OT scripture and from faith placed in divine heavenly revelations claimed by people like Paul.

 

[maximara]

Unless someone is actually arguing for this version of "Jesus", I can't see the point in this.

As I have pointed out before (and you obviously were NOT paying attention) this is a variant of Christ Mythers John M Robertson and G A Wells ala Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend which the condenses is are Christ myth books. (Carrier is the only one to call both ahistorical books)

One of Robertson's idea is that said messiah could have been be inspired by Paul's writings. But as I pointed out Paul as supposedly running around preaching for 20 years before that so why stop at writings and not go with teachings?

GA Wells as been presenting mythic Jesus of Paul + preacher named Jesus who was NOT crucified in 1st century = Gospel Jesus. He leaves the option open that this later preacher Jesus was inspired by Paul. This fits Walsh's and Robertson's definitions of Christ Myth regardless.

 

[dejudge]

That's right dejudge. In the Christian belief system they worship a god who became a man. A man who they believe walked around and talked to people, ate bread, drank wine and made a promise to his followers to come back and destroy evil forever...

You made up that story. You have laid the truth aside. You have MUTILATED the NT.

Why can't you even repeat what is written in the Christian Canon?

The Christian Bible says their Jesus was BORN of a Ghost and was God from the beginning.

The Jesus character as described by the Christian Bible was a myth.

Or it was all invented centuries later by lying hoax forgers a long way away for no intelligible reason?

You have fabricated stories about Jesus and Paul WITHOUT evidence. You accuse ancient Christian writers of Lying yet you yourself argue that Jesus was a mere man.

You have mis-represented the NT.

Jesus was GOD from the beginning and born of a Ghost in the Christian Bible.

The Jesus of the NT matches mythology and fiction.

You accuse ancient Christians of Lying but you fabricated a story that Paul was an Herodian.

You have laid the truth aside.

In the NT, Paul was a Jew.

 

[IanS]

That's what I stated. Lack of evidence is cited, and not unreasonably so, by these earlier authors. This in no way corresponds to Carrier's positive sublunar scenario.

Well what on earth do you think your opponents here have been saying since page one of these HJ threads???

I must have said to you at least 100 times here that the problem is that there really is no evidence at all of a human Jesus known to anyone at all in the biblical writing.

There is a complete lack of any evidence.

What is claimed as evidence of a human Jesus, is actually only ever evidence of peoples 1st century fanatical religious beliefs in the gospels and letters of the bible.

You may want to say that a "lack of evidence" does not mean zero evidence of Jesus? But in this case it certainly does mean zero evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone. Because neither Paul's letters nor the gospels even attempt to claim that those authors had ever known any human Jesus. And if they did not know any human Jesus then they could only be relying on what earlier unknown people had told them about Jesus beliefs ... but no such earlier people ever wrote to say any such thing! So the entire chain of belief is just that ... it consists completely of a chain of belief without evidence of anyone at all ever saying they had met Jesus!

 

[dejudge]

And what is certainly true, and very clearly explained by Carrier in his recent book, is that Paul's letters only ever describe a spiritual Jesus known to Paul and the 500+ "witnesses" he describes. There is no description of any human Jesus as far as Paul's letters are concerned. And we should not need to stress again why the gospels could never be regarded as a reliable source of historical fact about a miraculous Jesus figure who was completely unknown to any of those anonymous authors.

Please stop repeating people's opinion and REPEAT EXACTLY what is written in the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus is in AGREEMENT with the teachings of the CHURCH which Canonised the very Epistles.

The Pauline Corpus is NOT in agreement with the MORDERN Heresies of Bart Ehrman, Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier.

The Pauline Corpus does NOT teach the Blasphemy that Jesus of Nazareth was a mere man as claimed by Bart Ehrman and does not teach the MYTHOLOGY that Jesus ONLY existed in the Sublunar as propagated by Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier.

