The Historical Jesus III

[Mcreal]

Do you honestly think that proving Jesus was a made up person will help you fight against the negative effects of religion in society?

I'm not sure it can be proved; it can be inferred or induced. Besides, you're conflating aspects of Jesus's historicity with 'effects of religion in society'.

Only when people value science and reason will they be able to circumvent these negative effects

Again, you're conflating a few things.

Whether it was fraud or not, it's easy to point out the fraud happening today without proving fraud happened 2000 years ago.

Given the doctrines; they're inherently inter-related.

 

[Leumas]

Do you honestly think that proving Jesus was a made up person will help you fight against the negative effects of religion in society?

Do you have anything against exposing fraud?

Do you not like truths just for the sake of truth?

Do you think it is only worth prosecuting a criminal if by prosecuting him all criminality is going to be eradicated?

Why can't one expose the Jesus fraud because it is a fraud and for no other reason... why do you keep blathering about conspiracy theories and keep maligning and deriding and REVERSING facts?

That's insane. Only when people value science and reason will they be able to circumvent these negative effects, and there is no valid reason why the scale of the fraud would help people.

So there is no point in proving the crime of a criminal unless all people start appreciating morality and justice?

Do you think people who go after a criminal are insane to wish there were no crime?

Do you think that prosecuting criminals one by one is insanity?

Whether he existed or not, it's still all clearly ********. Whether it was fraud or not, it's easy to point out the fraud happening today without proving fraud happened 2000 years ago.

So if I get defrauded by my accountant and I discover it years after he left my employment it would be futile to go after him or try to prove it or even prosecute him because I should dedicate my efforts to stopping other charlatans instead?

Do you think it is right that someone should come along and start fighting me and calling me names and dedicating time and effort to stopping me from proving my case against and prosecuting my pilfering accountant?

What would be the motivation of such a person who goes to such extents to prevent me from going after my thieving accountant?

Should I believe this guy when he says to me that he is only doing so out of concern for me and that it is insanity to go after the accountant because there are other frauds around to whom it would behoove me to pay attention despite them not working for me now or ever while my embezzling accountant carries on basking on the beaches of Cancun with my money?

 

[dejudge]

You don't get it, I'm not saying it's true because there is a consensus, I'm saying that there is a consensus.

Finally, you have admitted that you really have nothing to contribute to the HJ argument but ********** up stories of Jesus and an irrelevant fallacy that there is a consensus of an HJ.

The true consensus of Scholars universally is that the stories of Jesus are really ************up.

It would appear that Skeptics of antiquity were right since at least the 4th century.

1. Julian's Against the Galileans ------It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish...[/quote]

2. Against Hierocles ----And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards

Even those who argue for or against an historical Jesus on this very thread will CONCEDE the Jesus stories are *********** up.

 

[annnnoid]

Written by Tim O’Neill, an atheist blogger and member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics Association.

The original question we concerned ourselves with was whether historians regard the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact". The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars. The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.

I find such remarks inflammatory. Who is he to make such accurate claims?

So…either he’s lying (do atheists / skeptics lie?) or the majority of non-Christian scholars do not buy into all this mythicist bull-crap. This would mean that the consensus amongst non-Christian historians is in favor of the HJ position. Coincidentally...this reflects the consensus amongst religiously oriented historians.

Question: Should we be surprised?

So the largest groups of historians (not just theologians, but actual historians)…whether Christian, agnostic, atheist, or crocodile worshippers…support the HJ position.

Of course, Mr. O’Neill may not just be a liar, he might also be a closet Christian. Either that or we must conclude that denial is not a river in Egypt.

…and while we’re on the subject, what’s the definition of a fanatic: Someone who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

 

[dejudge]

The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.[/I]

Tim ONeil forgot to tell us the proponents of the HJ hypothesis are almost always Christians who worship Jesus as a God and pray to him for Remission of Sins in order to go to heaven.

In addition, Christians must tell people that Jesus existed without evidence [by Faith] so that Jesus will bless them and give eternal life in heaven.

 

[dejudge]

The claim that there is a consensus for an HJ is a Farce.

