The Historical Jesus II

[maximara]

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.

You have that right though I am endorsing Carrier's criteria for the minimal historical Jesus.

"Despite countless variations (including a still-rampant obsession with indemonstrable astrological theories of Gospel interpretations that you won't find much sympathy for here), the basic thesis of every competent mythologist, then and now, has always been that Jesus was originally a god just like any other god (properly speaking, a demigod in pagan terms; an archangel in Jewish terms; in either sense, a deity), who was later historicized, just as many other gods where..." - OHJ 52

So of the many people labeled "mythologist" over the decades who does NOT fit Carrier's criteria?

Well obviously Frazer and Remsburg don't (they both say Jesus was originally a human being).

John M Robertson expressly states that the myth theory denies 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 so he is out as a mythologist as Carrier is using the term though everybody else insists on calling John M Robertson a "mythologist".

Since both Mead and Allegro were arguing that Jesus was based on a figure in the 1st century BCE they are also out as "mythologists".

George A Wells in Jesus Legend page 19 spells out that in his earlier works he left open the question of if Paul's Jesus was a figure "who had lived well before his own day" ie legendary or a mythical creation. Because of this Carrier labels Wells' The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988) and Who Was Jesus? (1989) as "Defending Ahistoricity" in his 30 May 2006
Stanford Did Jesus Even Exist? so he isn't a mythologists (though about everybody else seems to think he is)

Robert M Price with his Jesus agnosticism definitely doesn't qualify per Carrier's definition above even though again everybody else considers Price a mythologist.

So what can we get from all this? Well, Carrier actually has three categories in his book: Minimal Historical Jesus, "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" aka the Ahistorcial Jesus, and finally his Minimal Mythical Jesus.

If you look at Chapter 12 of OHJ either Carrier or the editor dropped the ball slightly in that it says since the chance for Jesus existing is 0% to 33% then minimal mythicism is true about 67% to 100%.

As I have pointed out you can mix parts of Carrier's Minimal Historical Jesus and his Minimal Mythical Jesus so that you can formulate a Jesus that fails both ie you get a Jesus who is neither Minimal Historical nor Minimal Mythical but rather a Jesus that is 'not historical in any pertinent sense'.

 

[Craig B]

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.

So now you are saying that things that are not in Irenaeus and Hippolytus are lies and heresies.

Is that because these are Saints, and you want them to intercede with the Holy Spirit to ensure your salvation? That is very wise, especially if you have committed many sins.

 

[dejudge]

So now you are saying that things that are not in Irenaeus and Hippolytus are lies and heresies.

You are saying things which are NOT found in writings of antiquity. You are making FALSE UNEVIDENCED statements.

I am sorry!!! I cannot accept your imaginative fiction.

You have no idea how history is done.

The existing manuscripts with the Jesus story claim he was born of a Ghost and God Creator.

I argue that Jesus in the existing manuscripts was a figure of mythology and fiction UNTIL historical data is found.

You invent imaginative fiction stories and argue that your imaginative Jesus existed in the time of Pilate.

What baseless imaginative nonsense!!!!

The HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument because it is based DIRECTLY on imaginative fiction and UNEVIDENCED ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[Craig B]

You are saying things which are NOT found in writings of antiquity. You are making FALSE UNEVIDENCED statements ... imaginative fiction and UNEVIDENCED ASSUMPTIONS.

The NT contains statements to the effect that Jesus was the son of Joseph. You are saying this is unevidenced, but other statements that he was begotten of the Holy Ghost are evidenced! How very odd.

The same collection of sources contains material suggesting a normal parentage for Jesus, and other material suggesting a supernatural miraculous generation.

So which should we believe? You say: believe the crazy stuff!

That's very strange.

 

[IanS]

The NT contains statements to the effect that Jesus was the son of Joseph. You are saying this is unevidenced, but other statements that he was begotten of the Holy Ghost are evidenced! How very odd.

The same collection of sources contains material suggesting a normal parentage for Jesus, and other material suggesting a supernatural miraculous generation.

So which should we believe? You say: believe the crazy stuff!

That's very strange.

