Belz...
Fiend God
I'm not saying he's right. I'm just clarifying for Craig, who seems to misunderstand Maxi's post.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
I'm not saying he's right. I'm just clarifying for Craig, who seems to misunderstand Maxi's post.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yeah, you just keep proving my earlier point: you are not being objective on this issue. You have a predetermined conclusion and will simply ignore the other side of the topic. That's not skeptical or rational. In fact, it's as bad as any other woo.
Admitted ?
Yeah, you're conflating the myth and its origin.
I don't think anyone has said otherwise. But the question remains: what, in your mind, is the most reasonable and logical explanation for the origin of Christianity, given what we know ?
Only in your mind.
If you can put your pursuit of personalised vendettas aside for a moment (doesn’t seem very likely on current behaviour, but still
) -- apart from the fact that as I’ve explained several times already why that sort of demand is inadmissible in a legal case for the simple reason that it’s a well known tactic designed to dishonestly mislead a jury, it should hardly be beyond the wit of 21st century Man to realise how a mythical messiah could be promulgated.
Firstly - throughout all of history, almost all religions, and especially ancient religions, have always claimed belief in supernatural figureheads who were all most definitely mythical. So Christianity would hardly be unusual for that. In fact it would probably be unique at that time if their religious figureheads, who were invariably believed to be supernatural, were anything other than mythical.
Secondly - it should hardly be beyond the wit of anyone here, to understand that around the time of Paul (say), street preachers, who had in any case since at least 500BC, been absolutely certain that Yahweh’s messiah would appear to save the nation, would read passages in the OT which they believed to mean that the messiah had already been amongst the Jewish people but gone largely rejected and persecuted even unto his death, would begin to preach exactly that.
Thirdly - it would hardly be a surprise if at that time numerous street preachers went around claiming they were the messiah, and some of them may really have believed that they really were the messiah. I’m pretty sure that still happens hundreds of times around the world every day even now in 2013.
Finally - it should be perfectly obvious that at some stage one or more of the street preachers may have come to believe that an earlier preacher who had claimed to be the messiah, or where some other people on the streets had claimed that they believed he was the messiah, then started to say that they thought someone of the past (recent or otherwise) called Yehoshua (ie believed to be the guys name) was believed to be the prophesised messiah who had indeed as per their OT beliefs come and gone largely unnoticed.
The rest of the Yehoshua story as believed by Paul, and then later by g-Mark is, as Randel Helms and others have shown, most definitely taken from what those authors believed to be the prophecies of their OT.
So it should hardly be a surprise if a mythical Yehosha, who bears no resemblance to the biblical Jesus, could very easily come about like that simply from a mixing of what they believed to be known and quite certain messiah descriptions in the OT, and stories and myths that were probably constantly being told for centuries on the streets of Palestine …. the first telling of those reminiscences about someone thought to be named Yehoshua, may or may not ever have been about a real preacher, and may or may not have ever have had the correct name of anyone. But I think it’s fairly obvious that a messiah story could easily arise via street gossip like that at a time of complete ignorance when people were steeped in constant superstitious religious beliefs of what they expected from their OT and it's messiah promises.
I am not of course saying the above is what definitely happened. I’m saying it’s quite obvious that a myth story of a messiah named Yehoshua ("Jesus"), could very easily spring up simply through street gossip amongst fanatical believers in a superstitious age of almost total ignorance. And it should not be beyond the mental capacity of anyone here to see how something like that is blindingly obvious possibility.
And certainly with every other known religion up until that time (and long after), that is precisely how all belief in the gods of every different religion must have surely arisen.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
If you can put your pursuit of personalised vendettas aside for a moment (doesn’t seem very likely on current behaviour, but still
I have no idea what you're talking about. A vendetta ? Against who ? Can you provide evidence of this ?
I'm simply asking you a question, in order to, perhaps, illustrate or understand the difference between both sides of this issue. That you somehow interpret my neutrality in this conversation as a vendetta (against you, presumably) is very telling of your state of mind.
This isn't a court of law. I'm talking about what is the most likely scenario vs having any sort of certainty or a definitive conclusion.
