The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Hi Swordfishtrombone. I've completed a fairly detailed review of Carrier's book http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html.

I don't think Carrier has a strong case, but if you see anything in his book that you think I should have addressed, please let me know on the thread I started on this forum here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10671030

Christians do not think anyone has a strong case that Jesus was a figure of fiction/mythology even though their own Bible states Jesus was born of a Ghost, was God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

As a Christian you MUST tell people that Carrier does not have a strong case so that you will go to heaven and be with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

You MUST admit as a Christian that Jesus was the LORD from heaven and God's Own Son as stated in the Pauline Corpus.

Your Jesus is NOT the historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father]

As a Christian, your Jesus is a figure of Faith [Not history].

Your Jesus Created Adam and Eve in Genesis.

Carrier has a STRONG Case that Jesus was a MYTH.

You have NOTHING but FAITH in myth Jesus [God Creator the Lord and Savior from heaven]

 

[Belz...]

You now admit that you added a question mark. You did not write exactly what I wrote.

You have confirmed you are a fiction writer.

You're just being ridiculous, now, posting for no reason but being adversarial.

 

[maximara]

I do, and I'm afraid to say that I have no idea what you are talking about. All that seems to agree with what I wrote.

Can you explain where my comments are wrong please? Just quote me, and then write: "This is wrong, because..." Thanks.

The statements "the NT Jesus character is not the result of Euhemerism" and "So the NT Jesus is a result of apotheosis." This presupposes is that the (demi) god NT Jesus character has a man behind him...the very definition of Euhemerism.

As I pointed out a long time ago all views of the world require a model or "structure" to even start asking questions and that structure can even determine what are valid results. See James Burke's Day the Universe Changed for somewhat more detailed examples.

Horace Miner's bitingly satirical 1956 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" showed what happens when a researcher is so blinded by the structure they are using that they can't seen anything outside of it and science's self correcting mechanism fails.

As I pointed out elsewhere the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1910 was at a time when the existence of the Planet Vulcan between the Sun and Mercury was hotly debated with continental drift, Big Bang Theory, and matter as dense as White Dwarf star matter were written off as "crackpot theories" due to the structures being used at that time.

 

[maximara]

??? Are you saying Carrier's framework is inadequate, such that there is something missing from his theory? Otherwise I have no idea what you are arguing for, I'm sorry.

What I am pointing out if we take Walsh's "Jesus was originally a myth" as the criteria for Christ Myth theory then if such a myth existed to inspire the man the Gospels go on about (regardless of whose criteria you use) you would STILL have a Christ Myth because "Jesus was originally a myth"!

That is the sting in the Christ Myth tail per Walsh. As long as there was a preexisting Jesus Myth first then you could have had a Jesus who did EVERYTHING EXACTLY as described in the gospels and STILL have a Christ Myth theory because the myth came before the man.

 

[dejudge]

Thanks Craig B. You get to the heart of the problem: there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, such that it is valid to question his existence. But that doesn't mean that Carrier's 'celestial Jesus' is more plausible than a 'minimal historical Jesus'. Carrier grabs at a lot of evidence that may be relevant to a non-historical Jesus, but then attributes the result to a 'celestial Jesus'. And this is just not logical. There may be more going on than just those two options.

Christians of antiquity have ALREADY given a DETAILED "biography" of their Jesus from conception to ascension.

As a honest Christian you should tell us who Jesus was.

Don't worry about Carrier and Ehrman.

There is no problem. We have writings of antiquity.

1. What did Tertullian state about his Jesus?

Tertullian stated his Jesus was God of God, born of a Ghost and WITHOUT a human father.

2. What did Ignatius state about his Jesus?

Ignatius stated his Jesus was GOD and Born of a Ghost.

3. What did Aristides state about his Jesus?

Aristides stated his Jesus was GOD from heaven.

4. What did Justin Martyr state about his Jesus.

Justin stated his Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

5. What does the Pauline Corpus state about Jesus?

The Pauline Jesus was the LORD from heaven.

6. What does gMatthew state about Jesus?

Jesus was Born of a Ghost.

7. What does gMark state about Jesus?

Jesus was a Transfiguring Water Walker.

8. What does gLuke state about Jesus?

Jesus was born of a Ghost.

9. What does gJohn state about Jesus?

Jesus was the Logos, God Creator from the beginning.

10. What does Origen state about his Jesus?

Origen's Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost.