The Pauline Corpus TEACHES that Jesus was the LORD from heaven, God's Own Son, God Creator who was Crucified by the Jews.

The Pauline Corpus claims Paul was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Why is it so difficult to repeat the EVIDENCE form antiquity instead of Modern Heresies?

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 Thessalonians 2....ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men


Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

1 Corinthians 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

The Jesus of the Pauline Corpus is GOD INCARNATE.

The Jesus of the Pauline Corpus MATCHES Mythology and Fiction.

There is absolutely no need to FABRICATE the Modern Heresies that the Pauline Jesus was a mere man or existed in the sub-lunar.

Ancient Christian writer EXPLAINED their story of THEIR Jesus, God INCARNATE.

God came down from heaven, became INCARNATE by the Virgin and was KILLED by Jews and it was for that reason why the Temple of their God and Jerusalem was destroyed and made desolate.

There is ABSOLUTELY no need to fabricate Modern Fiction stories/heresies of Jesus and Paul.

Hippolytus "Treatise Against the Jews"

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?...... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

Lactantius "How the Persecutors Died"

I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.

The Jesus of the NT [God Incarnate] is myth/fiction.

The NT supports the Propaganda that the Jewish Temple Fell because the JEWS KILLED GOD INCARNATE.

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline Corpus is NOT in agreement with the MORDERN Heresies of Bart Ehrman, Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier.

The Pauline Corpus does NOT teach the Blasphemy that Jesus of Nazareth was a mere man as claimed by Bart Ehrman and does not teach the MYTHOLOGY that Jesus ONLY existed in the Sublunar as propagated by Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier.

I'm very sorry that contributors here are disturbing you with their impious remarks which are replete with the most obnoxious heresy and blasphemy.

As an undeviating follower of the True Doctrine of Holy Mother Church, I think you should pay for Masses to be said so that the Blessed Virgin may visit these heresiarchs and blasphemers in a vision, causing the miscreants to repent their errors, and to inspire in them a firm purpose of amendment, so that they may attain Salvation through True Belief and Obedience to the Infallible Church.

 

[dejudge]

I'm very sorry that contributors here are disturbing you with their impious remarks which are replete with the most obnoxious heresy and blasphemy.

I am sorry that you fabricate fiction stories of Jesus and Paul which are not found in writings of antiquity.

You admit the NT contains fiction stories of Jesus but still invent your own fictitious events from your imagination.

Who are you trying to bamboozle?? Who are you trying to impress with your imaginative fiction?

The NT states Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father and was God Creator yet you are propagating the ridiculous un-evidenced nonsense that Jesus of the NT had a human father and do so using the same discredited Christian Bible.

 

[Craig B]

I The NT states Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father and was God Creator yet you are propagating the ridiculous un-evidenced nonsense that Jesus of the NT had a human father and do so using the same discredited Christian Bible.

It also says he had a human father dejudge, but I know that you are a devotee of the Infallible Teaching of the Holy Church, which forbade ordinary people to read the Bible. So if the Church states Jesus was born of a Ghost, then one must not "propagate the unevidenced nonsense" that Jesus had a human father.

Did the Blessed Virgin Mary tell you this? If so you must believe it, so that she may intercede with her divine Son, that he shorten your sojourn in the cleansing fires of Purgatory, and admit you to the Beatific Vision as soon as possible.

 

[dejudge]

It also says he had a human father dejudge, but I know that you are a devotee of the Infallible Teaching of the Holy Church, which forbade ordinary people to read the Bible. So if the Church states Jesus was born of a Ghost, then one must not "propagate the unevidenced nonsense" that Jesus had a human father.

Stop writing fiction!!! You are a devotee of your own imaginative fiction. You state Jesus had a human father which is UN-EVIDENCED nonsense.

We have "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Refutation Against ALL Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

The claim that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary was a known established LIE

Why are you repeating the same LIE and do so WITHOUT evidence??

You can't bamboozle anyone with your fiction stories of Jesus and Paul which are NOT found in or out the Bible.