The rest of your post doesn't answer my question at all. If you have no explanation for the birth of Christianity, do you concede that a flesh-and-blood preacher is probably the best answer at this time ?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
...The Spanish Inquisition was in reality run by university lawyers who saw it as a stepping stone to better things. In fact, torture so common in secular prisons of the time was a rarity in the Spanish Inquisition with only 3% of all cases and most of that lasted only 15 minutes. Conditions in secular prisons were so bad that people would blaspheme simply to get into the Spanish Inquisition court!
"Ironically, the Spanish Inquisition worked to stop the second thing most connected with it: the burning of witches. It came in the aftermath of the first and only witchcraft trial in 1610. The Suprema (the ruling counsel) was so displeased with the result that they appointed the one Inquisitor who had disagree with his colleagues, Alonso de Salazar Frías, as head of the investigation of the matter. Salazar's 1613 report spared no one in his criticism regarding the procedure of the tribunal, not even himself. Salazar's detailed examination of witchcraft claims and procedure for verification became the go to book for all future handling of Witchcraft claims by the Spanish Inquisition. In a bit of further irony all witch burnings after this were the result of Inquisitors not following the rules or being unable to stop the locals and the Roman Inquisition made Salazar's procedures part of its handling of witchcraft. (Phillips, Perrott (1978) Out of this world : the illustrated library of the bizarre and extraordinary Volume 23 Phoebus Publishing company pg 10-11; Henningsen, Gustav (1980) The Witches' Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition (1609–1619), Nevada)
In term of people who died to the Spanish Inquisition over the 350 years of its existence the high estimate is 5,000 people." (Spanish Inquisition rationalwiki)
----
If we got it so wrong on these people and organizations which are far more recent how can we say anything is "right" about Jesus?
Thanks, maximara.
I've been aware for some years that the Protestant mythology built around the Inquisition is hopelessly wrong and I'm glad word is finally getting out just how very distorted is the Inquisition's image.
As you say, if even something that's thoroughly documented can be so willfully misunderstood, what can't be imagined with the Gospels, Acts and Paul's Epistles as evidence as prime evidence?
That's right. That's why I choose to listen to the modern experts and not take ancient fairy stories or unfounded speculation seriously.
YMMV
1.
No evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
2.
No evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
3.
No evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
4.
No evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
5.
It is obvious that you have nothing to present to support your Jesus of Nazareth.
The DATA for Jesus of Nazareth perfectly mathches the mythology of the Jews, Greeks and Romans of the 1st century.
The DATA for Jesus is like the myth DATA for Romulus, Perseus and one 'like the son of man' in the book of Daniel.
1. See Plutarch's Romulus---Romulus, when he vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any remnant of his clothes to be seen.
2. See Daniel 7:13 KJV I saw ....... one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven
3. See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho....... it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin...
Jesus of Nazareth is pure unadulterated mythology and fiction invented in the 2nd century.
No evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
2.
No evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
3.
No evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
4.
No evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
5.
It is obvious that you have nothing to present to support your Jesus of Nazareth.
The DATA for Jesus of Nazareth perfectly mathches the mythology of the Jews, Greeks and Romans of the 1st century.
The DATA for Jesus is like the myth DATA for Romulus, Perseus and one 'like the son of man' in the book of Daniel.
1. See Plutarch's Romulus---Romulus, when he vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any remnant of his clothes to be seen.
2. See Daniel 7:13 KJV I saw ....... one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven
3. See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho....... it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin...
Jesus of Nazareth is pure unadulterated mythology and fiction invented in the 2nd century.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You are aware that I was not offering evidence for Jesus because this is not what I was talking to you about, right ? I'm talking to you about your attitude, which shows that you do not actually care about any evidence: your mind is already made up. That's not skepticism. In fact, it's the exact opposite of it. I'm trying to make you realise this, and you try to appear clever instead. Hint: you've succeeded in doing the exact opposite.
"My" Jesus ? Where, exactly, do you think I stand on this issue ?
I don't think you even know what that sentence means.
If you're so sure of this, then why don't you answer my question ? What, in your mind, is the most reasonable and logical explanation for the origin of Christianity, given what we know ?
Last edited:
Again, nothing for Bart's historical Jesus of Nazareth. Don't you have any evidence at all?
You don't know if Jesus of Nazareth existed?? Please state your position and the evidence.
My position is extremely clear and is supported by hundreds of manuscripts---Jesus of Nazareth is exactly as described --a Son of a Ghost--pure mythology.