It doesn't matter what you think dejudge believes about ghosts. What matters is only the known and relevant reliable evidence of what was written in the gospels and letters of the bible as the only known or claimed "primary source" ... the bible is supposed to be that primary source of all mention of Jesus as the messiah. Outside of that bible, none of the non-biblical writers were in a position to write anything more than unevidenced hearsay (very late anonymous copyist hearsay in fact).

But the bible is not a credible source of reliable evidence for any of it's authors ever knowing anything about Jesus.

That is actually your only source of evidence and the entire basis of your Jesus belief ... you believe it because of what is written in the bible.

The bible is just about as far from a reliable source as it's possible to imagine. Nobody in their right mind could seriously claim that the bible is a credible source.

Your belief in Jesus comes to you despite a complete lack of any evidence for him. And that is really not a credible objective basis upon which to profess Jesus belief (instead it’s a faith position of belief without evidence).

 

[dejudge]

The NT contains statements to the effect that Jesus was the son of Joseph. You are saying this is unevidenced, but other statements that he was begotten of the Holy Ghost are evidenced! How very odd.

You write blatant falsehood. You have LAID the truth aside.

The very stories that mentioned Joseph claimed Jesus was born of a HOLY GHOST and a VIRGIN or was GOD Creator from the beginning.

Stop your fiction.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:20--- But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Joseph is NOT the father of Jesus in the NT.

Stop your fallacies.

Joseph married Mary AFTER she was found WITH CHILD by the Ghost in the NT.

You are a fiction writer.

The very Church which Canonised the Gospels argued that Jesus was NOT the son of Joseph.

Examine "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

The historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was an established LIE since the 2nd century.

 

[dejudge]

So which should we believe? You say: believe the crazy stuff!

That's very strange.

You are a fiction writer. I never said "believe the crazy stuff". You display intellectual dishonesty.

It is who use the very Christian Bible with Crazy stuff for history.

I have ONLY exposed YOUR discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems, fiction, falsehood, fallacies and UN-EVIDENCE claims about Jesus and Paul.

You want me to believe your 21st century imaginative un-evidenced FICTION about Jesus and Paul because the NT is not credible!!!

I already told you that I argue that the NT is a product of forgery, false attribution, fiction, fallacies, and falsehood.

I REJECT your imaginative fiction and the ENTIRE NT story of Jesus [from conception to ascension] .

You argue that Jesus was a figure of history because you don't accept that the NT Jesus story is ALL CRAZY stuff.

You believe the CRAZY stuff about Jesus in the NT is riddled with history.

 

[Brainache]

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!

What Craig and I accept is the consensus of modern Scholars on the HJ. Now you are finally realising that modern scholarship is not about accepting the literal truth of the gospels, maybe you'll try to understand what it actually is and how it reaches the conclusion it does...

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.

Could have fooled me... You use a lot of the exact same arguments that those guys use to make their case for the sub-lunar Jesus. Must just be a coincidence that you now appear to be distancing yourself from the idea that Paul taught that god built Jesus from tubs of David's sperm up in the sky...

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.

Unfortunately for Carrier, the central point of a belief in a Jesus who never existed on earth, is a form of belief for which there is no evidence. I have no doubt that some people believed in Angels and whatnot who lived in heaven, but the whole point of being "The Christ" was living down here on earth amongst mortal men.

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.

Well, we've already shown that Carrier is wrong about that spiritual Jesus, so I don't know why you still believe him. The heavenly Davidic tubs of spunk from which god created a spiritual Messiah is the result of Carrier really twisting Paul's words way out of any sensible interpretation.

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.

And what we've been telling you is that you don't understand what counts as evidence in the context of ancient history. You keep looking for a particular statement by a "credible" source claiming to have met Jesus. You should be looking at the critical textual analysis the vast majority of Historians use to arrive at the conclusion that a HJ is the most probable solution.

 

[tsig]

No, Carrier isn't in the right. At the very least he is misrepresenting the text.

"genomenos" of the "spermatos" of David... Was Paul saying that jesus was literally built from David's sperm? What bollocks!

http://biblehub.com/greek/spermatos_4690.htm

Here is a list of where "spermatos" appears in the NT:


Just taking this one example:
"Romans 11:1 N-GNS
GRK: εἰμί ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ φυλῆς
NAS: an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,
KJV: of the seed of Abraham,
INT: am of [the] seed of Abraham of [the] tribe"

That is Paul describing himself. Is he saying that he wasn't a human being on earth?

