The Historical Jesus III

[IanS]

The previous thread had got rather long so this is a new continuation thread. As always, the split is arbitrary and you are welcome to quote from the previous thread. For reference, Part 1 is HERE and Part II is HERE.

Posted By: Agatha

I didn't read it the first 50 times so that part was irrelevant.

(Btw, I have made no arguments. I've just stated my opinions.)

You did not need to read it 50 times before. And I did not ask you to do any such thing.

I simply told you that we have already been over those same questions 50 times here already. And answered them very fully 50 times before!

Any suggestion that Jesus is supported by no less & no more evidence than other comparable figures in ancient history, and is therefore subject to a double standard whereby sceptics such as me question only Jesus whilst not questioning the existence of people like Pythagoras or Socrates, or Julius Caesar or any of the numerous others that have been compared here to Jesus by HJ posters, is simply wrong ...

... the case of Jesus is not comparable to any of those other figures (for numerous reasons that we have been over here more than 50 times before).

 

[dejudge]

If it is impossible that the God of the Jews existed with human flesh then it is impossible that Jesus of Nazareth existed in human flesh.

Jesus was God of God, a TRANSFIGURER and WATER Walker in the NT.
...
Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument.

No, it's not the worst ARGUMENT, dejudge. You have just written again the worst argument THAT I warned you about and you are not PAYING attention.

Of course, your HJ argument is the very worst.

Your posts are recorded.

Your argue that gMark's Jesus [the TRANSFIGURING WATER WALKER] was human because the Son of God is a "Davidic title".

What absolute nonsense!!!

A TRANSFIGURING WATER WALKER is a MYTH/FICTION character with or without your "Davidic title".

 

[dejudge]

(Btw, I have made no arguments. I've just stated my opinions.)

Fundamentalists are of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source.

Are you not of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for the HJ argument?

You have similar opinions like fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalists??

I am of the opinion that the Christian Bible is chronological and historical garbage and that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character just like the God of the Jews.

 

[Craig B]

Fundamentalists are of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source.

Are you not of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for the HJ argument?

You have similar opinions like fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalists??

I am of the opinion that the Christian Bible is chronological and historical garbage and that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character just like the God of the Jews.

I predicted that Walter Ego would be accused of this

You will be; and your heresy is uttering "arguments that are always trotted out by Christians".

Of course you go much further than that, and accuse him of being a Bible-Thumping Fundie.

 

[maximara]

I have made no such accusations. I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

Put that way the odds are reasonably good but (and this is important part) was that teacher actually the founder of Christianity?

Resmburg who said he felt the evidence was just enough to show Jesus existed as a human being also said "But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written."

Classic Christ Mythers like Drews and John M. Robertson were not saying that a Jesus didn't exist but that connection between such a man and the Gospel version was on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur. You can postulate "historical" origins for them but at the end of the day they is nothing to connect them to a definitive version.

As Archibald Robertson said "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man or perhaps as a composite of actual people]. 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"

Carrier doesn't go quite that far only requiring:

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."

Now "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" doesn't mean that there wasn't a historical Jesus but that like Robin Hood or King Arthur what ever historical core did exist has been obliterated by legend and myth.

Carrier is giving a lot of leeway here:

"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 than Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite) ... My point at present is that even if we 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."

Carrier goes with the Gospels and Acts as they are our most detailed accounts and [supposedly] closest to the "actual" events. If they fail then the search for a HJ is a trip to nowhere.

And fail they do in spectacular fashion.

HansMustermann had an excellent comment in the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread which goes over all the issues with Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

Carrier doesn't go quite that far only requiring: <snip Carrier's requirements> ...
Carrier is giving a lot of leeway here:<snip Carrier's leeway> ...

Thank Carrier for the modesty of his requirements and the generous extent of his leeway.

 

[dejudge]

Carrier goes with the Gospels and Acts as they are our most detailed accounts and [supposedly] closest to the "actual" events. If they fail then the search for a HJ is a trip to nowhere.
And fail they do in spectacular fashion.

The Gospels and Acts are our most detailed accounts of the myth/fiction character called Jesus, the Logos, from conception to ascension.

 

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

[I am] an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

Put that way the odds are reasonably good but (and this is important part) was that teacher actually the founder of Christianity?

No, Christianity was founded after his death by Paul and some of his other followers. We seem to talking about two people here, Jesus the human being and the divine Jesus apotheosized by his followers after his death. I find the former plausible and the latter implausible.

 

[maximara]

No, Christianity was founded after his death by Paul and some of his other followers. We seem to talking about two people here, Jesus the human being and the divine Jesus apotheosized by his followers after his death. I find the former plausible and the latter implausible.

Ah, but that would would qualify as Christ Myth theory per John Robertson (1900), Herbert George Wood (1934), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1982, 1995), and Bart Ehrman (2012). Though it would an ahistorical Jesus and NOT Christ Myth per Carrier's definitions.

And that is the problem.