I am extremely happy that you know what sentences mean.
What does this sentence mean? You must know what it means.
Matthew 1.18 NAS ----Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows : when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
What about this sentence? You know what it means!!
Matthew 1:20 NAS ----But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife ; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
I don't make stuff up. I have a witness from the 2nd century. Aristides will tell you how the Jesus cult of Christians started and what they believed.
You can understand these sentences.
Aristides' Apology-----The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called...........those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.
Aristides just explained it. Jesus was God. Jesus was mythology from the beginning.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Why would I, since I don't espouse the theory that he existed ? I think you're blinded by your bias, and you see enemies in people who disagree on any point with you.
Of course you do. No one on this planet has the expertise or evidence to claim with any degree of certainty or credibility that Jesus existed or not, and yet you're here and you claim to have solved the whole thing. You must be a modern-day Galileo, then. When are you planning to publish your conclusions ?
You must have completely forgotten that your posts are recorded.
In one of your first post on this very thread you admitted that you agree that Jesus was most probably a real person(s).
Examine an exchange between you and Tim Callahan in June 2013.
TimCallahan ------"Personally, I suspect there was a real guy named Jesus upon whom the gospels wee based. That said, about all we can imply from them is that he had a Cynic philosopher's view, which meshed well with his apocalyptic mind set and messianic pretensions. It is also quite possible that Jesus was an amalgam of more than one historical person".
BELZ----"Indeed. And I agree that he was most probably a real person(s). However, I'm curious about your second statement: how do you manage to derive his view ?"
I am afraid I will not be able to accept you as credible unless you now admit your errors.
Yes it killed a few, terrorised many and most of all it plundered. As Pope Sixtus IV complained in 1482
in response to this complaint King Ferdinand effectively accused the Pope of being in the pay of secret Jews, and took charge of the Inquisition himself. The effect, according to Catholic Education, http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html was that
There is a tendency among traditionalist Catholics not merely to argue that the misdeeds of the Inquisition have been greatly exaggerated, which indeed they have, but that it was somehow a benign or even valuable agency, which it was most certainly not.
An explanation has already been presented, several times: John Frum cargo cult.
"The strongest argument for the Jesus myth theory is the John Frum cargo cult.
According to the cult, John Frum was a literate white US serviceman that appeared to the village elders in a vision in the late 1930s. However as early as 1949 there were people saying the "origin of the movement or the cause started more than thirty years ago" ie putting "John Frum" in the 1910s.
However, the closest thing actual recorded history shows is not one but three illiterate natives taking up the name John Frum and being exiled or thrown into jail for the trouble they stirred up in the 1940-1947 period: Manehivi (1940-41), Neloaig (1943, inspired people to build an airstrip), and Iokaeye (1947, preached a new color symbolism)
The John Frum cult caused so many problems that in 1957 there was effort made to prove John Frum didn't exist--it totally failed.
By the 1960s, the natives were carrying around pictures of men they believed to be John Frum. In 2006, when asked why they still believed in his coming after some 60 years of waiting, the Chief said “You Christians have been waiting 2,000 years for Jesus to return to earth, and you haven’t given up hope.”
"Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed. [...] John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all."
Everything the Christian apologists claim couldn't have happened regarding Christianity appears to have happened with the John Frum cargo cult – it evolved from the preexisting beliefs without a clear definitive founder. Moreover in a seven year period we see various believers taking up the mantel of "John Frum" despite being totally difference in terms of literacy, nationality, and race not even a decade later. There is a hint in Paul's own writings (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) that this had happened with Jesus as he warns against other Jesuses other Gospels other then the ones he and his followers were preaching.
Furthermore, as seen with the Prince Philip Movement, there are variants of the cult that connect the mythical John Frum to real living people (Prince Philip is the brother of John Frum in this variant even though Prince Philip has no brothers), something the Christian apologists claim couldn't have happened with Jesus." (Jesus Frum; John Christ section of Jesus myth theory in rationalwiki)
(Note references stripped for ease of reading)
Sure John Frum doesn't match Jesus in lock step but he shows how Christianity could have come about without a real founder.
The 1949 letter shows that the origins of the movement can be held to begin earlier then history records.
The total absence of the three historical "John Frums" from oral tradition show how believers can memory hole anything that doesn't fit their faith.