Anyone familiar with Scholarship would have known that there are 3 fundamental positions.

1. Those who argue for a non-historical Jesus.

2. Those who are Agnostic.

3. Those who argue for an historical Jesus.

It cannot be shown that Agnostics have conceded that Jesus existed.

It has not been shown that those who argue for an HJ are even in the majority.

The consensus among Scholars, across the board, [agnostic, pro or con HJ] is that the Jesus story is *************up.

 

[Mcreal]

Written by Tim O’Neill, an "atheist blogger" ...

The original question we concerned ourselves with was whether historians regard the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact". The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars. The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity.​

I find such remarks inflammatory. Who is he to make such accurate claims?

O'Neill has posted similar assertions in a number of places. I think he was prominent on an old Dawkins Forum. The debate has moved on from his assertions and 'style'.

So…either he’s lying (do atheists / skeptics lie?) or the majority of non-Christian scholars do not buy into all this mythicist bull-crap. This would mean that the consensus amongst non-Christian historians is in favor of the HJ position.

So the largest groups of historians (not just theologians, but actual historians)…whether Christian, agnostic, atheist, or crocodile worshippers…support the HJ position.

Of course, Mr. O’Neill may not just be a liar, he might also be a closet Christian.

I suspect there are a few people who post on various sites about various things about Christianity who say they're atheists when they're not, though O'Neill got called earlier this year for having a right-wing reason to see Christianity continue as a social construct even if he is an atheist.

It could be that most western historians are either Christians, don't want to touch the 'historicity of Jesus', or assume he was a deified human.

 

[Leumas]

...
…and while we’re on the subject, what’s the definition of a fanatic: Someone who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

Exactly Annnnoid... then someone who used to be a theist and then researched and read and looked at the subject and scrutinized the data and subsequently CHANGED HIS MIND to become an atheist is by your definition not a fanatic.

One who despite being an atheist thought that there must be at least some underlying core of reality upon which the myths were created and then after considering the lack of evidence and the plethora of evidence against the whole thing and then with further study and further research and further reading CHANGED HIS MIND and realized that just like all other myths from all other cultures it is all nothing but hyperactive attribution long ago fabricated by the hyperactive imaginations of people who knew nothing about the causes of the things that occurred around them, is therefore by your definition not a fanatic.

Right??

Someone who is born in a religion and keeps on doing the same thing he was inculcated into and keeps following the norms and superstitions of his society and never allows anyone to present him with any argument against his cherished beliefs and he EXTOLS FAITH and DERIDES REASON and NEVER CHANGES his mind, is the fanatic.

Right??

I think you will find that most atheists who have not arrived at their atheism through a gastrointestinal movement have CHANGED THEIR MINDS from whatever claptrap they were inculcated into since childhood due to reasoned and erudite research and reading especially of the proclaimed scriptures of their cultural bunkum and apologetics for them.

I also think that many of the atheists who already CHANGED THEIR MINDS about their religion came to the question of Jesus' historicity from the historic side leaning towards the CONCENSUS... but having read and researched and looked at the lack of evidence and the plethora of evidence for the underlying fraudulence of it all CHANGED THEIR MINDS.

Consider this scenario

I go to buy a used car that I saw advertised in the local newspaper and I examine it and find that it is not in the condition it was claimed to be in.

Moreover, the guy trying to sell it to me does not have an original title deed but only a copy of it and a badly made one at that.

Additionally, when I ask him for an I.D. he gives me one with a name that does not match what is clearly his ethnicity from looking at him.

Furthermore, when I ask him to come with me to the DMV to register the sale he comes up with some excuse.​

Am I right in suspecting some hanky panky?

Should I go ahead and just trust and buy the car and pay for it?

Am I right to CHANGE MY MIND and walk away?

Who is the INSANE one

the one who has faith that the seller is on the up and up because MOST people who sell their cars are honest people?​

or

the one who drops the whole thing and walks away even if he does not have a 100% proof that it is not a fraud?​

 

[Craig B]

That is not what Carrier is discussing.

