Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The lie you sometimes are told

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 3:14:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A certain member of this website says that the Jesus myth has been debunked many times. This is a LIE. Outrageous Jesus myths have been debunked, but that does not mean that the Jesus myth, in general, has been.

I could do something similar if I wanted. I could say that the historical Jesus has been debunked by showing that the claim that Jesus existed and was exactly as depicted as in the Gospels is bull****. But that does not actually debunk a historical Jesus. You have to compare the MINIMUM HYPOTHESES. The minimum hypothesis of a mythical Jesus has NEVER been debunked.

The minimum hypothesis of myth (that has the highest prior probability) is as follows:
1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

*NOTE*
This is only the hypothesis of myth with the highest prior probability. The hypothesis of historicity below is the absolute minimum hypothesis.

The minimum theory of a historical Jesus is as follows:
1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

If you want more information, read "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.

As an additional reading, I recommend (but it is not required to understand this subject fully) for you to read the book "Proving History" by Richard Carrier.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 3:49:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As much as Richard Carrier has been put forward on this forum, I can see I need to start reading his books.

For the sake of discussion:

I believe Erhman makes a good case for the historical Jesus, but that does nothing towards validating Jesus as anything more than a man.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 3:57:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 3:49:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As much as Richard Carrier has been put forward on this forum, I can see I need to start reading his books.

I recommend reading "Proving History" first (if you plan to read "On the Historicity of Jesus"). It talks about the current issues with scholarship (any method that can come up with contradictory conclusions is flawed) and talks about how you can use Bayes's Theorem in order to find historical facts/probabilities.

For the sake of discussion:

I believe Erhman makes a good case for the historical Jesus, but that does nothing towards validating Jesus as anything more than a man.

I have to double check Erhman's work. It has been a while since I read any of it. What book does he do that in?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 4:10:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That all seems valid to me. The historical Jesus could have been an amalgam of a few notable men, as well. A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one.

What is at issue is that the Jesus of almost all Christian doctrine (only begotten son of God, etc.) HAS been debunked. (Incoming!! Dives for the foxhole where, it is also falsely claimed, no atheist dwells...)
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 4:18:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 3:57:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:49:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As much as Richard Carrier has been put forward on this forum, I can see I need to start reading his books.

I recommend reading "Proving History" first (if you plan to read "On the Historicity of Jesus"). It talks about the current issues with scholarship (any method that can come up with contradictory conclusions is flawed) and talks about how you can use Bayes's Theorem in order to find historical facts/probabilities.

I have seen the Baye's Theorum argument, but I felt that may be holding historical Jesus to a dramatically higher standard than we do for other historical figures. Of course, I may change my mind after having a chance to read his argument in his own words.

For the sake of discussion:

I believe Erhman makes a good case for the historical Jesus, but that does nothing towards validating Jesus as anything more than a man.

I have to double check Erhman's work. It has been a while since I read any of it. What book does he do that in?

"Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth"

One of the most compelling points he makes (to me, anyway) involves the 'criterion of embarrassment'. To admit Jesus was the Messiah, in light of the contrary expectaions for the Messiah, would be embarrassing for Jews/proto-Christians to admit. If Jesus were made up, they would have chosen a version in which embarrasment was not necessary.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 4:32:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 4:18:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:57:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:49:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As much as Richard Carrier has been put forward on this forum, I can see I need to start reading his books.

I recommend reading "Proving History" first (if you plan to read "On the Historicity of Jesus"). It talks about the current issues with scholarship (any method that can come up with contradictory conclusions is flawed) and talks about how you can use Bayes's Theorem in order to find historical facts/probabilities.

I have seen the Baye's Theorum argument, but I felt that may be holding historical Jesus to a dramatically higher standard than we do for other historical figures. Of course, I may change my mind after having a chance to read his argument in his own words.

Actually, he says that it should be used for all of history.

For the sake of discussion:

I believe Erhman makes a good case for the historical Jesus, but that does nothing towards validating Jesus as anything more than a man.

I have to double check Erhman's work. It has been a while since I read any of it. What book does he do that in?

"Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth"

One of the most compelling points he makes (to me, anyway) involves the 'criterion of embarrassment'. To admit Jesus was the Messiah, in light of the contrary expectaions for the Messiah, would be embarrassing for Jews/proto-Christians to admit. If Jesus were made up, they would have chosen a version in which embarrasment was not necessary.

That point is good... in theory, but the Jews were not actually united in their belief of a Messiah. There were many 'sects' that had their own views, and in "On the Historicity of Jesus", Richard Carrier actually brings up evidence that there were Jews prior to 0 CE that believed in a Messiah that was almost exactly like Jesus.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 4:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 3:14:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A certain member of this website says that the Jesus myth has been debunked many times. This is a LIE. Outrageous Jesus myths have been debunked, but that does not mean that the Jesus myth, in general, has been.

I could do something similar if I wanted. I could say that the historical Jesus has been debunked by showing that the claim that Jesus existed and was exactly as depicted as in the Gospels is bull****. But that does not actually debunk a historical Jesus. You have to compare the MINIMUM HYPOTHESES. The minimum hypothesis of a mythical Jesus has NEVER been debunked.

The minimum hypothesis of myth (that has the highest prior probability) is as follows:
1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

Celestial? As in a deity that resides in a Heavenly abode?

2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).

Well, other than coming to Earth as a human that's pretty much the only way an invisible God can communicate with a single person.
Speaking of coming to Earth as a human, what deity did that?

3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.

Jesus was crucified here on Earth. Jesus was buried here on Earth. Jesus rose from the dead here on Earth.
But also, Jesus died for a specific reason: to save humanity from their sin. Jesus also allowed lowly humans to crucify Him.

