The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

Dealing with obfuscation - via equivocation, disingenuous commentary, & failure to acknowledge reasonable points - tends to be frustrating.

That's an explanation, not a good justification. And even if it were, what could possibly justify this diatribe against scholars living two centuries ago?

Lastly, in modern times (e.g. the 19th century) some scholars (e.g. religious rationalists) liked the idea so much that they voluntarily swallowed the dupery pill, celebrating euhemerizing as “discovering” the real history of skygods, when in actual fact they well knew they, too, were making it all up. Only they used “speculation is as good as fact” as their excuse, rather than winkingly just outright ********ting everyone as Euhemerus himself originally did. But even then, they were still making it up. And indeed, doing so more in the tradition of Frankfurt-style ********tery: they didn’t even care whether what they were saying was true. It just worked for them. So why not?​

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is bankrupt.

It is most amusing that David Mo is claiming that the LORD Jesus was crucified by the Jews in the Pauline Corpus but seems to have completely forgotten that THE LORD is from heaven, God's own Son and God Creator.

The claim that the LORD from heaven was crucified has no more historical value than the claim that Jesus and Satan were in conversation at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

Please, we already know the Pauline Jesus is a Myth/Fiction character.

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

We know the ORIGIN of the Nomina Sacra IU XU.

The Nomina Sacra IU XU is the LORD from heaven.

 

[Mcreal]

Dealing with obfuscation - via equivocation, disingenuous commentary, & failure to acknowledge reasonable points - tends to be frustrating.

That's an explanation, not a good justification. And even if it were, what could possibly justify this diatribe against scholars living two centuries ago?

Lastly, in modern times (e.g. the 19th century) some scholars (e.g. religious rationalists) liked the idea so much that they voluntarily swallowed the dupery pill, celebrating euhemerizing as “discovering” the real history of skygods, when in actual fact they well knew they, too, were making it all up. Only they used “speculation is as good as fact” as their excuse, rather than winkingly just outright ********ting everyone as Euhemerus himself originally did. But even then, they were still making it up. And indeed, doing so more in the tradition of Frankfurt-style ********tery: they didn’t even care whether what they were saying was true. It just worked for them. So why not?​

The same thing -

Dealing with obfuscation - via equivocation, disingenuous commentary, & failure to acknowledge reasonable points - tends to be frustrating.

- "playing games with words" is equivocation. It's dishonest. False-witness.

... just making up [something] out of nowhere, based on a linguistic convention that doesn’t exist, by selectively choosing which uses of the word to look at and which to ignore. Such anachronistic and over-fastidious use of language is a common Christian apologetics tactic, playing games with words to try and deny things they don’t want to be true, that I expose in OHJ (eg. hyper-defining messiah so messianism didn’t exist before Christianity; hyper-defining resurrection so resurrection didn’t exist outside Judaism; and so on).

 

[Craig B]

The same thing -

- "playing games with words" is equivocation. It's dishonest. False-witness.

People who disagree with Carrier on the topic of Euhemerus are not false witnesses, not players of word games. How can he simply accuse all his opponents, even those dead more than a century, of general dishonesty.

Clearly something is amiss: and that is Carrier's understanding of the issue. It is plain wrong, honest as it may be.

 

[Craig B]

The claim that the LORD from heaven was crucified has no more historical value than the claim that Jesus and Satan were in conversation at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

That's very true dejudge; and that's why the HJ hypothesis contains no such claim.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

... just making up [something] out of nowhere, based on a linguistic convention that doesn’t exist, by selectively choosing which uses of the word to look at and which to ignore.

... Like drawing a parallel between Jesus and Serapis because one had the epithet Christos ans the other Chrestos?

 

[Belz...]

That's very true dejudge; and that's why the HJ hypothesis contains no such claim.

It's incredible that you had to tell him that.

 

[Mcreal]

Here is the normal definition of "Euhemerism".

Euhemerus has become known chiefly for a rationalizing method of interpretation, known as "Euhemerism", which treats ... mythological characters as historical personages, but which were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores ..​

I could probably go with that as I have truncated it.

Here is a description of the meaning Carrier attaches to the term.