The Christ myth is MORE then simply Jesus didn't exist as a historical person:

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth." - Remsburg 1909

"But the sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte leads colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." - Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history, MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.] : The University Press pg 40

"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" - Robertson, Archibald (1946) Jesus: Myth or History? regarding John Robertson's 1900 work


"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of [ie NOT the man himself] 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 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, Bart (2012) Did Jesus Exist Harper Collins, , p. 12)


As I have pointed out now, as back in the last year of the 19th century, there are difference definitions of Christ Myth theory which do NOT exclude a historical Jesus.

 

[maximara]

Thank Carrier for the modesty of his requirements and the generous extent of his leeway.

Resmburg was just as generous in 1909 as I have pointed out.

How about dropping the smartass ad hominid on Carrier and deal with the actual points raised?

As I said before much of what Carrier brings to the table is not new.

All Carrier really did was bring actual scholarship and system theory to the Christ myth allowing a hypothesis of how and why it could happen to be formed.

I suspect your smart aleckly dismissal of Carrier is because you have no idea on how system theory even works and have no actual counter arguments. Ironically the Greek with their myth of the fates weaving a tapestry of fate is a close analogy; history is a weave of interacting events (threads) which push events in certain directions.

As Carl Sagan stated in his Cosmos series there were various factors that made the [re]discovery of American around 1500 inevitable. From what we see something like Christianity was going to from given the social-political climate of the 1st century BCE to 2nd century CE.

 

[fuelair]

Fundamentalists are of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source.

Are you not of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for the HJ argument?

You have similar opinions like fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalists??

I am of the opinion that the Christian Bible is chronological and historical garbage and that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character just like the God of the Jews.

That is almost certainly correct - and as the bibble is supposed to be the word of god his daddy is a pretty lousy writer and editor and has a **** memory!!!

 

[maximara]

That is almost certainly correct - and as the bibble is supposed to be the word of god his daddy is a pretty lousy writer and editor and has a **** memory!!!

I am reminded of Yahtzee's comments about Sim Societies:

"It's a idea that many people seem to latch onto, that if we were created by some kind of god, then obviously he did it because he loves us so huggy-muggy-much. Never are the holes in this theory more obvious than while playing god games, because it seems that when you play as most people in the position of a god and give them responsibility over many tiny lesser beings, then their attitude towards them is usually less about beloved children and more about target practice."

Sounds like the OT, doesn't it?

"There isn't enough feedback to let you know you're doing your job properly."

This would go a long way to explaining why the world is one big mess.

Then you have the classic "walled-off bubble society run by an omnipotent cretin"

Didn't the Gnostics believe something along these lines regarding the creator of the world (ie the Demiurge)?

And in the review of Too Human we got this gem:

"The root problem with Christianity is that their God is supposed to be all-powerful and benevolent. It sounds like an easy sell, but when life turns completely to ***** you have to come up with all kinds of wacked-out reasons for why kindly old Jehovah saw fit to run over little Timmy with a combine harvester and leave him in a state of vegetative limbless agony for eighteen years."

 

[Craig B]

How about dropping the smartass ad hominid on Carrier and deal with the actual points raised?

As I said before much of what Carrier brings to the table is not new.

All Carrier really did was bring actual scholarship and system theory to the Christ myth allowing a hypothesis of how and why it could happen to be formed.

I suspect your smart aleckly dismissal of Carrier is because you have no idea on how system theory even works and have no actual counter arguments.

No, my dismissal results from my view that he is hopelessly mistaken. Moreover, expressions like "Carrier is requiring ... " and "Carrier gives leeway ... " strike me as absurdly grandiose.

For the second time, "hominid" is not the right word here. I do not accuse Carrier of being a chimpanzee. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Craig B]

How about dropping the smartass ad hominid on Carrier and deal with the actual points raised?

As I said before much of what Carrier brings to the table is not new.

All Carrier really did was bring actual scholarship and system theory to the Christ myth

How do we know he brought actual scholarship? Because he tells us so

And on that score I would ask that Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? be compared with my latest on the same subject, Proving History. Just compare the extent and content of our endnotes alone, much less the way we argue, the difference in our attention to method and its logical soundness, the diverse range of scholarship we cite. Even my book Not the Impossible Faith is superior on all these measures, and it was a deliberately colloquial book designed to be entertaining. Both undoubtedly have occasional errors (as all scholarly work does)–but I doubt anything even remotely like what I have documented above (in degree, quantity, and cruciality).

Dear God! This is the bloated language of charlatanry.

 

[IanS]

No, Christianity was founded after his death by Paul and some of his other followers.

You present that as if it were a known fact, with no thought of any caution at all.

That seems to be a characteristic feature of most if not all HJ posters in threads like this - they state complete conjecture as if it were certain fact.

What we now call "Christianity" (what they called it in the first century I don't know), need not have been based on anyone called "Yehoshua" ("iesous" = Jesus). The term "Christ" only means an unnamed unspecified messiah, i.e. an anointed special leader (probably endorsed by Yahweh) ... but it would not necessarily signify anyone named "Jesus".