4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.

Many mythologies talk about a deity dwelling among humans, but what mythology has God come to Earth entirely as a human being?

5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

You are aware that this piece of "evidence" is absolutely irrelevant, right? A truth is not false because other people believe similar things that are false.

*NOTE*
This is only the hypothesis of myth with the highest prior probability. The hypothesis of historicity below is the absolute minimum hypothesis.

The minimum theory of a historical Jesus is as follows:
1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).


If you want more information, read "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.

As an additional reading, I recommend (but it is not required to understand this subject fully) for you to read the book "Proving History" by Richard Carrier.

Here's a few things about Christianity:
1. Jesus taught His followers to NOT resist the Romans, even though this is what 99.999% of Jews at the time wanted to do.
2. The Bible recorded that two women were the first to report Jesus's resurrection. If they were trying to make a false religion sound credible, they wouldn't say that a cornerstone of their beliefs was reported first by people who weren't considered reliable witnesses.
3. Jesus taught nonviolence and even possibly to not fight back when attacked. This goes against human nature, much more the Roman-hating beliefs of the time.
4. Jesus taught that the poor were blessed above the rich, a concept which went against every social norm of the 1st century.
5. Christians existed by Nero's time, meaning that many of its adherents, though old, may have personally seen Jesus.

I don't wish to get into a flame war; these are just my thoughts.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:06:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 4:32:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:18:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:57:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:49:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As much as Richard Carrier has been put forward on this forum, I can see I need to start reading his books.

I recommend reading "Proving History" first (if you plan to read "On the Historicity of Jesus"). It talks about the current issues with scholarship (any method that can come up with contradictory conclusions is flawed) and talks about how you can use Bayes's Theorem in order to find historical facts/probabilities.

I have seen the Baye's Theorum argument, but I felt that may be holding historical Jesus to a dramatically higher standard than we do for other historical figures. Of course, I may change my mind after having a chance to read his argument in his own words.

Actually, he says that it should be used for all of history.

Well, that would be much more consistent. I look forward to reading his book.

For the sake of discussion:

I believe Erhman makes a good case for the historical Jesus, but that does nothing towards validating Jesus as anything more than a man.

I have to double check Erhman's work. It has been a while since I read any of it. What book does he do that in?

"Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth"

One of the most compelling points he makes (to me, anyway) involves the 'criterion of embarrassment'. To admit Jesus was the Messiah, in light of the contrary expectaions for the Messiah, would be embarrassing for Jews/proto-Christians to admit. If Jesus were made up, they would have chosen a version in which embarrasment was not necessary.

That point is good... in theory, but the Jews were not actually united in their belief of a Messiah. There were many 'sects' that had their own views, and in "On the Historicity of Jesus", Richard Carrier actually brings up evidence that there were Jews prior to 0 CE that believed in a Messiah that was almost exactly like Jesus.

I was specifically referring to the belief that the messiah would be a conquering king to free the Jews from their oppressor (which Jesus was not). I think the Jews were fairly united in that aspect, but I am not intimately familiar with Jewish sects of the 1st century. Also, other sects following another 'messiah' would not invalidate historical Jesus according to the CoE. However, it could establish individuals who claimed to be messiah (or who were claimed to be messiah) as historical in addition to Jesus.

...and forgive me if that was not your point.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:09:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 4:55:03 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:14:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A certain member of this website says that the Jesus myth has been debunked many times. This is a LIE. Outrageous Jesus myths have been debunked, but that does not mean that the Jesus myth, in general, has been.

I could do something similar if I wanted. I could say that the historical Jesus has been debunked by showing that the claim that Jesus existed and was exactly as depicted as in the Gospels is bull****. But that does not actually debunk a historical Jesus. You have to compare the MINIMUM HYPOTHESES. The minimum hypothesis of a mythical Jesus has NEVER been debunked.

The minimum hypothesis of myth (that has the highest prior probability) is as follows:
1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

Celestial? As in a deity that resides in a Heavenly abode?

Yes.

2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).

Well, other than coming to Earth as a human that's pretty much the only way an invisible God can communicate with a single person.
Speaking of coming to Earth as a human, what deity did that?

Mithra, Osiris, and many more.

3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.

Jesus was crucified here on Earth. Jesus was buried here on Earth. Jesus rose from the dead here on Earth.
But also, Jesus died for a specific reason: to save humanity from their sin. Jesus also allowed lowly humans to crucify Him.

That is the claim of historicity, but that is not necessarily what happened. For example, the Ascension of Isaiah, written around the same time as the Gospels, talks about a Celestial Jesus that was killed in the firmament, but not earth. Maybe you should read "On the Historicity of Jesus".

4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.

Many mythologies talk about a deity dwelling among humans, but what mythology has God come to Earth entirely as a human being?

Have you heard of Mithra? Osiris? Even Zues and Uranus had books written about them as historical beings.

5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

You are aware that this piece of "evidence" is absolutely irrelevant, right? A truth is not false because other people believe similar things that are false.

This isn't the evidence. I was only saying what the minimum hypothesis was. You want to learn about the evidence, read Richard Carrier's works on the subject.

*NOTE*
This is only the hypothesis of myth with the highest prior probability. The hypothesis of historicity below is the absolute minimum hypothesis.

The minimum theory of a historical Jesus is as follows:
1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).


If you want more information, read "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.

As an additional reading, I recommend (but it is not required to understand this subject fully) for you to read the book "Proving History" by Richard Carrier.

Here's a few things about Christianity:
1. Jesus taught His followers to NOT resist the Romans, even though this is what 99.999% of Jews at the time wanted to do.