The making of Prince Philip Movement into the brother of John Frum shows how the supposed founder can be given a veneer of history.
Known contemporary officials mentioned Manehivi, Neloaig, and Iokaeye in their writings and yet of the white literate US serviceman there is nothing. The same rough pattern we see with Jesus.
All the main points of the classic Christ mythers like Drews, Robertson, and Remsburg that the apologists claim could not happen did happen...many years after these people made their claims.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, so ? You must forget that my posts are recorded as well, because I never said I was convinced, nor that the evidence was particularily good. In fact, everyone has agreed that the evidence is terrible.
The question I have repeatedly asked you, and that you've avoided like the plague, is whether you can explain how the religion sprung. You have no clue, which is why you don't want to answer. You'd rather ask me to prove that Jesus existed, even though I already said I was 60-40 in favour of the historical hypothesis only.
You, on the other hand, said you were 100% in favour of the myth, yet somehow you are unable and unwilling to actually commit to this hypothesis and provide an explanation to Christianity that doesn't involve Jesus. You just rant that things support your side without actually showing that it does.
You want to know what I think ? No ? I'll tell you anyway. You, like me, are an atheist. The difference is that you think your atheism hinges on the non-existence of Jesus, as if his existence would somehow validate the religion, which of course it wouldn't. Because of this, you have concluded the Jesus never existed not as a conclusion based on the evidence, but because it works better for you that way. As such any evidence is ignored.
You are not a skeptic, sir. You are doing the exact same thing as the theists who accept Jesus because their religion tells them to.
No evidence for Jesus, you say ? No explanation for the real-life religion, I say.
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, yeah. That's your explanation, but I wanted to know what IanS and Dejudge thought. Both have avoided the question, leading me to conclude that they have no idea how the religion could have started, and are not basing their conclusions on evidence or lack thereof.
However, the rest of your post doesn't go into detail as to how Christianity began, which is what I was interested about. "John Frum" is not a sufficient answer, for me. Of course, you can expect me to call the pro-HJ crowd on their own claims, as I've done numerous times in the past.
I should point out you are omitting what "The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition" page also states:
"The first 15 years of the Spanish Inquisition, under the direction of Torquemada, were the deadliest. Approximately 2,000 conversos were put to the flames. By 1500, however, the hysteria had calmed. Torquemada's successor, the cardinal archbishop of Toledo, Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, worked hard to reform the Inquisition, removing bad apples and reforming procedures. ...
After the reforms, the Spanish Inquisition had very few critics. Staffed by well-educated legal professionals, it was one of the most efficient and compassionate judicial bodies in Europe. No major court in Europe executed fewer people than the Spanish Inquisition."
Remember the reforms started in 1500 but the Battle of Mühlberg happened in 1547 and the infamous A Discovery and plain Declaration of the Sundry Subtill practices of the Holy Inquisition Of Spain in 1567 long after the reforms that made the Spanish Inquisition "one of the most efficient and compassionate judicial bodies in Europe".
In short the "all powerful tyrannical organization composed of sadistic religious zealots answerable to only itself" at best (it was actually answerable to the King not that that made a difference) had stopped existing some 67 years before the Protestant propaganda machine gave the world its little piece of fiction. In modern prospective it would be akin to in 2012 acting as if Germany was still continuing the extermination of Jews in Death camps.
Last edited:
OK, then good. So let’s be sure to keep it like that.
OK, just on that point re. comparison with what is acceptable as demands of a witness in a court of law, and why that is course relevant and analogous here -
- what you are doing here is repeatedly demanding that people who have never claimed that Jesus was a myth, or ever claimed have, or support, any particular myth theory, must be repeatedly demanded to guess at or invent some myth theory for something they are not claiming.
That is an attempt to force someone to present an argument which they are not making, or to guess how something happened when they are not claiming to know how the thing happened.
The same thing happens in a legal court (as explained before), where barristers often “try-it-on” with a witness, asking them to speculate on something. And as I just explained, the law in most democratic countries has spotted that as a disingenuous line of argument/demand, and normally requires the judge to stop that line of questioning, telling the barrister not to pursue that, and telling the witness that he/she must not try to answer that question by guessing or speculating about anything, but only to reply if they are sure they actually know the answer.
As I say, and as should be obvious to you, there are very good reasons why that sort of disingenuous questioning is normally ruled out in legal cases.