To be blunt about the implications in OHJ, if I understand you, ... makes it quite plausible that Jesus was Euhemerized very much as Osiris was. That is to say, the original Jesus was some sort of angel or good-sky-demon, who wasn’t born of a virgin or anyone else, but simply 'lived' where he was created, in outer space near the moon and below where the dome of the sky holds up all the rain. It was there that he 'lived', was 'crucified' by bad demons, died, and was resurrected back to a new sky-body, as equally non-fleshy as Jesus’s original body. And it is possible that this is the only concept of Jesus that had ever existed through the lifetime of Paul.​

No that's not 'Carrier's description'. That's an interpretation by a commentator on Carrier's blog, that I posted here today, modified with inverted commas, and you have here reproduced that in part from that recent post of mine in this thread. tut tut.

The next part is

"The real kicker of your blog post is the further implication that, some time after Paul and before Mark, or possibly the author of 'Mark' itself, 'He' [had done to Him] as [others previously] did with Osiris. That is, the Christian leader(s) took a sky God and created a Euhemerized Jesus man, set in the Jewish homelands. And this “human Jesus” may have been deliberately created to fool the masses, while the core inner group was allowed to know the secret. The secret was that the real Jesus had never been a man, but was always a pure sky God ....

"The key to Jesus as being Euhemerized is found everywhere in the New Testament where it says it happened “according to the scriptures”. To modern readers, this sounds as if it refers to the four gospels. But to first century people, it clearly meant Old Testament books such as Daniel and Isaiah ..."

So, you have provide False Witness.

Here's Carrier's response -

Richard Carrier says (in reply)
August 1, 2015 at 1:05 pm

"Yep.

'You have sussed every point correctly, IMO.

"Readers should read Elements 13, 14, 15, 29, and 31 in OHJ to see why this is all likely in context. And Chapter 12.3 has the best complete summary.

“So by 120 or 150 a.d., nobody was left who knew that Jesus had been Euhemerized from a sky story."​

"Or, as you also suggest, many were left, but had been marginalized as “heretics” ... Although by then, they would have no way of “knowing for sure” they were correct, and the euhemerizers wrong, since everyone who could tell them was long dead.

"This seems clear from 2 Peter and Irenaeus, both of whom give hints of Christians existing who were insisting the Gospels were just allegories for the cosmic reality (see OHJ, index), but both the forger of 2 Peter and Irenaeus are condemning them as heretics and thus kicking them out and shunning them. This split then became politically dominant ...​

 

[Mcreal]

People who disagree with Carrier on the topic of Euhemerus are not false witnesses, not players of word games.

Not always. They are when they fail to acknowledge the points he repeatedly makes or persistently misrepresent them. As you have done.

 

[Mcreal]

... Like drawing a parallel between Jesus and Serapis because one had the epithet Christos and the other Chrestos?

err, No. You fail to acknowledge several other points I have made; about archaeology; other references to Chrestos, Chrestians, and Christians by several authors, etc.

Perhaps you might like to engage with them ^^^^

eta: and I don't make full parallels. More about the Serapis story contributing to the Christ and Jesus stories.

 

[Craig B]

So, you have provide False Witness.

I have done no such thing. Carrier's commentary on all this is hopelessly muddled. And I didn't ascribe the words to Carrier; I called it "a description of the meaning Carrier attaches to the term." And I think it is not a bad one.

 

[Mcreal]

I have done no such thing ... I didn't ascribe the words to Carrier; I called it "a description of the meaning Carrier attaches to the term." And I think it is not a bad one.

except you 'conveniently' ignored -

"The real kicker of [Carrier's] blog post is the further implication that, some time after Paul and before Mark, or possibly the author of 'Mark' itself, 'He' [had done to Him] as [others previously] did with Osiris. That is, the Christian leader(s) took a sky God and created a Euhemerized Jesus man, set in the Jewish homelands. And this “human Jesus” may have been deliberately created to fool the masses, while the core inner group was allowed to know the secret. The secret was that the real Jesus had never been a man, but was always a pure sky God ....

"The key to Jesus as being Euhemerized is found everywhere in the New Testament where it says it happened “according to the scriptures”. To modern readers, this sounds as if it refers to the four gospels. But to first century people, it clearly meant Old Testament books such as Daniel and Isaiah ..."

Dealing with obfuscation - via equivocation, disingenuous commentary, & failure to acknowledge reasonable points - tends to be frustrating.

 

[Mcreal]

Craig B-grade ... or maybe that should be C-grade ... or beyond

 

[dejudge]

The claim that the LORD from heaven was crucified has no more historical value than the claim that Jesus and Satan were in conversation at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

That's very true dejudge; and that's why the HJ hypothesis contains no such claim.

What absurdity you post!! Again, you present NO historical data for your Dead Obcurity called HJ.