The point of me saying that, is - since at least 1000BC Jewish religion in that region had been certain of the coming of Yahweh's divinely ordained saviour messiah. And since at least the time when the Dead Sea scrolls were written, probably beginning 100-200 years or more before Paul, the writers of the scrolls had believed in a priestly-type preaching messiah sent by Yahweh to warn of imminent apocalypse and the day of judgement ... which is almost exactly what Paul was preaching a century or two later. All these people believed in a saviour Christ or Messiah.

So the only minor mystery in any of that is where Paul got the name "Iesous" (i.e. "Jesus" in middle English language). But we have discussed that before, and iirc it's also discussed in Carriers latest book - there are various passages in the OT from which Paul (or anyone else) might have decided that the prophesised messiah would actually be named "Iesous", i.e. "Yehoshua".

But as for anything else about Jesus, Paul knows nothing at all about him except for what he (Paul) says was discovered in the ancient scriptures and told to him by God as "revelation". Even the idea of death and crucifixion was known to Paul only "according to scripture" ... he says he learned these things "from no man", and "nor was I taught it by anyone", it came to him instead always because "it was revealed to me" where "God was pleased to reveal his son in me", and it was "according to scripture".

We seem to talking about two people here, Jesus the human being and the divine Jesus apotheosized by his followers after his death. I find the former plausible and the latter implausible.

In the biblical writing there is only one Jesus. And that is the supernatural divine son of Yahweh.

As I pointed out before - the so-called HJ, i.e. a normal human preacher of the 1st century, is apparently an idea created by bible scholars and Christians some time around c.1800, in an attempt to counter the growing realisation that the biblical Jesus could not be real ... before that date, almost everyone had believed that Jesus literally did exist as the miraculous supernatural Son of a heavenly God as stated in the bible. A so-called HJ was only proposed when it was finally realised that the biblical Jesus could not have existed.

 

[maximara]

How do we know he brought actual scholarship? Because he tells us so

No because he got it through the proper channels of peer review and an academic publisher.

Again stop using smartass ad hominid attacks and address the points raised.

Or is my assumption that your refusal to do so is because you don't understand system theory correct and you don't have clue one on how to deal with it?

 

[dejudge]

I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

If this counter to the prevailing dogma, you'll just to have me excommunicated as a heretic.

Your belief is just a shortened mutilated version of the 4th century Nicene Creed.

Is this the HJers' Creed?

"We believe, without historical evidence, that Jesus might have existed".

 

[Craig B]

... smartass ad hominid attacks ...

For the second third time, "hominid" is not the right word here. I do not accuse Carrier of being a chimpanzee. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[dejudge]

...As I pointed out before - the so-called HJ, i.e. a normal human preacher of the 1st century, is apparently an idea created by bible scholars and Christians some time around c.1800, in an attempt to counter the growing realisation that the biblical Jesus could not be real ... before that date, almost everyone had believed that Jesus literally did exist as the miraculous supernatural Son of a heavenly God as stated in the bible. A so-called HJ was only proposed when it was finally realised that the biblical Jesus could not have existed.

Your statement is in error.

There were Christians of antiquity who argued that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary and that the Christ [a Spiritual being] ENTERED into Jesus when he baptised by John.

See "Against Heresies" 1 attributed to Irenaeus.

See "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

The claim that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary was a known lie based on writings of antiquity.

Celsus in "True Discourse" claimed Jesus was the son of Pathera and Mary according to Origen in "Against Celsus".

Origen also admitted Jesus was really BORN of a Ghost--NOT Joseph or Panthera.

It is evident that there was no known historical data for Jesus in the NT since Christian themselves argued for HUNDREDS of years that Jesus came down from heaven WITHOUT birth or was a PHANTOM.

The situation has NOT changed for at least 1800 years.

People today STILL BELIEVE Jesus existed WITHOUT any actual historical data just like Aristidies, Cerinthus, Irenaeus, Marcion, Justin, Ignatius, Clement, Celsus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo and other writers of antiquity.

The Roman Government did concede that Jesus was TRULY God of God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin and was God from the beginning.

The fact that the Roman Government conceded that Jesus was God of God suggest there was no historical evidence at all in antiquity up to the 4th century that Jesus was a mere man or that there was no historical data to contradict the stories of Jesus.

If the Roman Government had documented evidence that Jesus was really a mere man who did NOTHING as described in the NT then it would be expected that they would have exterminated the Christian cult.

 

[Craig B]

I would like to comment on this, cited by maximara

"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" - Robertson, Archibald (1946) Jesus: Myth or History? regarding John Robertson's 1900 work

That's quite right, it seems to me, and I have made the point before in the earlier thread. If there existed a

Person named Jesus
Who was an in contact with John the Baptist
Preached and performed exorcisms and healing practices
Was arrested and executed during the governorship of Pilate
And whose followers were those identified by Paul

Then there was a historical Jesus; and if not, there was not.