As for why there is only CraigB and I left on the HJ side of this debate, I can't say for sure, but it might have something to do with the kind of dishonesty on display in the last few posts from the MJ crowd. I might also point out that there are only two MJ posters left ( I don't count dejudge, he's not debating anyone).

Wrong again.

 

[Brainache]

Wrong again.

OK.

What devastating new perspective will you be bringing to the debate? Can you fill us in on all the Jewish religious traditions relating to heavenly Davidic sperm banks?

 

[Navigator]

For me it's a hobby. I'm interested in that period of history. I've read a few books about it, but I'm not exactly an expert.

Like any era of history, it attracts revisionists and fringe theorists, some of whom display profound ignorance of the subject, but that doesn't stop them from pontificating about it. I find that kind of thing annoying.

Some people might say my previous paragraph applies as much to me as anyone, because I'm also a fan of a fringe theory, but I try to keep my skeptical hat on and assess arguments based on merit, rather than any ideological bias.

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).

I think that a lot of MJ proponents are motivated by an anti-christian bias and some of them seem to think that the MJ idea will somehow bring about the downfall of Christianity. Personally I don't see how it could, because no practising Christian could accept the MJ idea in the first place. The only people who would accept the MJ are people who have already left the religion. I also think the MJ arguments of people like Richard Carrier are unconvincing.

I hope that answers your question. Maybe next you could go to one of the many "Bigfoot" or "Psychics" threads and ask people there why they take those things seriously...

Thanks for taking the time to answer my Question Brainache.

I asked because I am interested in the subject of Jesus. I am not interested in the subject of Bigfoot or psychics, so I suppose that being interested in something means one has to attach at least a smidgen of seriousness to it.

I also asked because I don’t have a problem with questions related to HJ or MJ or see any particular reason for conflict in either position.

Whether Jesus is H or M doesn’t matter to me. I take from the character referenced in the bible anything I regard as self helpful and non contradictory and leave the rest on the plate, untouched...or maybe played with and poked at, but not consumed.

I would do the same with that which is referenced or suspected or believed as being spoken of by Jesus from other sources as well.

I wouldn’t call myself a Christian, even that I take ideas attributed to being said by Jesus and apply these to my own life.

Perhaps all forms of Christianity will eventually fade from being influential institutions, but I don’t think the ideas on love and helping one another and other influential positive things like these will fade along with it.

I think that barring some incident outside the direct control of humanity, good and bad things humans do will continue to clash and conflict with neither side being able to completely eradicate the other.

Once again, thank you for your reply to my question.

Cheers

Navigator.

 

[tsig]

Wrong again.

OK.

What devastating new perspective will you be bringing to the debate? Can you fill us in on all the Jewish religious traditions relating to heavenly Davidic sperm banks?

Odd, I don't see anywhere in those two words any claims to heavenly knowledge besides you know that Jesus was real even though there was more than one of him and that the gospels are true if you just interpret them right.

Who am I to disrupt such a perfect faith.

 

[Brainache]

Odd, I don't see anywhere in those two words any claims to heavenly knowledge besides you know that Jesus was real even though there was more than one of him and that the gospels are true if you just interpret them right.

Who am I to disrupt such a perfect faith.

What on earth are you talking about?

Who says the gospels are true?

I happen to think that Jesus was one of the many Apocalyptic Jewish Messiah claimants in 1st century Palestine. There's nothing supernatural or magical about that, no faith required, just an understanding of the historical and cultural context.

Unlike Carrier's myth Jesus manufactured from David's sperm in the sky...

 

[Peregrinus]

"Who am I to disrupt such a perfect faith."

There never was such, even unto Day One.

 

[tsig]

What on earth are you talking about?

Who says the gospels are true?

I happen to think that Jesus was one of the many Apocalyptic Jewish Messiah claimants in 1st century Palestine. There's nothing supernatural or magical about that, no faith required, just an understanding of the historical and cultural context.