Evidence for this.
Also, there were 'sects' of Judaism that believed that the messiah that would come was similar to what the Gospel says about Jesus.

2. The Bible recorded that two women were the first to report Jesus's resurrection. If they were trying to make a false religion sound credible, they wouldn't say that a cornerstone of their beliefs was reported first by people who weren't considered reliable witnesses.

Richard Carrier also addresses this. When I get my copy of the book back (I lent it to a friend) I can tell you specifically what it says.

3. Jesus taught nonviolence and even possibly to not fight back when attacked. This goes against human nature, much more the Roman-hating beliefs of the time.

How is this relevant? There were Jews that believed that that was the Messiah that would come.

4. Jesus taught that the poor were blessed above the rich, a concept which went against every social norm of the 1st century.

Actually, it didn't.

5. Christians existed by Nero's time, meaning that many of its adherents, though old, may have personally seen Jesus.

Talked about by Carrier as well.

I don't wish to get into a flame war; these are just my thoughts.

I don't wish to either. I do recommend actually reading Carrier's work though. The points you brought up are all addressed there.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:13:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:09:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:55:03 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:14:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A certain member of this website says that the Jesus myth has been debunked many times. This is a LIE. Outrageous Jesus myths have been debunked, but that does not mean that the Jesus myth, in general, has been.

I could do something similar if I wanted. I could say that the historical Jesus has been debunked by showing that the claim that Jesus existed and was exactly as depicted as in the Gospels is bull****. But that does not actually debunk a historical Jesus. You have to compare the MINIMUM HYPOTHESES. The minimum hypothesis of a mythical Jesus has NEVER been debunked.

The minimum hypothesis of myth (that has the highest prior probability) is as follows:
1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

Celestial? As in a deity that resides in a Heavenly abode?

Yes.

2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).

Well, other than coming to Earth as a human that's pretty much the only way an invisible God can communicate with a single person.
Speaking of coming to Earth as a human, what deity did that?

Mithra, Osiris, and many more.

3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.

Jesus was crucified here on Earth. Jesus was buried here on Earth. Jesus rose from the dead here on Earth.
But also, Jesus died for a specific reason: to save humanity from their sin. Jesus also allowed lowly humans to crucify Him.

That is the claim of historicity, but that is not necessarily what happened. For example, the Ascension of Isaiah, written around the same time as the Gospels, talks about a Celestial Jesus that was killed in the firmament, but not earth. Maybe you should read "On the Historicity of Jesus".

4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.

Many mythologies talk about a deity dwelling among humans, but what mythology has God come to Earth entirely as a human being?

Have you heard of Mithra? Osiris? Even Zues and Uranus had books written about them as historical beings.

5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

You are aware that this piece of "evidence" is absolutely irrelevant, right? A truth is not false because other people believe similar things that are false.

This isn't the evidence. I was only saying what the minimum hypothesis was. You want to learn about the evidence, read Richard Carrier's works on the subject.

*NOTE*
This is only the hypothesis of myth with the highest prior probability. The hypothesis of historicity below is the absolute minimum hypothesis.

The minimum theory of a historical Jesus is as follows:
1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).


If you want more information, read "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.

As an additional reading, I recommend (but it is not required to understand this subject fully) for you to read the book "Proving History" by Richard Carrier.

Here's a few things about Christianity:
1. Jesus taught His followers to NOT resist the Romans, even though this is what 99.999% of Jews at the time wanted to do.

Evidence for this.
Also, there were 'sects' of Judaism that believed that the messiah that would come was similar to what the Gospel says about Jesus.

2. The Bible recorded that two women were the first to report Jesus's resurrection. If they were trying to make a false religion sound credible, they wouldn't say that a cornerstone of their beliefs was reported first by people who weren't considered reliable witnesses.

Richard Carrier also addresses this. When I get my copy of the book back (I lent it to a friend) I can tell you specifically what it says.

3. Jesus taught nonviolence and even possibly to not fight back when attacked. This goes against human nature, much more the Roman-hating beliefs of the time.

How is this relevant? There were Jews that believed that that was the Messiah that would come.

4. Jesus taught that the poor were blessed above the rich, a concept which went against every social norm of the 1st century.

Actually, it didn't.

5. Christians existed by Nero's time, meaning that many of its adherents, though old, may have personally seen Jesus.

Talked about by Carrier as well.

I don't wish to get into a flame war; these are just my thoughts.

I don't wish to either. I do recommend actually reading Carrier's work though. The points you brought up are all addressed there.

Perhaps I'll look him up. Of course, we should be aware that one guy's rebuttal doesn't absolutely debunk something. Somebody could provide a rebuttal to that rebuttal.
But here's another one: why would a religion portray its own founders as cowardly, clueless, and often at odds with what Jesus said?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:16:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:06:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:32:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Actually, he says that it should be used for all of history.

Well, that would be much more consistent. I look forward to reading his book.

I do not remember if he states that in his book, but he did say that when I met him a couple weeks ago.

That point is good... in theory, but the Jews were not actually united in their belief of a Messiah. There were many 'sects' that had their own views, and in "On the Historicity of Jesus", Richard Carrier actually brings up evidence that there were Jews prior to 0 CE that believed in a Messiah that was almost exactly like Jesus.

I was specifically referring to the belief that the messiah would be a conquering king to free the Jews from their oppressor (which Jesus was not). I think the Jews were fairly united in that aspect, but I am not intimately familiar with Jewish sects of the 1st century. Also, other sects following another 'messiah' would not invalidate historical Jesus according to the CoE. However, it could establish individuals who claimed to be messiah (or who were claimed to be messiah) as historical in addition to Jesus.