Jesus may well be an euhemerized entity -

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I really don't care what Carrier was discussing. What we are discussing is whether a real man, Jesus, was turned into a god. That is a thing that is known to happen. People get deified by their followers. That this is the case with Jesus seems most probable. In the early NT sources Jesus is a man. The only Gospel that can be quoted to indicate that he was a god is John, the one you cite, the latest of the Gospels.

 

[Mcreal]

Carrier argues that

the NT Jesus is an euhemerized entity.

ie. a narrative about a celestial god that is transformed into a narrative about a 'man'; albeit one still deified​

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8161

 

[Craig B]

Carrier argues that

the NT Jesus is an euhemerized entity.

ie. a narrative about a celestial god that is transformed into a narrative about a 'man'; albeit one still deified​

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8161

This is ridiculous. Carrier argues that Jesus started as a god, and was turned into a man - but there are no such men. Therefore there never was a historical Jesus.

So what? People who believe in the historicity of Jesus are not euhemerists. They believe on the contrary that Jesus started as a man and was later turned into a god. And we know that such things can and do happen.

 

[Mcreal]

Carrier argues that Jesus started as a god, and was turned into a man - but there are no such men.

You missed the key, repeated word - narrative (comprehension is important)

People who believe in the historicity of Jesus are not euhemerists.They believe on the contrary that Jesus started as a man and was later turned into a god.

Right on both accounts.

Yet, people who believe Jesus was the result of euhemerism or euhemerization are not 'euhemerists'.

The euhemerists (aka euhemerizers) are the ones that did the euhemerizing: ie. the ones that created the narrative.

 

[Leumas]

This is ridiculous. Carrier argues that Jesus started as a god, and was turned into a man - but there are no such men. Therefore there never was a historical Jesus.

So what? People who believe in the historicity of Jesus are not euhemerists. They believe on the contrary that Jesus started as a man and was later turned into a god. And we know that such things can and do happen.

I really don't care what Carrier was discussing. What we are discussing is whether a real man, Jesus, was turned into a god. That is a thing that is known to happen. People get deified by their followers. That this is the case with Jesus seems most probable. In the early NT sources Jesus is a man. The only Gospel that can be quoted to indicate that he was a god is John, the one you cite, the latest of the Gospels.

So some cherry picked bits of the buybull fairy tales must be true because of some special pleading for some other bits of the buybull fables make it appear that it is so and thus it is only reasonable that it most likely is so.

Illogical fallacies + Circular reasoning much?

 

[Craig B]

You missed the key, repeated word - narrative (comprehension is important)


Right on both accounts.

Yet, people who believe Jesus was the result of euhemerism or euhemerization are not 'euhemerists'.

The euhemerists (aka euhemerizers) are the ones that did the euhemerizing: ie. the ones that created the narrative.

That is interesting, but of no moment. If comprehension is important, then please comprehend this. People who don't believe that Jesus was the result of euhemerism or euhemerisation are most definitely not euhemerists or euhemerisers.

Whether Carrier is a euhemerist or a euhemeriser is therefore irrelevant as regards the views of HJ proponents.

 

[Leumas]

That is interesting, but of no moment. If comprehension is important, then please comprehend this. People who don't believe that Jesus was the result of euhemerism or euhemerisation are most definitely not euhemerists or euhemerisers.

Whether Carrier is a euhemerist or a euhemeriser is therefore irrelevant as regards the views of HJ proponents.

You missed the point entirely.

The Euhemerizers are the ones who fabricated the NARRATIVE in the buybull that Jesus was a man.... i.e. Mark et al were the Euhemerizers.

People who believe that Jesus was a man are neither Euhemerists nor Euhemerizers... they are just DUPED people who swallowed the fabricated NARRATIVE as true.

The Euhemerists are the ones that DID NOT GET DUPED by the NARRATIVE and realize that Mark et al FABRICATED the NARRATIVE where they Euhemerized Jesus who in Paul's epistles, the earliest fables about Jesus, was a god from heaven.

In Summary:

In the earliest writings about Jesus he was fabricated as a god from heaven.... later writers fabricated another narrative where they Euhemerized him.

