OK then, try this:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html
Or just to keep it interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/pauls-comradeinarms-epaph_b_3862879.html
The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
OK then, try this:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html
Or just to keep it interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/pauls-comradeinarms-epaph_b_3862879.html
OK, so apart from all the arguments about what Carrier said and what Ehrman said, and about whether Paul came before or after the gospels, and whether x, y and z were interpolations etc. etc., when is the HJ side here going to post it's evidence of anyone ever knowing a human Jesus?
Because if you cannot post any reliable evidence of anyone ever meeting a human Jesus, then it means there is actually no evidence of Jesus except for people religious beliefs.
So before we continue all these years of dispute any further - can the HJ side here please finally post their evidence of someone who reliably claimed to have met Jesus?
Because if you cannot post any reliable evidence of anyone ever meeting a human Jesus, then it means there is actually no evidence of Jesus except for people religious beliefs.
So before we continue all these years of dispute any further - can the HJ side here please finally post their evidence of someone who reliably claimed to have met Jesus?
Can someone take Brainache aside and tell him quietly that his arguments are IDIOTIC and UNEVIDENCED.
The NT is not credible chronologically and historically and not contemporary.
Every one knows that Acts of the Apostles is NOT a credible historical source but a compilation of Ghost stories about the Ascension of the Resurrected Jesus, the coming of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, the "accounts" of the disciples AFTER they were FILLED with a Ghost and the BLINDING light conversion of "Saul/Paul".
In addition, the author of Acts claimed Paul was a Jew.
Acts 21:39--- But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Please, somebody!!! Take Brainache aside and quietly remind him his arguments are IDIOTIC and UNEVIDENCED.
Why don't you ever respond to the actual content of the argument?
Read the links and respond to the content, instead of just repeating the usual gibberish.
Go on, try it for once...
You are TERRIFIED by the evidence from antiquity so you don't want me to repeat it.
Your arguments continue to be IDIOTIC and UNEVIDENCED.
The author of Acts claimed Paul was a Jew and in the very Pauline Corpus it is also claimed Paul was a Jew,
It is just IDIOTIC to use the NT including the Pauline Corpus to argue for an historical Jesus when JESUS is GOD of God.
In the Pauline Corpus Jesus is the LORD GOD.
The LORD Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD GOD of the Jews in the earliest manuscripts from the 2nd century or later.
The LORD Jesus is ONE and the same substance as the Lord God of the Jews.
The LORD Jesus is a myth just like the God of the Jews.
Last edited:
Which PROVES that the Gospels were composed prior to the penning of the earliest manuscripts that happen to have survived, because Mark's Jesus is manifestly not the Lord God OF THE Jews.
Thank you for that INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that I will report to Ehrman and Dawkins in support of their contention that Jesus existed as a real human being.
dejudge said:
What an IDIOTIC argument. You can't bamboozle anybody now. The HJ argument is STILL based on ASSUMPTIONS.
gMark's Jesus was a RISING TRANSFIGURING Water Walking Son of a God.
Craig B said:
I thank you for this INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF that HJ research is STILL based on ASSUMPTIONS.
Last edited:
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
Just wondering...
Hi
Looking at the posts in this thread I can see that many individuals take this subject very seriously.
However, I am at a loss as to why this is exactly.
Is it something of a hobby or is there a more serious reason for such intense study into the subject.
Thanks
Hi
Looking at the posts in this thread I can see that many individuals take this subject very seriously.
However, I am at a loss as to why this is exactly.
Is it something of a hobby or is there a more serious reason for such intense study into the subject.
Thanks
So, why are you using Acts and the Pauline corpus to arrive at your Myth Jesus conclusion? These works are useless aren't they? What does that say about your argument which is based on these useless texts?
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...
dejudge said:
I use Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus to show that they are Ghost stories of a character called Jesus.
In Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus Jesus is some kind of a resurrected Ghost/God/man.
Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are perfect examples of mythological Ghost stories that were believed by people of antiquity.
Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
1 Corinthians 15:45--- And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Why are you using obvious Ghost stories as credible historical sources AFTER you admit the Pauline writer is a liar and a con-man?
You don't say the Pauline writer is a liar and a con man. You say that the whole NT was written as a hoax hundreds of years later and that neither Paul nor Jesus existed in any form whatsoever.
Do you know of any ancient chronicles that don't contain similar supernatural events?
Can somebody please talk to Brainache because he seem to have forgotten that his logically fallacious posts and blatant false claims can be viewed worldwide.
Brainache does not even understand that HJ proponents MUST show that stories of Jesus in Christians writings and their Canon are not credible.
HJ proponents MUST show that the CREED of the Roman Church is FICTION.
Brainache has forgotten that practising Christians worship Jesus as God Creator without a human father and claim Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same substance.
Christians have REJECTED the historical Jesus [a man with a human father] since at least the 2nd century.
See "Against Heresies" 1.
The historical Jesus is a KNOWN established LIE for hundreds of years.
The Church of Rome since the 4th century REJECTS the historical Jesus [ a man with a human father] as an Heresy from LIARS.
Brainache, you can't bamboozle anybody now.
We know that you post here primarily to spread known propaganda.
We know that the historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was a KNOWN LIE since the 2nd century.
2nd century or later manuscripts of the Jesus stories have been found and they describe Jesus as an Ascending, Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water Walking Son of a God born of Ghost, God Creator and the Lord from heaven.
The HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument since HJ proponents MUST first discredit the Christian Bible but still CLING to it for history.