...and forgive me if that was not your point.

The point is that there were many beliefs of what the Messiah would be like prior to Christianity. That means that if one of the sects that had a similar idea of a Messiah as Jesus could have made the story up.

Did you know that early Christianity in the eastern part of the Roman empire (the part that would have had a higher chance of getting the original story of Jesus) believed that Jesus lived over 100 years before when the Gospels say he lived?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:21:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:13:50 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Perhaps I'll look him up. Of course, we should be aware that one guy's rebuttal doesn't absolutely debunk something. Somebody could provide a rebuttal to that rebuttal.
But here's another one: why would a religion portray its own founders as cowardly, clueless, and often at odds with what Jesus said?

How the Gospels portrayed him is not actually how he was originally portrayed (when looking at the view of mysticism). Even then, if I remember correct, Carrier addresses that. I don't remember completely (been a while since I read the book), but he was very thorough.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:30:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:16:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:06:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:32:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Actually, he says that it should be used for all of history.

Well, that would be much more consistent. I look forward to reading his book.

I do not remember if he states that in his book, but he did say that when I met him a couple weeks ago.

That point is good... in theory, but the Jews were not actually united in their belief of a Messiah. There were many 'sects' that had their own views, and in "On the Historicity of Jesus", Richard Carrier actually brings up evidence that there were Jews prior to 0 CE that believed in a Messiah that was almost exactly like Jesus.

I was specifically referring to the belief that the messiah would be a conquering king to free the Jews from their oppressor (which Jesus was not). I think the Jews were fairly united in that aspect, but I am not intimately familiar with Jewish sects of the 1st century. Also, other sects following another 'messiah' would not invalidate historical Jesus according to the CoE. However, it could establish individuals who claimed to be messiah (or who were claimed to be messiah) as historical in addition to Jesus.

...and forgive me if that was not your point.

The point is that there were many beliefs of what the Messiah would be like prior to Christianity. That means that if one of the sects that had a similar idea of a Messiah as Jesus could have made the story up.

Really, Im not intentionally trying to disagree with you, but "messiah" means 'annointed one' and refers to the tradition of annointing kings with oil in ancient times. The messiah was to be king (at the very least) and a king sacrificing himself to the bad guys is a very embarrasing concept. I can't speak directly to whichever sect you are referring to, but if their "messiah" happened to be an embarrasment as well, it does not take away from the argument for historical Jesus. (at least not on the grounds of the CoE).

Did you know that early Christianity in the eastern part of the Roman empire (the part that would have had a higher chance of getting the original story of Jesus) believed that Jesus lived over 100 years before when the Gospels say he lived?

No, I did not. Could you cite a source for that?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:32:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 3:49:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
As much as Richard Carrier has been put forward on this forum, I can see I need to start reading his books.

For the sake of discussion:

I believe Erhman makes a good case for the historical Jesus, but that does nothing towards validating Jesus as anything more than a man.

In addition to the work of Richard Carrier, you may wish to consider reading ...

"The Jesus Puzzle" - Earl Doherty
"Jesus: Neither God, nor Man" - Earl Doherty
"Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All" - David Fitzgerald
"Jesus: Mything in Action" - David Fitzgerald
"The Christ Conspiracy" - D. M. Murdock
"Suns of God" - D. M. Murdock
"Who Was Jesus" - D. M. Murdock
"The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus" - Rene Salm
"The Amazing Colossal Apostle" - Robert M Price
"Deconstructing Jesus" - Robert M Price
"The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" - Frank R Zindler

For me, the clincher was "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman, in which he begins to contradict and back-pedal on the foundation he presented in "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted", in order to try to make a case for the historical Jesus. For me it was highly transparent that Ehrman is hoping to salvage his credibility after writing entire books on who Jesus might actually have been. I expected that Ehrman would be able to produce a good base of actual evidence for Jesus. Instead, he convinced me that Jesus is a myth through his continual failed attempts to present a valid argument for the existence of an actual Jesus.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:38:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 4:55:03 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/23/2014 3:14:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Jesus was crucified here on Earth. Jesus was buried here on Earth. Jesus rose from the dead here on Earth.
But also, Jesus died for a specific reason: to save humanity from their sin. Jesus also allowed lowly humans to crucify Him.
All claims for which there is not a shred of historical evidence. All of that resides only within the texts prepared and/or accepted, specifically for the Christian religion. The Jesus saga is pure drama involving a great many people - often the majority of ruling members of society, and even the majority of specific towns and yet...

... not one word of it noted by even one historian of the day.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:42:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:13:50 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
But here's another one: why would a religion portray its own founders as cowardly, clueless, and often at odds with what Jesus said?

For the same reason that Batman is characterized to be more intelligent, more mature and more effective than Robin. For the same reason that nearly every hero character has people on their side, who fail in areas where the primary hero excels. It places the hero more deeply into the spotlight of excellence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:43:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 4:10:26 PM, Fly wrote:
That all seems valid to me. The historical Jesus could have been an amalgam of a few notable men, as well. A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one.

Ummm ... that's not exactly true. Paul preached that a real Jesus existed and was crucified.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:48:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:30:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:16:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:06:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:32:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Actually, he says that it should be used for all of history.

Well, that would be much more consistent. I look forward to reading his book.

I do not remember if he states that in his book, but he did say that when I met him a couple weeks ago.

That point is good... in theory, but the Jews were not actually united in their belief of a Messiah. There were many 'sects' that had their own views, and in "On the Historicity of Jesus", Richard Carrier actually brings up evidence that there were Jews prior to 0 CE that believed in a Messiah that was almost exactly like Jesus.