Later people were duped by the fabricated narratives that Jesus was a Man-God or God-Man or God only or Man only and fought wars over it and finally the cultists who won came up with the TRINITY crap.

Later people were forced to swallow the buybull claptrap by hook or by crook.

Many generations did swallow it and some still do.

Reasoning people nowadays realize that it is all claptrap and that the fabricators of Jesus first fabricated him as a god and then as a god who became a man who became a god again.​

 

[Mcreal]

That is interesting, but of no moment. If comprehension is important, then please comprehend this. People who don't believe that Jesus was the result of euhemerism or euhemerisation are most definitely not euhemerists or euhemerisers.

Whether Carrier is a euhemerist or a euhemeriser is therefore irrelevant as regards the views of HJ proponents.

You clearly have a problem with comprehension.

You have completely missed the point I made about the definition of euhemerists or euhemerisers. Carrier has not written a narrative about a euhemerised entity.

You are either wilfully misrepresenting my points or have cognitive dysfunction.

 

[Mcreal]

You missed the point entirely.

The Euhemerizers are the ones who fabricated the NARRATIVE in the buybull that Jesus was a man.... i.e. Mark et al were the Euhemerizers.

People who believe that Jesus was a man are neither Euhemerists nor Euhemerizers... they are just DUPED people who swallowed the fabricated NARRATIVE as true.

Thanks.

But I think you got some of this wrong: the latter point about Mark euhumerizing Paul's Jesus is very good -

The Euhemerists are the ones that DID NOT GET DUPED by the NARRATIVE and maintain that

Mark et al fabricated the Narrative and were only Euhemerizing Jesus who, in Paul's epistles, the earliest fables about Jesus, was a god from heaven.

As Carrier said -

Separating the Izer from the Audience​

"So we must not confuse the “-izer” with the audience. The euhemer-IZER is the one faking a story (obviously: the story isn’t real, and never existed before their creating of it, so they definitely know they are making it up). How people react to that euhemerization is an entirely different story."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8161

I don't think there is a word for those that got duped; or even didn't get duped.

'BuyBullers', maybe ​

 

[Elagabalus]

Oh dear, it appears that Dick Carrier has worked his own special magic! Let me know when you come to an agreement on what is the official Carrier doctrine. And, who exactly has partaken of the Kool-Aid, again, Leumas?

 

[Craig B]

You clearly have a problem with comprehension.

You have completely missed the point I made about the definition of euhemerists or euhemerisers. Carrier has not written a narrative about a euhemerised entity.

You are either wilfully misrepresenting my points or have cognitive dysfunction.

I don't care what Carrier has written about this. And your personal invective here does little credit either to you or to your argument.

The argument of Euhemerus applies to objects of worship that started off as gods. A narrative is then created to rationalise this by proposing that these beings were once men, who were subsequently deified. Such men may or may not have existed. That is, this explanation of the origin of gods may be the true one in no case; it is certainly not true of Zeus, and probably not true of Herakles and Osiris.

But the situation with Jesus is different. He first appears as a man, in the earliest sources, and gradually becomes more and more supernatural as we proceed through the Gospels.

In the narrative, Zeus stars as a God and the humanity is retrofitted. But it is the contention of HJ proponents, which I for one have set down here umpteen times, that Jesus starts off, in the sources of information at our disposal, as a man, and that the divinity is added later. Now, such things can happen, and have happened. And we can watch it happen in the NT.

By the way, for the purposes of this argument it is of no importance to what extent, if any, the biographical details given in the NT are accurate. True or false, they start with a human Jesus and build him up to be a more supernatural being. Whether even John makes him a god is a moot point. He was a god in Bithynia in the early second century. That we learn from Pliny.

 

[Belz...]

Your statements display no understanding. I wrote "Peter was recruited into these tales to indicate that there were no differences between Paul and the surviving companions of Jesus".

But the tales are fictitious. I am not arguing that later Christian stories about Peter have any historical value. However, it is a matter of fact that later Christian writers invented stories about Peter and Paul together in Rome.

I think dejudge reads posts diagonally.