The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Dejudge's argument is really super simple: if the story speaks of Jesus as having a ghost as a father, then that's that. He can't have a ghost as a father, therefore he didn't exist. Dejudge takes the bible literally, which is hilarious given his accusations toward other posters. It doesn't seem to occur to him that Jesus might have had a human father despite the stories. Why? Well, Christians don't believe that, do they? QED.

The failure of logic there is astounding.

What absolute illogical nonsense you post!!!

Based on your logical fallacies Atheist who REJECT the existence of the God Creator of the Jews as stated in the book of Genesis have taken the Creation story literally.

Based on your absurdities, it has not occurred to Atheists that some one might have created the world.

 

[dejudge]

It is documented in Councils since the 4th century that there was a CONSENSUS in the Roman Empire that Jesus was God of God from heaven.

The documented Consensus in the Roman Empire since the 4th century supports a Myth Jesus--a Jesus of Faith.

There is NO documented Council at any time in the history of mankind in any country where it was conceded that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.

 

[The Greater Fool]

It is documented in Councils since the 4th century that there was a CONSENSUS in the Roman Empire that Jesus was God of God from heaven.

The documented Consensus in the Roman Empire since the 4th century supports a Myth Jesus--a Jesus of Faith.

There is NO documented Council at any time in the history of mankind in any country where it was conceded that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.

Granted. No one concedes that the Jesus of myth has a human father, because the Jesus myth has a spirit father.

By claiming no one believes Jesus had a human father (which is true), you are arguing against... who exactly? This is not a claim that anyone is making.
BUT, historians in their search can only attempt to find the human Jesus. There is no way anyone can determine parentage or demi-godhood. Historians can only look for evidence of a human Jesus as a source (a starting point) for the Jesus myth.

And again, how much of the Jesus myth can you discard and still claim what is found is the same Jesus? Certainly, what historians find is quite different than the Jesus myth. I'm pretty sure historians don't make a claim about Jesus' parentage or demi-godhood, except as a statement of faith.

 

[Joey McGee]

******** baffles brains...

Carrier describes.

Carrier actually agrees with the idea that there is a secular concensus.

... Fincke lays out the reasoning well. He concludes, for example, that until “secular historians…at least become widely divided over” the matter of historicity (emphasis on widely and the minimal benchmark of divided), atheists who are not themselves experts in the field should not be “advocating for one side or the other routinely and prominently.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

So out of one side of your mouth you're telling me he's a great source, but from the other side he's a fool for believing the nonsense a secular consensus amongst historians.

 

[Belz...]

What absolute illogical nonsense you post!!!

Well, yeah, since I posted your own logic and reasoning.

 

[dejudge]

******** baffles brains...Carrier actually agrees with the idea that there is a secular concensus.

Based on your logical fallacies once fiction is believed then it is true.

There has NEVER EVER been a secular CONSENSUS in any country of the whole world that Jesus Christ existed as a human being with a human father in the history of mankind.

There was a CONSENSUS in the Roman Empire since the 4th century that Jesus Christ was God of God from heaven.

 

[Joey McGee]

<snip>

There has NEVER EVER been a secular CONSENSUS in any country of the whole world that Jesus Christ existed as a human being with a human father in the history of mankind.

NEVER EVER? There is a consensus now amongst qualified working historians in the Western world. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go "blah blah blah blah blah" all day long.

There was a CONSENSUS in the Roman Empire since the 4th century that Jesus Christ was God of God from heaven.

I'm pretty sure there's a consensus in the gallery of this thread that you're in your own little world.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0/12

 

[dejudge]

There is a consensus now amongst qualified working historians in the Western world.

Your statement is a well known established fallacy.

There is NO consensus among qualified working historians in the western world that Jesus Christ existed as a mere human being with a human father.

Historians in the Western world do NOT have or ever had the necessary historical data for Jesus Christ to form a consensus.

1. Historians have not ever found any archaeological evidence for Jesus Christ.

2. Historians have NO artifacts from antiquity for Jesus Christ.

3. Historians have no contemporary manuscripts for Jesus Christ.

4. The Dead Sea Scrolls have no historical data for Jesus Christ.

5. There is no documented Council where Historians conceded that Jesus Christ was a mere man with a human father.

6. There is an ON-GOING 300 year QUEST for an HJ which has ended in FAILURE multiple times due to lack of evidence.

Your supposed consensus is a complete fallacy or a product of Chinese Whispers.