I was specifically referring to the belief that the messiah would be a conquering king to free the Jews from their oppressor (which Jesus was not). I think the Jews were fairly united in that aspect, but I am not intimately familiar with Jewish sects of the 1st century. Also, other sects following another 'messiah' would not invalidate historical Jesus according to the CoE. However, it could establish individuals who claimed to be messiah (or who were claimed to be messiah) as historical in addition to Jesus.

...and forgive me if that was not your point.

The point is that there were many beliefs of what the Messiah would be like prior to Christianity. That means that if one of the sects that had a similar idea of a Messiah as Jesus could have made the story up.

Really, Im not intentionally trying to disagree with you, but "messiah" means 'annointed one' and refers to the tradition of annointing kings with oil in ancient times. The messiah was to be king (at the very least) and a king sacrificing himself to the bad guys is a very embarrasing concept. I can't speak directly to whichever sect you are referring to, but if their "messiah" happened to be an embarrasment as well, it does not take away from the argument for historical Jesus. (at least not on the grounds of the CoE).

It does not take away from the chances of a historical Jesus, but it does increase the probability of the Jesus myth.

Did you know that early Christianity in the eastern part of the Roman empire (the part that would have had a higher chance of getting the original story of Jesus) believed that Jesus lived over 100 years before when the Gospels say he lived?

No, I did not. Could you cite a source for that?

I'm going to have to get my copy of "On the Historicity of Jesus" back from a friend. Carrier cited it in there when he talked about it. Sorry that I cannot be of more help at this exact point in time.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:54:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:48:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:30:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:16:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:06:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:32:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Actually, he says that it should be used for all of history.

Well, that would be much more consistent. I look forward to reading his book.

I do not remember if he states that in his book, but he did say that when I met him a couple weeks ago.

That point is good... in theory, but the Jews were not actually united in their belief of a Messiah. There were many 'sects' that had their own views, and in "On the Historicity of Jesus", Richard Carrier actually brings up evidence that there were Jews prior to 0 CE that believed in a Messiah that was almost exactly like Jesus.

I was specifically referring to the belief that the messiah would be a conquering king to free the Jews from their oppressor (which Jesus was not). I think the Jews were fairly united in that aspect, but I am not intimately familiar with Jewish sects of the 1st century. Also, other sects following another 'messiah' would not invalidate historical Jesus according to the CoE. However, it could establish individuals who claimed to be messiah (or who were claimed to be messiah) as historical in addition to Jesus.

...and forgive me if that was not your point.

The point is that there were many beliefs of what the Messiah would be like prior to Christianity. That means that if one of the sects that had a similar idea of a Messiah as Jesus could have made the story up.

Really, Im not intentionally trying to disagree with you, but "messiah" means 'annointed one' and refers to the tradition of annointing kings with oil in ancient times. The messiah was to be king (at the very least) and a king sacrificing himself to the bad guys is a very embarrasing concept. I can't speak directly to whichever sect you are referring to, but if their "messiah" happened to be an embarrasment as well, it does not take away from the argument for historical Jesus. (at least not on the grounds of the CoE).

It does not take away from the chances of a historical Jesus, but it does increase the probability of the Jesus myth.

Agreed.

Did you know that early Christianity in the eastern part of the Roman empire (the part that would have had a higher chance of getting the original story of Jesus) believed that Jesus lived over 100 years before when the Gospels say he lived?

No, I did not. Could you cite a source for that?

I'm going to have to get my copy of "On the Historicity of Jesus" back from a friend. Carrier cited it in there when he talked about it. Sorry that I cannot be of more help at this exact point in time.

No, that is helpful. Thank you.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 8:24:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 3:14:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A certain member of this website says that the Jesus myth has been debunked many times. This is a LIE. Outrageous Jesus myths have been debunked, but that does not mean that the Jesus myth, in general, has been.

I could do something similar if I wanted. I could say that the historical Jesus has been debunked by showing that the claim that Jesus existed and was exactly as depicted as in the Gospels is bull****. But that does not actually debunk a historical Jesus. You have to compare the MINIMUM HYPOTHESES. The minimum hypothesis of a mythical Jesus has NEVER been debunked.

The minimum hypothesis of myth (that has the highest prior probability) is as follows:
1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

*NOTE*
This is only the hypothesis of myth with the highest prior probability. The hypothesis of historicity below is the absolute minimum hypothesis.

The minimum theory of a historical Jesus is as follows:
1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).


If you want more information, read "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.

As an additional reading, I recommend (but it is not required to understand this subject fully) for you to read the book "Proving History" by Richard Carrier.

Let me just end this Jesus myth bullcrap with the works of few first century historians;

1. Josephus- https://en.wikisource.org... (ctrl+f Jesus)

2. Tacitus- https://en.wikisource.org...(Tacitus)/Book_15#44

3. Suetonius- https://en.wikisource.org...

4. Pliny the Younger- "They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up." Letter to the Emporor Trajan [Chapter 5 p. 83]

Jesus existed. Please cut the out the crap. Constantly remaking these threads makes you atheists seem insecure.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 9:36:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 8:24:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Let me just end this Jesus myth bullcrap with the works of few first century historians;

1. Josephus- https://en.wikisource.org... (ctrl+f Jesus)

One was forged, the other was interpolated.

The one that was forged was the mention in the Testimonia Flaviana. This passage has a devout Jew pretty much saying Jesus was the messiah. Josephus was also a sophisticated author who otherwise writes far more elegant prose, and usually explains to his readers anything strange.
This passage does not fit with anything in Josephus' works
There is a lot more reasoning behind this, but I recommend reading "On the Historicity of Jesus" if you want more.