But you said “this is not a court of Law” - well nobody here said it was a court a law. What I am saying is that the principle here is the same, and the reason why people should not accede to disingenuous demands like that is exactly the same. Namely - there is absolutely no obligation on me or anyone else here to guess or invent a possible mythical Jesus scenario when they are not claiming any such myth scenario. And I am pointing out to you why exactly that decision has been made in the courts.
The rest of my earlier posts most definitely have answered you very directly on that question and in a very detailed way, as you must very well know. So you could go back and re-read any of those. But just to repeat it for you again, for what must be at least third time in direct reply to you alone -
- the reason we need very good evidence for the existence of Jesus, is because a great deal hangs on it.
Whereas in contrast, for other ancient figures which the HJ side here have proposed, such as Boudicca or Socrates (or virtually anyone in ancient history), if in fact there is only very weak or non-existent evidence that they ever really lived or did any of things claimed of them, then that is of virtually no consequence to anyone alive today. It simply does not matter if Boudicca was mythical. Nobody outside academic historians really cares about it at all. And it would have consequences for the practical daily lives of 99.999% of people alive today.
However, in stark contrast - if the evidence for Jesus is similarly only very weak or in fact non-existent (as appears here to be the case), then that would have dramatic and quite enormous consequences for the credibility of a worldwide Christian Church with all it’s direct influence on western governments, and would thereby most definitely have very significant and direct consequences for the practical day-to-day lives of almost every person on this planet today.
Now you seem to think that is not relevant to the question of whether Jesus was only actually mythical.
You seem to think that if we have only weak evidence for Boudicca (say) and only similarly weak evidence for Jesus, then that is the same situation for both of them, and that we should not be demanding better evidence for Jesus in particular. But if that’s what you/anyone thinks then you are blindingly obviously and very seriously wrong!
Why would you be so wrong if that’s what you think? Answer - because the two cases (Boudicca vs. Jesus) are not remotely the same. One case is of absolutely no consequence or importance to anyone. But the other case (Jesus) is of absolutely huge consequence if the evidence is only very weak or non-existent.
And just to be crystal clear upon why that is true (repeat for 6th time here) -
- if Boudicca has no evidence, then nobody cares. It does not matter. Nothing practical at all hangs upon it for the lives of anyone on earth today.
- but in complete contrast, if there is no evidence of Jesus then the entire basis and credibility of the worldwide Christian Church is destroyed. And that would have absolutely enormous and very direct consequences for almost every single person on the planet.
So it is NOT a case of simply saying “oh well, if we have only similarly weak or non-existent evidence for both Boudicca and for Jesus, then that is the same situation for both, and we should not require more for Jesus”. That would be a huge and very obvious error of judgement, for all the reasons just explained. That is (yet again, many many times now!) -
- because it doesn’t matter if there is no evidence of Boudicca.
- but it matters hugely if we don’t have good evidence of Jesus.
Belz...
Fiend God
Sounds good to me. To make things even more clear: I'm far from convinced that there is a historical Jesus. I just find it more probable that this cult, like most, has a single founder, and that this is the Jesus guy, though I don't think there's much about the real guy, if he existed, that has much in common with the bible stories. I don't think Paul is the founder because of his claim that Christianity existed before him. Beyond that, there's not much I can say with any level of certainty, and even that.
What I don't like is people on both sides of this issue claiming certainty. I don't think you did that, but some have.
The reason why I ask about an alternative scenario is to illustrate that the existence of this guru/rabbi/priest/whatever is the easiest and most probable explanation. In the absence of evidence that is really useful, that seems like a good avenue of debate.
I know you've answered that already but I've countered that it's irrelevant. That it matters to some should, in my opinion, have no bearing on the amount or quality of evidence required to show to a given level of certainty that a historical character existed. Either we can conclude with some level of certainty that person X existed, or we can't.
But that's an appeal to subjectivity. If tomorrow morning, the situation was somehow reversed, now the amount of evidence required for Jesus would suddenly change. But being impartial means you should ignore these things. That you disagree doesn't make me wrong. You have given me no reason to accept that the number of people who "care" about the character has any bearing on the amount or quality of evidence needed to reach a conclusion about their existence. You have simply claimed that it's important. Can you see, thinking about it for a minute, why this line of argument might be irrelevant to your opponents, here ?
- Status