 

[Joey McGee]

Well, you've got one thing right, if you keep repeating yourself, and get the last word, you win the argument!

 

[dejudge]

Well, you've got one thing right, if you keep repeating yourself, and get the last word, you win the argument!

I am obligated to expose your un-evidenced fallacies.

I must admit that you did try.

You had no idea that people here observed that you never knew what you were talking about.

It is known already that Historians could NOT have come to a consensus that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father WITHOUT historical data.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is a well known established fallacy.

There is NO consensus among qualified working historians in the western world that Jesus Christ existed as a mere human being with a human father.

Historians in the Western world do NOT have or ever had the necessary historical data for Jesus Christ to form a consensus.

Oh, so not only does a consensus require ALL of them to agree, but their agreement has to be vetted by you?


Wow, dejudge indeed. You're amazing. I wish I could just skip discussion and reason and just go to the conclusion immediately. In fact, I may start to do that, too.

 

[dejudge]

Oh, so not only does a consensus require ALL of them to agree, but their agreement has to be vetted by you?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

consensus ---a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group.

Examine the documented consensus of the Roman Government and Jesus cults.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father.

And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end. (I)

And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, (II) Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The consensus of the Roman Government and Jesus cults is that Jesus was God of God from heaven.

There is no consensus among historians that Jesus was a mere man with a human father since there is NO historical data to support such an agreement.

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Mcreal
Yes, the famous CS Lewis trilemma - 'lunatic', 'liar', or 'Lord' ('mad, bad, or God').

To which some, such as Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli¹, and Bart Ehrman², have added 'legend'.

1 Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Madison, 1994), 161–174.

2 Neely Tucker (2006) The Book of Bart [ie. Misquoting Jesus], The Washington Post

Actually the original version was myth [Both meanings ie. Legend and made up story], madman, or Messiah.

Ebenezer Cobham Brewer in 1874 had this version: "If Jesus Christ was not the true Messiah, He was either a madman, an enthusiast, or a cunning impostor."

The Dublin University Magazine of 1868 had an article called "Christ, Mythical and Real" that also kicked around this myth, madman, or Messiah idea

So the concept predated CS Lewis very birth by decades!

Yes, a lot of this stuff was kicked around in the late 19th century.

I think the 1st and 2nd World Wars, and the interceding Great Depression, put a lot of philosophizing about Religion on the back-foot, and this, and those traumatic events, resulted in a vacuum post-WW2 in which religion flourished.

 

[IanS]

******** baffles brains...Carrier actually agrees with the idea that there is a secular concensus.



So out of one side of your mouth you're telling me he's a great source, but from the other side he's a fool for believing the nonsense a secular consensus amongst historians.

Nope. Completely untrue (again!). I never said Carrier is a great source - please quote where I ever said that. Can you quote it?

Nor did I say anything about Carrier being a "fool" either for believing something you say is "a secular consensus amongst historians", or about him being a "fool" about anything else. Please quote where I ever said he was a fool about anything.

You are just making up your own completely untrue stories all the time.

 

[Joey McGee]

Nope. Completely untrue (again!). I never said Carrier is a great source - please quote where I ever said that. Can you quote it?

Oh please... you're referring me to him, recommending that he might have something interesting to say about the topic. So you didn't say he was a "great source" be honest, you know what I'm trying to say. He's on the other side, and even he clearly believes that there is a secular consensus that is the opposite of his belief. Of course, this is something you can confirm yourself by looking around, hell, even asking some qualified experts yourself. But that would take effort and a willingness to challenge your own viewpoint.

Nor did I say anything about Carrier being a "fool" either for believing something you say is "a secular consensus amongst historians", or about him being a "fool" about anything else. Please quote where I ever said he was a fool about anything.

Don't be such a pedantic bore.

You are just making up your own completely untrue stories all the time.

You said "IOW - you are definitely talking about bible scholars and theologians for 99% of what is being quoted here as coming from "scholars of history"." And this is just something you tell yourself. Akin to 911 debunkers being mostly employed by government agencies, it is a canard. This is something you should listen to Carrier about. One of the very few things...