The interpolated one is the mention "the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), the name for whom was James, and some others" were tried and stoned bt the high priest Ananus for unspecified crimes and in defiance of proper criminal procedure.
The interpolation here is the part that says "who was called Christ". And it was an accidental interpolation that entered manuscripts sometime in the late third century.
One reason for this position is that Origen never quotes this passage, and shows no knowledge of this passage as we have it, or the story it relates, or where it was located in the works of Josephus. The first person to quote the passage we have is Eusebius (by the way, a known forger).
The original text probably read, "the brother of Jesus, the name for whom was James, and some others" OR "the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus, the name for whom was James, and some others" (Jesus the son of Damneus is actually mentioned later in the same passage).
It was probably incorporating (accidentally) a Christian marginal or interlinear note (by insertion or replacement, to correct what a later copyist mistook as an error), changing the passage.
Reasoning for this position is as follows:
1) The words and structure chosen here are ones that would commonly be used in an interlinear note. In fact, if it was written by Josephus, we would expect him to clarify. Why was Jesus called "Christ"? What does the word mean? This passage was not written for Jews or Christians, it was written for the Romans.
2) There is no stated reason for either Jesus or Christ to be mentioned at all, which would not be expected if it was written by Josephus since he usually expands on these types of things.
3) The story as we have it makes no sense. No basis is mentioned for the execution, which Josephus would write about. It also says that many Jews were outraged by the execution of James and that they wanted Ananus punished, which makes no sense since the Jews and Christians did not get along. In fact, since this was written for a Roman audience, Josephus would actually explain things better here as well.
4) Acts shows no knowledge of this event, and if this did happen it almost certainly would have been included in Acts.
For more reasons, read the book.

2. Tacitus- https://en.wikisource.org...(Tacitus)/Book_15#44

Was not relaying accurate information, only what Christians said at the time.
This HEAVILY contradicts the what we would expect of Pliny the Elder's work (which I explain in response to your Pliny the Younger part).
There were also no reliable sources for Tacitus to get this information.

3. Suetonius- https://en.wikisource.org...

One passage refers to JEWISH rioters. He says, of Emperor Claudius, "since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.'.
1) This would have been a near impossible feat, giving reason to doubt it.
2) Acts shows no knowledge of this event, yet the author would have every reason to do so when he was writing about the Jews making trouble for Christians in Rome.
3) He says the riots were instigated by Chrestus himself, but Jesus was neither alive or in Rome at any time under Claudius.
4) Acts depicts Jews at Rome knowing little about Christianity beyond distant rumors, which makes no sense if the whole Jewish population rioted over it a decade earlier.

This gives huge reason to doubt it is authentic.

His second passage only says 'punishments were inflicted on the Christians, a class if men given to a new and mischievous superstition'. This says nothing about a historical Jesus, but it does say that Suetonius knew the difference between Jews and Christians. This gives more reason to the first passage talking about the Jews.

4. Pliny the Younger- "They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up." Letter to the Emporor Trajan [Chapter 5 p. 83]

This says nothing about a historical Jesus, just what Christians were doing/preaching at the time.

Pliny the Younger also said that he never attended a trial of Christians, knew nothing of what they believed, or were guilty of, until he interrogated them for this letter. This means that Pliny the Elder almost certainly never wrote about them either, even in his account of the Neronian fire, to which he was an eye-witness of and devoted an entire volume of work to that year.

Pliny the Younger, being an admirer of Pliny the Elder, would have known about any record of Pliny the Elder's work on Christians if it existed.

Jesus existed. Please cut the out the crap. Constantly remaking these threads makes you atheists seem insecure.

You have not demonstrated anything yet. And I am not posting this as an atheist, I am posting this as an aspiring historian. If you want to actually discuss this, then we can discuss. Though, I have already seen enough of your comments in the religion forum to know that you don't wish to discuss anything that doesn't fit your belief.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 9:38:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:43:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:10:26 PM, Fly wrote:
That all seems valid to me. The historical Jesus could have been an amalgam of a few notable men, as well. A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one.

Ummm ... that's not exactly true. Paul preached that a real Jesus existed and was crucified.

The Ascension of Isaiah has a Celestial Jesus that was crucified in the firmament by Satan and his minions. What is your point? Crucified=/=historical.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 9:41:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:54:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:48:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:30:28 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:16:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:06:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:32:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Actually, he says that it should be used for all of history.

Well, that would be much more consistent. I look forward to reading his book.

I do not remember if he states that in his book, but he did say that when I met him a couple weeks ago.

That point is good... in theory, but the Jews were not actually united in their belief of a Messiah. There were many 'sects' that had their own views, and in "On the Historicity of Jesus", Richard Carrier actually brings up evidence that there were Jews prior to 0 CE that believed in a Messiah that was almost exactly like Jesus.

I was specifically referring to the belief that the messiah would be a conquering king to free the Jews from their oppressor (which Jesus was not). I think the Jews were fairly united in that aspect, but I am not intimately familiar with Jewish sects of the 1st century. Also, other sects following another 'messiah' would not invalidate historical Jesus according to the CoE. However, it could establish individuals who claimed to be messiah (or who were claimed to be messiah) as historical in addition to Jesus.

...and forgive me if that was not your point.

The point is that there were many beliefs of what the Messiah would be like prior to Christianity. That means that if one of the sects that had a similar idea of a Messiah as Jesus could have made the story up.

Really, Im not intentionally trying to disagree with you, but "messiah" means 'annointed one' and refers to the tradition of annointing kings with oil in ancient times. The messiah was to be king (at the very least) and a king sacrificing himself to the bad guys is a very embarrasing concept. I can't speak directly to whichever sect you are referring to, but if their "messiah" happened to be an embarrasment as well, it does not take away from the argument for historical Jesus. (at least not on the grounds of the CoE).

