The Historical Jesus III

[Mcreal]

Phew

 

[tsig]

I'm curious as to how people think about these issues, and mildly amused as to how they respond to criticism of them. I have regretted my participation in this thread, that's without question. However, I'm always curious at the pathology of social hysteria, it's a lifelong research project. Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to get through the day.So you have convinced yourself that I'm simply angry at the success of the Christ myth proponents? Why is it impossible that I simply think it's funny?It's a sad childish narrative... no, your critics, like Fincke, like Carrier, like many others, simply see this angle as a giant waste of time compared to other angles.So now you're questioning my credibility as rationalist activist because I criticize your angle? That's a little sad.That's because you can't take a joke, criticism or anyone seriously that has the gall to question the validity of your mission in life.I don't use a hammer to cut wood. While it's possible, it's very messy, time consuming, and the result is unsatisfactory. Trying to debunk religion by inventing conspiracy theories and trying to cast doubt on a historical narrative with an argument style that is more defense attorney than scholarly, this is a terrible way to spend your life.

Carrier: "criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith."

I guess you didn't carefully read Fincke's article, or else you wouldn't be asking me these asinine questions.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...ists-attempting-to-deny-the-historical-jesus/

Why are you so incredibly verbose? Why do you repeat the same thing over and over again? Those are good questions.

Why are you so incredibly insulting?

 

[tsig]

Wow.

I have to just move on from here, sorry, this is too strange and senseless.

That's one way to avoid answering anything he's posted.



(Joey- you are the same as a holocaust denier, 911 truther and a flat Earther)
Thought I'd help you out.

 

[dejudge]

When a word has several meanings ONE can be chosen that supports my argument.

And you ignore the meaning that doesn't?

What absolute illogical nonsense!!!

You do PRECISELY what you accuse me of.

You ignore the DICTIONARY'S definition that doesn't support your argument

Someone else uses the word and they have to use the definition you want?

Again, illogical bizarre nonsense.

You do PRECISELY what you accuse me of!!!

I use the word 'consensus' and you want me to use your definition!!

 

[dejudge]

The claim of a consensus by secular historians that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father has been confirmed to be a product of Chinese Whispers--A known Farce.

It is has been shown that there are many historians who are AFRAID to admit in public that they are Agnostics.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know...

Why are Agnostics afraid to go public??

The assumed consensus is a FARCE.

 

[Craig B]

The claim of a consensus by secular historians that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father has been confirmed to be a product of Chinese Whispers.

You forgot "propaganda".

It is has been shown that there are many historians who are AFRAID to admit in public that they are Agnostics.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

You call this "shown"?

There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.

Carrier here is spouting tosh, or Chinese whispers as I like to call it. He says that secretly people don't believe what they state in public but he doesn't know how many do this. How is that "showing" anything at all? It's pure whispers and Chinese propaganda.

 

[Mcreal]

So.

Besides the Bible, there's no proof Jesus existed.

Current studies around Marcion suggest the NT Gospels developed after Marcion

ie. after the mid 2nd century​

 

[Craig B]

So.

Besides the Bible, there's no proof Jesus existed.

After such a long discussion, that observation seems somewhat banal. There is no proof anywhere that Jesus existed. There is evidence that can be discerned in the NT which is held by most commentators to be best explained on the assumption that Jesus existed, and there are notices in the works of a few early authors that allude to a person or movement that may plausibly be identified with Jesus and his followers.

 

[Leumas]

...There is no proof anywhere that Jesus existed.

<snip allusions to circumstantial "evidence" wrung and extruded excruciatingly out of rationalized fairy tales and special pleading for cherry picked hearsay of hearsay of fables built upon wishful thinking about hearsay of hearsay... all to alleviate a most chronic mass cognitive dissonance>

See if you bothered to pause and think with an impartial objectivity about the questions posed to you in this post you might have known why that all one can really in fact say is:

...There is no proof anywhere that Jesus existed. ...

 

[Mcreal]

... There is evidence that can be discerned in the NT (which is held by most commentators to be best explained on the assumption that Jesus existed) ...

Which is?

... there are notices in the works of a few early authors that allude to a person or movement that may plausibly be identified with Jesus and his followers.

Which are? (besides Josephus, Tacitus, or Pliny-the-Younger: please don't cite them!)

 

[Craig B]

You should have left it at that!!

See if you bothered to pause and think with an impartial objectivity about the questions posed to you in this post you might have known why that is really all you can in fact say.

No. What I wrote makes sense. The way in which you describe it is rather tendentious, to put things mildly.

"allusions to circumstantial 'evidence' wrung and extruded excruciatingly out of rationalized fairy tales and special pleading for cherry picked hearsay of hearsay of fables built upon wishful thinking about hearsay of hearsay".


<snip>

In any case, I would hesitate to describe the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius or Pliny as rationalized fairy tales and special pleading or hearsay of hearsay of fables built upon wishful thinking about hearsay of hearsay. Indeed the meaning of that last expression, if it possesses one, is not clear to me.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 0/12

 

[Craig B]

Which is?


Which are? (besides Josephus, Tacitus, or Pliny-the-Younger: please don't cite them!)

All right. I won't. May I ask why not? You missed Suetonius. May I cite him?

 

[Mcreal]

All right. I won't. May I ask why not?