Last edited:
Yes of course it is. The reasonable assumption that there is a historical core in the stories surrounding Jesus.
You say Mark's Jesus is the God of the Jews because a later manuscript uses nomina sacra. But this is crazy. The God of the Jews gets baptised for the remission of sins? The God of the Jews has a mother and brothers who think he has gone mad? The God of the Jews is the Beloved Son of the God of the Jews?
So Torah scholars from Jerusalem believe their God is inhabited by demons?
Jews are offended by their God because he is a carpenter with brothers and sisters?
Jews believe their God is forsaken by God?
These are all crazy ideas, so you have this choice:
1. Agree that Jews believe these absurd things about their God, or
2. Accept that the earliest extant manuscripts added the nomina sacra to a previous text because by that time Christians believed Jesus was God, but the original Christians believed he was a man appointed or adopted by God, and that's essentially what Mark says.
So Mark was composed long before 200 CE.
Here is the change in doctrine:
Mark believes that
Paul believes that
There is a big difference between critically analysing the texts and believing the bible.
You should know this by now, these posts of yours are doing a great job of making the MJ position look ridiculous.
Keep doing what you're doing, soon even Max and Ian might start to rethink...
Romulus, the founder of Rome was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.
Jesus the founder of the Roman Church was born of a Ghost and a Vorgin.
Plutarch's Romulus.
gLuke 1
Jesus and Romulus are products of mythology and fiction WITHOUT any historical data.
As I pointed out before that position would be MJ:
* 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 - John Robertson 1900; Archibald Robertson 1946
* This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of 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 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 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 2012
Note that these definitions of the Christ Myth do NOT say Jesus didn't exist as a human being. In fact, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia one expressly states it is regarding the story of Jesus that is "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" and NOT the man himself and that definition is written by a Pro-HJ person.
The reality is contrary to the picture may people try to paint the Christ Myth has a range just like the HJ does.
I see this presented a lot but personally I don't see it.
The pro-HJ argument position is generally presented as Myth, Madman, or Messiah. Well, if Myth is out that leaves you with Madman or Messiah. It doesn't take much to throw out Messiah (as there were a bumper crop of would-be-messiahs running around) leaving you with Madman ie Jesus was the 1st century version of someone like David Koresh or Charles Manson.
In fact, if you go to the classic Christ Mythers like Drews and John M. Robertson and read them directly you find out they were NOT saying Jesus didn't exist as a human being but rather that the trail from Gospel to Man goes nowhere:
"In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. (...) If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." - Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth
The HJ position is firmly rooted in the Great Man theory while the Christ myth theory is more rooted in what is known as Great Movement theory.
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...
"Bigfoot" and "Psychics" are two vastly different beliefs. Psychic "powers" can be explained via the use of slight of hand tricks or cold reading.
Bigfoot on the other hand is more problematic because as the old statement goes you can prove a negative and Bigfoot believers can point to all the examples of actual living animals dismissed as wild imagination:
1) 5th century BCE Greek explorer Hanno described "an island filled with savage people, most of them women, and covered on hair". Dismissed as a wild tale for centuries Hanno was account was vindicated in 1902. His savage hairy people are the mountain Gorilla.
2) Ancient Egyptians and African natives had stories of this animal that people called The African Unicorn; In 1901 the existence of the Okapi was finally confirmed.
3) Legends of white bears in the mountains of China had long been ignored as myth until the Giant Panda was shown to exist in 1869.
4) The Kraken was thought to exist only in myth despite Aristotle and Pliny the Elder writing about the remains of dead specimens. Today the giant squid is known to exist.
5) There were stories (dismissed as wild) of "land crocodiles" and "prehistoric monsters” on a certain island in Indonesia. In 1910 the Komodo dragon was formally documented.
6) Despite being used in the circuses of ancient Rome the tiger was regarded as a mythical animal in the Middle ages.
Last edited:
dejudge said:
Can someone talk to Brainache because he appears not to understand that his blatant fallacious claims and idiotic arguments can be viewed worldwide?
You seem to have forgotten that we know that you post here to spread propaganda and Chinese Whispers.
You have NOTHING to support the HJ argument.
How could you??
The historical Jesus [a man with a human father] was a KNOWN established Lie since the 2nd century.
According to "Against Heresies" those who argue that Jesus was a man with a human father have LAID the TRUTH aside and were EVIL Interpreters of the Bible.
Against Heresies 1
Even today certain people have laid the truth aside.
Doesn't the NT state that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost?
Why do certain people say Jesus of Nazareth had a human father?
Last edited:
That's not entirely unreasonable. But it's not what Carrier says.
It is quite clear from what you have just stated that these earlier mythicists accepted that Paul and others believed that Jesus was a human being recently alive on earth - whether that supposition is justified or not. (I think it is.)
Here, however, is an account of Carrier's very different views.
As I have been stating for years on these threads, there are two kinds of "myth" scenarios. One states: we don't have much evidence for Jesus, so he was probably a myth (in the loose sense of a non-existent person). I have much sympathy for that. The evidence is indeed sparse.
But the other myth scenario is as stated by Carrier, and such theories require to be substantiated by evidence. There is absolutely none supporting these speculations; they contradict plain statements by Paul - and the Gospels, which stress the physicality of Jesus.
Now, we must not permit ourselves to mix these things up in a "bait and switch" scam. Is the mythicism of Drews and Robertson reasonable? Well yes of course. That means Carrier must be reasonable, because he's a mythicist too? No, it doesn't mean that at all.
- Status