It does not take away from the chances of a historical Jesus, but it does increase the probability of the Jesus myth.

Agreed.

Did you know that early Christianity in the eastern part of the Roman empire (the part that would have had a higher chance of getting the original story of Jesus) believed that Jesus lived over 100 years before when the Gospels say he lived?

No, I did not. Could you cite a source for that?

I'm going to have to get my copy of "On the Historicity of Jesus" back from a friend. Carrier cited it in there when he talked about it. Sorry that I cannot be of more help at this exact point in time.

No, that is helpful. Thank you.

Got my copy back (my friend finished it earlier today) but it will be a while before I can get to your point. It is not labeled in a specific section like most things are.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 9:55:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 3:14:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
A certain member of this website says that the Jesus myth has been debunked many times. This is a LIE. Outrageous Jesus myths have been debunked, but that does not mean that the Jesus myth, in general, has been.

I could do something similar if I wanted. I could say that the historical Jesus has been debunked by showing that the claim that Jesus existed and was exactly as depicted as in the Gospels is bull****. But that does not actually debunk a historical Jesus. You have to compare the MINIMUM HYPOTHESES. The minimum hypothesis of a mythical Jesus has NEVER been debunked.

The minimum hypothesis of myth (that has the highest prior probability) is as follows:
1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

*NOTE*
This is only the hypothesis of myth with the highest prior probability. The hypothesis of historicity below is the absolute minimum hypothesis.

The minimum theory of a historical Jesus is as follows:
1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).


If you want more information, read "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.

As an additional reading, I recommend (but it is not required to understand this subject fully) for you to read the book "Proving History" by Richard Carrier.

I can't even read more than half of it, it's so dumb. Who in the world told you that stuff like this displays intelligence? Only the dumbing down of the public schools and mass media disinformation campains like the History channel can make you think that the stuff is this forum topic is deep.

Many of those followers of Jesus lost everything including their lives in brutal tortuous ways because they knew He is risen from the dead and He is God. You don't believe the Romans placed gaurds at His tomb to make sure the disciples did not take His body away to pretend that He rose from the dead? The penalty for those soldiers was death if they did not keep their watch. Those soldiers saw the angel of God roll that huge stone away from the tomb door and they saw Jesus come out of that tomb. They were paid large sums of money to say they fell asleep and the disciples took the body in the night. Yeah, right, they took the body and then they let themselves be tortured to death refusing to renounce their assertion that He had rose from the grave and was alive. The reason our calender is based on His life is that He forever changed the people who put their trust in Him, believing on His resurrection.......and many in communist and Muslims countries still give their lives taking the same stand in the same faith that was recorded in the Bible and passed down through the blood of Martyr's to us today. You have to be beyond dumbed down to believe anything other than the truth of the gospel which is that Jesus Christ conquered death and we can all have eternal life if we believe on Him!!!! This is the gospel that changed my life and the lives of millions and it will change your life too, all for good, if you will only A. admit that you are the one who deserves to die B Believe Jesis is God who took your place in death and rose from the dead bodily so you can be forgiven, and C. Call on God in Jesus' name to save you and you will have eternal life!!! It's so simple a child can understand, and I know many children under ten years old who have believed and they are wiser than all of the "intellectual atheists and agnostics' on this site put together.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:06:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 9:38:59 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:43:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:10:26 PM, Fly wrote:
That all seems valid to me. The historical Jesus could have been an amalgam of a few notable men, as well. A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one.

Ummm ... that's not exactly true. Paul preached that a real Jesus existed and was crucified.

The Ascension of Isaiah has a Celestial Jesus that was crucified in the firmament by Satan and his minions. What is your point? Crucified=/=historical.

The point is that Paul preached that Christ lived and died here on earth, yet the prior person said, "A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:13:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 9:55:05 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
I can't even read more than half of it, it's so dumb. Who in the world told you that stuff like this displays intelligence? Only the dumbing down of the public schools and mass media disinformation campains like the History channel can make you think that the stuff is this forum topic is deep.

Ad hominem right off the bat?

I get this information from ACTUAL PERIOD HISTORIANS.

Many of those followers of Jesus lost everything including their lives in brutal tortuous ways because they knew He is risen from the dead and He is God.

They BELIEVED that. Believe=/=know. And that was not even the belief of early Christians.

You don't believe the Romans placed gaurds at His tomb to make sure the disciples did not take His body away to pretend that He rose from the dead?

There was no tomb, there were no guards posted.

The penalty for those soldiers was death if they did not keep their watch. Those soldiers saw the angel of God roll that huge stone away from the tomb door and they saw Jesus come out of that tomb. They were paid large sums of money to say they fell asleep and the disciples took the body in the night.

Evidence for any of this?

Yeah, right, they took the body and then they let themselves be tortured to death refusing to renounce their assertion that He had rose from the grave and was alive.

Again, evidence for this?

The reason our calender is based on His life is that He forever changed the people who put their trust in Him, believing on His resurrection.......

No, the reason the calender is based on the Gospel accounts is because of the influence that Christianity gained over Europe. BTW, the BC-AD/BCE-CE calendars are not the only calendars.

and many in communist and Muslims countries still give their lives taking the same stand in the same faith that was recorded in the Bible and passed down through the blood of Martyr's to us today.

Your point? They believe it happened. Muslims believe the Qur'an is correct. Atheists are persecuted in the Middle East as well. Stalin persecuted Muslims as well. Does this mean Islam is correct? No.

You have to be beyond dumbed down to believe anything other than the truth of the gospel which is that Jesus Christ conquered death and we can all have eternal life if we believe on Him!!!!