They've been done to death and, to my mind, at least, without anything conclusive; or even to the detriment of them "as 'evidence' for the existence of a human Jesus" (one might expect better accounts from those writers).

You missed Suetonius. May I cite him?

Sure.

What about

"evidence that can be discerned in the NT" [??]

 

[dejudge]

...There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.

Carrier here is spouting tosh, or Chinese whispers as I like to call it. He says that secretly people don't believe what they state in public but he doesn't know how many do this. How is that "showing" anything at all? It's pure whispers and Chinese propaganda.

What illogical nonsense you post!!!

You admit Carrier is spouting tosh or Chinese Whispers about the consensus yet cannot understand what it shows.


The tosh and Chinese Whispers confirm that Carrier does NOT know what he is talking about. He has NO actual knowledge of a consensus.

The consensus was always a product of Chinese Whispers.

Carrier himself an historian argues that Jesus was most likely MYTHICAL and Fincke himself is Agnostic.

In addition, there are secret Agnostics who are AFRAID to go public.

The irrelevant consensus is now an established FARCE.

 

[dejudge]

So.

Besides the Bible, there's no proof Jesus existed.

Current studies around Marcion suggest the NT Gospels developed after Marcion

ie. after the mid 2nd century​

It is the Pauline Corpus which was most likely developed AFTER Marcion.

Justin Martyr mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels, the Apocalypse of John and also mentioned Marcion but NEVER mentioned a single word about Paul, the Pauline Corpus, and the Pauline Gospel.

In Minucius Felix's "Octavius" Caecilius is converted to Christianity WITHOUT a single reference to the Pauline Corpus when Paul was supposed to be the FOUNDER of multiple Christian Churches with multiple documented Epistles and one of the most significant early evangelist in the Roman Empire.

Justin Martyr was a contemporary of Marcion and did not acknowledge any writings of Marcion.

It is also interesting to note that Tertullian in "Against Marcion" admitted that the writings which he claimed were composed by Marcion did NOT bear his name.

The Pauline Corpus are really ANTI-MARCIONITE writings fabricated in an attempt to claim Paul was a Witness of the Physical Bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Marcion preached that the Son of God had no birth and only appeared to have flesh.

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline Corpus are really ANTI-MARCIONITE writings fabricated in an attempt to claim Paul was a Witness of the Physical Bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Where is such a claim made, that Paul was a witness to the physical resurrection of Jesus?

 

[Leumas]

...
I wonder if it might be better for you if you switched your interest to something that didn't arouse such extreme reactions in your mind.

I think the extreme reaction is coming from you... here is an example


<snip>

In any case, I would hesitate to describe the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius or Pliny as rationalized fairy tales and special pleading or hearsay of hearsay of fables built upon wishful thinking about hearsay of hearsay. Indeed the meaning of that last expression, if it possesses one, is not clear to me.

See here you go with straw manning YET AGAIN....

Or maybe you're just not able to understand that the rationalization of fairy tales and special pleading for hearsay of hearsay of fables built upon wishful thinking about hearsay of hearsay is WHAT YOU ARE DOING not those ancient people who only PURPORTEDLY reported the hearsay in their writings.

You are the one who is doing the special pleading and cherry picking and straw manning and the rationalization of fairy tales and wishful thinking about fables and myths.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited to accord with edit of quoted post

 

[Craig B]

They've been done to death and, to my mind, at least, without anything conclusive; or even to the detriment of them "as 'evidence' for the existence of a human Jesus" (one might expect better accounts from those writers).

May I ask who has given you the authority to decide what I may and may not write about?

 

[Joey McGee]

Why are you so incredibly insulting?

I'm an *******. Also, I'm just being honest.

That's one way to avoid answering anything he's posted.

Well, I think I stuck to my one point and made my point. I really just can't see what the purpose would be.

(Joey- you are the same as a holocaust denier, 911 truther and a flat Earther)
Thought I'd help you out.

I think I'm right that even where there isn't the an outright bible conspiracy theory, which everyone knows there are several of, there's even a wikipedia article on it, sometimes it just reminds me of similar type of mindset in the spirit of it, the motivation, I think I made that pretty clear too. I can see being agnostic about it, but proving it, and using it as a strategy, I don't see it. I do see it being a problem as a focus as a backfire effect, or a waste of time. So, excuse me for just saying a few impolite things.

 

[Mcreal]

Justin Martyr mentioned the 'Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels', the 'Apocalypse of John' and also mentioned Marcion but NEVER mentioned a single word about Paul, the Pauline Corpus, and the 'Pauline Gospel'.

Justin Martyr was a contemporary of Marcion and did not acknowledge any writings of Marcion.

The Pauline Corpus was, at least, most likely finalized after Marcion.

Some say Marcion, or a Marcionite, wrote some of the Pauline texts.

The Pauline Corpus are really ANTI-MARCIONITE writings fabricated in an attempt to claim Paul was a Witness of the Physical Bodily resurrection of Jesus.

There was probably a lot of doctrinal jockeying in the mid-late 2nd century.

It is also interesting to note that Tertullian in "Against Marcion" admitted that the writings which he claimed were composed by Marcion did NOT bear his name.

There's talk that Tertullian's "Against Marcion" has passed through a few hands

ie. the extant texts of Tertullian's "Against Marcion are redacted versions.​