You actually use gMatthew and Galatians 1.19 for the Biology and history of your Dead Obscure HJ.

You are nothing but a modern Euhemerus--a modern mythographer.

You use books of mythology as records of history.

You claim that your DEAD Obscurity is the LORD [KY] in Galatians 1.19.

Your claim that gMatthew and Galatians described the biological family of your dead obscure HJ is no different to the claim by Tacitus that Romulus was the founder of Rome or that Genesis describes the biological family of Adam.

Your Dead Obscure HJ made no sense and was REJECTED since at least 1800 years ago because it was a known pack of lies or historically and theologically barren.

There was NEVER EVER any historical data for your DEAD Obscurity.

The LORD [KU] in the Pauline Corpus is from heaven and the Nomina Sacra IU XU in gMatthew was born of a Ghost.

 

[IanS]

I wasn't beign serious, but simply pointing out that not having much information on a supposedly historical character doesn't mean that said character didn't exist.

In the case of Gilgamesh we have next to nothing about him, except his name in a very old mythical tale, and on a few steles. Yes, historians seem to agree that he probably existed. Perhaps you can take a few minutes to look it up and give me your opinion about this.

Yes of course it's true that a mere lack of information does not mean a historical figure could not have existed.

But that tells you nothing about Jesus.

And really the whole practice of trying to defend Jesus by comparing him to other poorly evidenced figures is bogus.

Those other figures are not Jesus. We know very little about those others figures, they are of absolutely no relevance or interest to anyone, and nobody can be bothered to investigate whether claims made about them are true or not.

But there is no lack of information about Jesus. There's absolutely mountains of information. What's lacking is for any of that information to be credible as evidence showing that this was ever a real person known to anyone.

A lot of the mix-up in these threads seems to be due to people equating "might" have been real with "probably" was real. Of course Jesus might have been real. But that is a million miles away from having any reliable evidence to show that he probably was real.

 

[dejudge]

Yes of course it's true that a mere lack of information does not mean a historical figure could not have existed.

A lack of HISTORICAL DATA for a dead obscure HJ MEANS that it can be argued that DOHJ had NO real existence.

All myth/fiction characters have NO historical data.

The ONLY time it can be argued that Jesus of Nazareth [DOHJ] was a figure of mythology is PRECISELY when there is NO historical data.

Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction UNTIL historical data can be found.

None will ever be found since Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth.

 

[Craig B]

except you 'conveniently' ignored -

Dealing with obfuscation - via equivocation, disingenuous commentary, & failure to acknowledge reasonable points - tends to be frustrating.

More repetition? I suppose it stands in for argument when none is readily to hand.

 

[Craig B]

A lack of HISTORICAL DATA for a dead obscure HJ MEANS that it can be argued that DOHJ had NO real existence.

All myth/fiction characters have NO historical data.

The ONLY time it can be argued that Jesus of Nazareth [DOHJ] was a figure of mythology is PRECISELY when there is NO historical data.

Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction UNTIL historical data can be found.

None will ever be found since Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth.

Mcreal - I take it all back! Now I've seen some real repetition.

 

[Belz...]

Yes of course it's true that a mere lack of information does not mean a historical figure could not have existed.

But that tells you nothing about Jesus.

It doesn't. But that's the thing: there's been quite a bit of argument from ignorance in this thread, and my question about Gilgamesh was meant to address that.

And really the whole practice of trying to defend Jesus by comparing him to other poorly evidenced figures is bogus.

It's not about defending Jesus, but about defending the process and reasoning through which historians draw conclusions.

ETA: Personally I don't give a rat's plague-infected posterior whether Jesus existed or not. It's the process that's important.

Those other figures are not Jesus. We know very little about those others figures, they are of absolutely no relevance or interest to anyone, and nobody can be bothered to investigate whether claims made about them are true or not.

I'm sorry but this is entirely irrelevant, as I've argued before.

A lot of the mix-up in these threads seems to be due to people equating "might" have been real with "probably" was real.

Precisely what Maximara is doing when he mentions John Frum.

 

[dejudge]

A lack of HISTORICAL DATA for a dead obscure HJ MEANS that it can be argued that DOHJ had NO real existence.

All myth/fiction characters have NO historical data.

The ONLY time it can be argued that Jesus of Nazareth [DOHJ] was a figure of mythology is PRECISELY when there is NO historical data.

Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction UNTIL historical data can be found.

None will ever be found since Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth.

Mcreal - I take it all back! Now I've seen some real repetition.

Again, you present NO historical data for your Dead Obscure HJ.