Jesus is an ADMITTED Myth/fiction character as stated in the writings of antiquity.

The theory that Jesus was a figure of Myth/Fiction is the BEST theory based on the MASSIVE amount of evidence from Christians of antiquity.

The Honest Christians are RIGHT.

Their Jesus is a figure of FAITH--NOT history.

 

[GDon]

The statements "the NT Jesus character is not the result of Euhemerism" and "So the NT Jesus is a result of apotheosis." This presupposes is that the (demi) god NT Jesus character has a man behind him...the very definition of Euhemerism.

That's exactly right. Euhemerism finds the man behind the story. So the NT Jesus is not the result of Euhemerism. The NT Jesus is the result of the myth-making applied to the man.

Carrier writes that the NT Jesus is the result of Euhemerism, but he gets it backward: it is finding the man behind the myth that is the result of Euhemerism. Just as it is the man who died on Crete who is behind the myth of Zeus, according to Euhemerism.

 

[GDon]

What I am pointing out if we take Walsh's "Jesus was originally a myth" as the criteria for Christ Myth theory then if such a myth existed to inspire the man the Gospels go on about (regardless of whose criteria you use) you would STILL have a Christ Myth because "Jesus was originally a myth"!

That is the sting in the Christ Myth tail per Walsh. As long as there was a preexisting Jesus Myth first then you could have had a Jesus who did EVERYTHING EXACTLY as described in the gospels and STILL have a Christ Myth theory because the myth came before the man.

Well, great, we agree! And that's the problem I identify in my review of Carrier's theory: Carrier ignores other options without justification.

 

[dejudge]

Well, great, we agree! And that's the problem I identify in my review of Carrier's theory: Carrier ignores other options without justification.

Your statement is of no real value,

Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" openly ignores the position that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

In fact, in "Did Jesus Exist?" Bart Ehrman states that he does NOT even discuss the option that Jesus was a myth with his students.

How in the world can any serious Scholar refuse to discuss the claim by Christians of antiquity that their Jesus was really Born of a Ghost and was God Creator or a Transfiguring Water Walker?

The very CREED of the Church for at 1600 years is that Jesus is GOD of God, Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Examine the Creed of Constantinople.

....And [we believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

For us, humans, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. He rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

It is clear that Jesus of the NT is a myth/fiction character.

Jesus of Nazareth was a CELESTIAL being who came DOWN from heaven, became Incarnate and was KILLED by Jews in the MYTH FABLES called the New Testament.

There is simply no evidence, no historical data, from antiquity that the Jesus character was NOT a Myth God.

ALL existing manuscripts with stories of Jesus do ACTUALLY state Jesus was BORN of a Ghost, was God Creator, and the Lord from heaven who Resurrected and Ascended in a cloud.

See Papyri 46 and Papyri 75.

 

[Mcreal]

the NT Jesus character could be a result of euhemerism

interpretation of myths as [traditional] accounts of historical persons and events

mythological characters portrayed as historical personages, and shaped, altered, or embellished by retelling and traditional mores​

Nitpick: You've given the correct definition of Euhemerism

Yes, I know.

but the NT Jesus character is not the result of Euhemerism. That is, if Jesus was just a man, the NT accounts are a result of apotheosis -- the deification of a man into a god. IOW, the man is really a god. I.e. man --> god.

Huh?? Of course *if* Jesus was a man he wasn't a result of euhumerism,
but you're simply switching to try to assert that the NT Jesus was the result of 'apotheosis'.

Regarding -

Euhemerism is the other way around: it is the claim that the gods were really just men, i.e. god --> man. But later the man was thought to be a god (through apotheosis). So the NT Jesus is a result of apotheosis. But an Euhemeristic approach to the NT Jesus would be that Jesus was just a man.

That is mangled - you initially agreed with my definition of euhumerism, above,
yet that contradicts it (as does the previous section I quote above), so you misrepresent both the definition and your agreement.

As far as this -

I'm not sure if you are using a definition of Euhemerism by Carrier, but if so, I recommend not to! Carrier has screwed it up.

what has Carrier got to do with this??! Are you that obsessed you need to use my post to have a dig at him?

and this -

I think a more accurate description of Euhemerism would be:
"Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they were later (erroneously) thought of as gods."

Remember, Euhemerus was later called an atheist, since he disparaged the gods as just mortal men. Had he been born after the Gospels were written, Euhemerus would have claimed that the Gospels were really just the exaggerated accounts of a mortal man.

is nonsense, too.