 

[IanS]

Oh please... you're referring me to him, recommending that he might have something interesting to say about the topic. So you didn't say he was a "great source" be honest, you know what I'm trying to say. He's on the other side, and even he clearly believes that there is a secular consensus that is the opposite of his belief. Of course, this is something you can confirm yourself by looking around, hell, even asking some qualified experts yourself. But that would take effort and a willingness to challenge your own viewpoint.Don't be such a pedantic bore.You said "IOW - you are definitely talking about bible scholars and theologians for 99% of what is being quoted here as coming from "scholars of history"." And this is just something you tell yourself. Akin to 911 debunkers being mostly employed by government agencies, it is a canard. This is something you should listen to Carrier about. One of the very few things...

Sorry, but you are talking complete and utter nonsense. You very specifically accused me of saying that Carrier was a "great source" and that he was at the same time also a "fool" for saying something or other.

Please quote where I ever said either of those two things.

Can you quote me ever saying that or not?

No? Well then you are shown to be pedalling complete untruths here in full view of everyone.

 

[Joey McGee]

Pretty funny.

I'm quite clearly saying that this is how it comes across to me, on one hand you extole the virtues of Carrier's work, while on the other hand tell me that it's only Christian scholars, not secular scholars of history, who hold this view in a consensus position. You reference him all the time.

I'm quoting you here...

In fact to the contrary, we now know, courtesy of exposure in books like those from Wells, Ellegard, Avalos, Carrier ... that quite contrary to there being overwhelming and certain" evidence of Jesus, there is in fact a huge mountain of undeniable evidence showing why the biblical stories of Jesus were certainly untrue.

There it is in plain language. We know because of the work of Carrier. You read his work, you say we know it's untrue because of it, why don't you look into his claim that there is a secular consensus against his position? You're simply being pedantic.

Here's more of you talking up Carrier

According to Richard Carrier in his 2015 book, which is peer reviewed, i.e. checked and agreed by international experts in this field of Jesus historicity,

Whether or not you said those exact words, I think most people reading this know I wasn't claiming you said them, and was simply making a point.

What a horrid waste of time over pedantic nonsense....

Manufacturer of falsehoods was my favorite line in this thread, there's lots more gold here though...

Have fun trying to expose the fraud and crush your opponents arguments everyone!

 

[maximara]

I gotta say I sorta just scanned, but didn't see much to disagree with.

Isn't it the age old issue: How much of the Jesus myth can you discard and still call what you find Jesus?

I'd say too much. Once you remove god or demi-god, what you find is not the Jesus of myth.

But, as I say, I'm no scholar.

Price put it this way:

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs."

Elsewhere he makes this point:

"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time."
"My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction."


Like Robin Hood and King Arthur Jesus effectively gets reimagined for each generation. And if that is true now then this minimal Jesus that the majority are going for (lived in 1st century Palestine, preached something, and was executed for ticking off the locals) is going to be more of an empty vessel.

 

[dejudge]

Albert Schweitzer stated Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any existence.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter20.html

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence.

He will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception.

The abiding and eternal in Jesus is absolutely independent of historical knowledge and can only be understood by contact with His spirit which is still at work in the world. In proportion as we have the Spirit of Jesus we have the true knowledge of Jesus.

Jesus is spiritual and is INDEPENDENT of historical knowledge.

Jesus of Nazareth exist WITHOUT history.

Jesus of Nazareth is mythology.

 

[maximara]

There it is in plain language. We know because of the work of Carrier. You read his work, you say we know it's untrue because of it, why don't you look into his claim that there is a secular consensus against his position? You're simply being pedantic.

Well a large part of that is the Christ Myth theory until Carrier has been this largely 'run these ideas up the flag pole and see which get a salute' thing.

Analogy only goes so far; you still need a mechanic to get from point A to B and quite frankly the Christ Myth theory didn't have a mechanic.

Heck, the Christ Myth theory didn't even have a clear real world example of how it could be plausible until the Malaysian Cargo Cults started to be rigorously studied which didn't happen until the early 1950s.

What the Christ Myth theory even was was (and to some degree still is) an issue. Part of that is that Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis were NOT in agreement regarding the mechanics of the Christ Myth.

Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths while Volney allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated into a mythology that had compiled organically. (Wells, G. A. "Stages of New Testament Criticism," Journal of the History of Ideas, volume 30, issue 2, 1969.)


So from nearly the get go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought: There was no human being being behind the New Testament and confused memories of an obscure historical figure were woven into the mythology.