Unlike Carrier's myth Jesus manufactured from David's sperm in the sky...

If you don't think there is some truth in the bible then what do you hang your HJ on?

I am not Carrier so if you want to talk sperm with him you will have to seek elsewhere.

 

[Brainache]

If you don't think there is some truth in the bible then what do you hang your HJ on?

I am not Carrier so if you want to talk sperm with him you will have to seek elsewhere.

Well, since the post of mine that you quoted when you rejoined the debate concerned Carrier's interpretation of the phrase "made of the seed of David", I had hoped you might have something germane to add to the discussion.

I've also just told you that I base my understanding of the HJ on the historical and cultural context of 1st century Palestine. The bible is only a small part of that and the "gospels" only a small part of the bible.

Do you have anything apart from snark to add to this discussion?

 

[dejudge]

I've also just told you that I base my understanding of the HJ on the historical and cultural context of 1st century Palestine. The bible is only a small part of that and the "gospels" only a small part of the bible.

Do you have anything apart from snark to add to this discussion?

Your statement is fallacious. The Christian Bible is the MAIN source for the HJ argument.

We know the history of the quest for an HJ.

You can't bamboozle anyone with your fiction.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

There is no physical or archeological evidence for Jesus, and all the sources we have are documentary.

The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.

The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted

Your posts are now completely useless. They are void of veracity and evidence for an HJ.

 

[Craig B]

If you don't think there is some truth in the bible then what do you hang your HJ on?

What on earth are you talking about? As we have shown, there is no unitary source called "the bible" but a collection of works, and even individual passages may be composite. Some of the statements it contains may be true.

Traditionalist Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and all of it is true. But that doesn't mean that atheists have to say that every word in all of these books is necessarily false. Mythical histories and doctrinal works may on occasion be able to provide useful data.

 

[IanS]

What on earth are you talking about? As we have shown, there is no unitary source called "the bible" but a collection of works, and even individual passages may be composite. Some of the statements it contains may be true.

Well which parts of any of those biblical works are you saying is true about Jesus?

 

[maximara]

Unfortunately for Carrier, the central point of a belief in a Jesus who never existed on earth, is a form of belief for which there is no evidence. I have no doubt that some people believed in Angels and whatnot who lived in heaven, but the whole point of being "The Christ" was living down here on earth amongst mortal men.

As I have pointed out before in post 2829 and again in post 3456 there is "no evidence" that the Euhemeric view of history regarding the various gods and heroes was wrong either.

Remember both Herodotus and Euhemerus stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king (Euhemerus said he was buried on Crete), Plutarch (c46 – 120 CE) as seeking to pin "Osiris down as an ancient king of Egypt", and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos


"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." - Justin Martyr, First Apology 21:30

"Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves" - Clement of Alexandria (d 217 CE) Cohortatio ad gentes

Remember that the demi-god heroes (and some of the gods themselves) of Greek and Roman mythology had adventures on Earth. So should we believe as the ancients did that they had once been living people?

Remember that the death and rebirth of Osiris also happened on Earth so are we to suppose Osiris was once a living person?

Romulus and Remus were born and raised by a she wolf on Earth so are to suppose Romulus and Remus were once living people?

This whole 'Jesus is stated to have interacted with people on Earth therefore was an actual person' idea is silly.

Even Justin Martyr admitted there were all sorts of analogies between Jesus and pagan deities / heroes of classical myth. His out was the Devil and his minons copied it in advance. I wish I was kidding but that is the explanation given.

TimCallahan provided this nice little quote with bolded parts:

The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven. And because in the prophecy of Moses it had not been expressly intimated whether He who was to come was the Son of God, and whether He would, riding on the foal, remain on earth or ascend into heaven, and because the name of foal could mean either the foal of an ass or the foal of a horse, they, not knowing whether He who was foretold would bring the foal of an ass or of a horse as the sign of His coming, nor whether He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus. And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, Strong as a giant to run his course, they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Æsculapius.

Even Justin Martyr in the 2nd century acknowledged the similarities in the Jesus stories to what became before. Don't see many scholars even acknowledging this fact; I wonder...oh no I don't it would because acknowledging this fact would make the more reasonable Christ Myth theories more plausible.