This thread is discussing whether Jesus was a man. There is no known proof of this; yet you seek to assert he was (a man).

 

[Mcreal]

Actually, if anyone screwed it up it is the people who wrote up the wikipedia article on it:

"Euhemerism is an approach to the interpretation of mythology in which mythological accounts are presumed to have originated from real historical events or personages"

I agree. Wikipedia is wrong on euhumerism.

I don't think this is any better, either -

"Euhemerus' views were rooted in the deification of men, usually kings, into gods through apotheosis. In numerous cultures, kings were exalted or venerated into the status of divine beings and worshipped after their death, or sometimes even while they ruled. Dion, the tyrant ruler of Syracuse was deified while he was alive and modern scholars consider his apotheosis to have influenced Euhemerus' views on the origin of all gods." (Euhemerus in Context, Franco De Angelis De Angelis and Benjamin Garstad, Classical Antiquity,Vol. 25, No. 2, October 2006, pp. 211-242.)

I'm not sure the Oxford Reference - "that the gods developed out of elaborated legends concerned originally with historical people" - is any clearer, either.

And Merriam-Webster

Euhemerism: interpretation of myths as .. accounts of historical persons and events​

is a bit ambiguous as well.

I like

mythological characters portrayed as historical personages; shaped & embellished by retelling and influenced & altered by later or other traditional mores.​

 

[Craig B]

... and this -

is nonsense, too.

This thread is discussing whether Jesus was a man. There is no known proof of this; yet you seek to assert he was (a man).

No. GDon asserts that

Had he been born after the Gospels were written, Euhemerus would have claimed that the Gospels were really just the exaggerated accounts of a mortal man.

That is; he would have accounted for the stories of Jesus in that way - which is very probable. There is no known proof that Zeus was a man, but Euhemerus proposed that he had been one. It is beyond question that he would have suggested the same in the case of Jesus; and indeed in my opinion such a suggestion is quite reasonable in Jesus' case.

 

[GDon]

Yes, I know.


Huh?? Of course *if* Jesus was a man he wasn't a result of euhumerism, but you're simply switching to try to assert that the NT Jesus was the result of 'apotheosis'.

My only concern right here is trying to get the definitions clear.

'Euhemerism' is a type of analysis done by ancient writers (and some more modern writers) where they claim that myths about the gods were inspired by mortal men. In this case, the myths are the Gospels. A Euhemerist would claim that, behind the myths of the Gospels, there was an actual (non-god) man who inspired the myths.

Regarding -

Euhemerism is the other way around: it is the claim that the gods were really just men, i.e. god --> man. But later the man was thought to be a god (through apotheosis). So the NT Jesus is a result of apotheosis. But an Euhemeristic approach to the NT Jesus would be that Jesus was just a man.

That is mangled - you initially agreed with my definition of euhumerism above, yet that contradicts it (as does the previous section I quote above), so you misrepresent both the definition and your agreement.

No, I've been consistent all throughout. If you think I am wrong anywhere, then quote me, and say "This is wrong, because..." Thanks.

As far as this -

what has Carrier got to do with this??! Are you that obsessed you need to use my post to have a dig at him?

In my defence, my perspective was: Carrier screwed up the definition of Euhemerism, you screwed up (IMHO) the definition of Euhemerism; could you have got it wrong by reading Carrier? But if that is your own work, then fair enough. My apologies.

This thread is discussing whether Jesus was a man. There is no known proof of this; yet you seek to assert he was (a man).

A sound methodology would be to ensure terms are being used correctly. But as I said, it was a nitpick. I'll leave you to it. Thanks.

 

[dejudge]

The evidence from antiquity will not magically disappear.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT of earth but of Heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

Jesus of Nazareth was a CELESTIAL being who came down from heaven and was KILLED by the Jews in the Myth Fables called the New Testament.

We know the Myth Fables called the Gospels and Epistles.

The Myth/Fiction Fables called the New Testament were used in antiquity to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father].

An historical Jesus of Nazareth does not make any sense.

If Paul did exist and knew Jesus was a mere man with a human father then he would be immediately denounced as a Blatant Liar when he declared Jesus was the LORD God from heaven and God Creator.

Amazingly, the Christian writers who claimed Jesus was the Son of God, God of God, God Creator born of a Ghost were NOT illiterate.

Origen, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Jerome, Rufinus, Hippolytus, Augustine of Hippo, Clement, Optatus, Eusebius, Aristides, Chrysostom, Lactantius, Severus, Arnobius, Ignatius and other writers of antiquity show that an historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father] was fiction.

 

[dejudge]

My only concern right here is trying to get the definitions clear.

'Euhemerism' is a type of analysis done by ancient writers (and some more modern writers) where they claim that myths about the gods were inspired by mortal men. In this case, the myths are the Gospels. A Euhemerist would claim that, behind the myths of the Gospels, there was an actual (non-god) man who inspired the myths.

Your statement is baseless [without evidence] and circular.

It does not really matter what you BELIEVE WITHOUT evidence.

A Euhemerist ancient or modern will not ever present evidence of an historical Jesus.

There are BILLIONS of Christians and none can present evidence for an actual HJ.

You are attempting to use the ADMITTED Myth Fables called the New Testament as evidence that there was an actual man called Jesus.

It is UNIVERSALLY unacceptable to use ADMITTED sources of forgeries, false attribution,fiction and mythology as credible historical sources and especially when you do so WITHOUT external corroboration.

Please, just go and find some credible historical sources--NOT the Ghost stories called the New Testament.

Christians of antiquity have ALREADY admitted for hundreds of years that THEIR Jesus of Nazareth was Born of a Ghost.

It must NOT ever be forgotten that the Christians of antiquity who ARGUED THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost and was God Creator did NOT have any historical data for THEIR Jesus as a mere man with a human father.

 

[Craig B]

If Paul did exist and knew Jesus was a mere man with a human father then he would be immediately denounced as a Blatant Liar when he declared Jesus was the LORD God from heaven and God Creator.

Then he must have declared himself a liar when he stated in Romans 1

regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord

So he was a man of human lineage on earth, exalted by God as his Son, after the resurrection.

 

[Mcreal]

My only concern right here is trying to get the definitions clear.

.
Which is at odds with your agreement previously viz.

Originally Posted by Mcreal

the NT Jesus character could be a result of euhemerism

interpretation of myths as [traditional] accounts of historical persons and events

mythological characters portrayed as historical personages, and shaped, altered, or embellished by retelling and traditional mores​

Originally Posted by GDon
Nitpick: You've given the correct definition of Euhemerism

No, I've been consistent all throughout. If you think I am wrong anywhere, then quote me, and say "This is wrong, because..." Thanks.

You haven't been consistent at all. I just pointed that out in the start of this post.

 

[maximara]

Well, great, we agree! And that's the problem I identify in my review of Carrier's theory: Carrier ignores other options without justification.

No he doesn't.

"But just as there are countless theories of historicity, there are also countless Jesus myth theories. Indeed, just as with historicism, there are almost as many Jesus myth theories as there are experts to pronounce them" (sic) - OHJ page 7

"The more complex a theory has to be be, the less likely it is to be true. Hence I'll assume for convenience that what I just suggested is the most plausible theory is the only plausible theory and attempt to explain and present it as simply as possible with no unnecessary elaborations. For if even that theory cannot be shown to be more credible then historicity, it's unlikely any other theory will succeed where it failed." (sic) - OHJ page 8

Carrier not only acknowledges the huge range of Jesus Myth theory but states why he went with the particular one he did.

 

[Mcreal]

'Euhemerism' is a type of analysis done by ancient writers (and some more modern writers) where they claim that myths about the gods were inspired by mortal men. ... A Euhemerist would claim that, behind the myths of the Gospels, there was an actual (non-god) man who inspired the myths.

That is nonsense; that is what you have previously described as apotheosis here - #592 -

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10671114&postcount=592​

 

[Craig B]

That is nonsense; that is what you have previously described as apotheosis

No, I think this is Ehumerism.

behind the myths of the Gospels, there was an actual (non-god) man who inspired the myths.

Apotheosis is the opposite. Behind the stories of the man, Jesus, there is an actual (non-man) God, who as a secondary procedure, chose to assume human form.

 

[Mcreal]

Apotheosis is the opposite. Behind the stories of the man, Jesus, there is an actual (non-man) God, who as a secondary procedure, chose to assume human form.

It's you that has got it back to front.

Yes, apotheosis is "the elevation of someone to divine status"; which is different to euhumerism (which is vice versa to that)