You have to be a moron to believe that the Gospel tells accurate history.

This is the gospel that changed my life and the lives of millions and it will change your life too, all for good,

It is a placebo effect, nothing more.

if you will only A. admit that you are the one who deserves to die

Give me one good reason why I deserve to die?

B Believe Jesis is God who took your place in death and rose from the dead bodily so you can be forgiven,

Where is the evidence of this?

and C. Call on God in Jesus' name to save you and you will have eternal life!!!

Ya, I did that when I was a Christian and was realizing that Christianity was full of ****. Didn't work. BTW, you are saying to believe without evidence. That is called being stupid. Sorry that I refuse to be an idiot.

It's so simple a child can understand, and I know many children under ten years old who have believed and they are wiser than all of the "intellectual atheists and agnostics' on this site put together.

Really now?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:14:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 10:06:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/23/2014 9:38:59 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:43:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:10:26 PM, Fly wrote:
That all seems valid to me. The historical Jesus could have been an amalgam of a few notable men, as well. A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one.

Ummm ... that's not exactly true. Paul preached that a real Jesus existed and was crucified.

The Ascension of Isaiah has a Celestial Jesus that was crucified in the firmament by Satan and his minions. What is your point? Crucified=/=historical.

The point is that Paul preached that Christ lived and died here on earth, yet the prior person said, "A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one."

No, Paul actually never said that. Paul did say that he received his knowledge through REVELATION.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:24:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This whole thread misses the point. Even if the New Testament was 100% accurate, that Jesus existed, performed miracles died revived and ascended into the sky.

Even if that were 100% true, God would remain the least likely explanation for all of this. It's an epistemological and metaphysical question, and it's clear God violates every principle of reason in those fiends.

No apologist, or the most biased and dishonest of scholars even gets close to demonstrating that much... But even if they did they have all their work ahead of them.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:27:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 10:14:45 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 10:06:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/23/2014 9:38:59 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:43:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:10:26 PM, Fly wrote:
That all seems valid to me. The historical Jesus could have been an amalgam of a few notable men, as well. A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one.

Ummm ... that's not exactly true. Paul preached that a real Jesus existed and was crucified.

The Ascension of Isaiah has a Celestial Jesus that was crucified in the firmament by Satan and his minions. What is your point? Crucified=/=historical.

The point is that Paul preached that Christ lived and died here on earth, yet the prior person said, "A big eye opener for me is that the Apostle Paul never referred to a corporeal Jesus, just the mythical one."

No, Paul actually never said that. Paul did say that he received his knowledge through REVELATION.

What knowledge?

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep."

We'll assume for your sake that Paul did not teach that Christ died and was buried and was raised on the third day. Could you tell us what he did preach in the above passage?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 9:36:26 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 8:24:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Let me just end this Jesus myth bullcrap with the works of few first century historians;

1. Josephus- https://en.wikisource.org... (ctrl+f Jesus)

One was forged, the other was interpolated.

The one that was forged was the mention in the Testimonia Flaviana. This passage has a devout Jew pretty much saying Jesus was the messiah. Josephus was also a sophisticated author who otherwise writes far more elegant prose, and usually explains to his readers anything strange.
This passage does not fit with anything in Josephus' works
There is a lot more reasoning behind this, but I recommend reading "On the Historicity of Jesus" if you want more.

The interpolated one is the mention "the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), the name for whom was James, and some others" were tried and stoned bt the high priest Ananus for unspecified crimes and in defiance of proper criminal procedure.
The interpolation here is the part that says "who was called Christ". And it was an accidental interpolation that entered manuscripts sometime in the late third century.
One reason for this position is that Origen never quotes this passage, and shows no knowledge of this passage as we have it, or the story it relates, or where it was located in the works of Josephus. The first person to quote the passage we have is Eusebius (by the way, a known forger).
The original text probably read, "the brother of Jesus, the name for whom was James, and some others" OR "the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus, the name for whom was James, and some others" (Jesus the son of Damneus is actually mentioned later in the same passage).
It was probably incorporating (accidentally) a Christian marginal or interlinear note (by insertion or replacement, to correct what a later copyist mistook as an error), changing the passage.
Reasoning for this position is as follows:
1) The words and structure chosen here are ones that would commonly be used in an interlinear note. In fact, if it was written by Josephus, we would expect him to clarify. Why was Jesus called "Christ"? What does the word mean? This passage was not written for Jews or Christians, it was written for the Romans.
2) There is no stated reason for either Jesus or Christ to be mentioned at all, which would not be expected if it was written by Josephus since he usually expands on these types of things.
3) The story as we have it makes no sense. No basis is mentioned for the execution, which Josephus would write about. It also says that many Jews were outraged by the execution of James and that they wanted Ananus punished, which makes no sense since the Jews and Christians did not get along. In fact, since this was written for a Roman audience, Josephus would actually explain things better here as well.
4) Acts shows no knowledge of this event, and if this did happen it almost certainly would have been included in Acts.
For more reasons, read the book.

2. Tacitus- https://en.wikisource.org...(Tacitus)/Book_15#44

Was not relaying accurate information, only what Christians said at the time.
This HEAVILY contradicts the what we would expect of Pliny the Elder's work (which I explain in response to your Pliny the Younger part).
There were also no reliable sources for Tacitus to get this information.

3. Suetonius- https://en.wikisource.org...

One passage refers to JEWISH rioters. He says, of Emperor Claudius, "since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.'.
1) This would have been a near impossible feat, giving reason to doubt it.
2) Acts shows no knowledge of this event, yet the author would have every reason to do so when he was writing about the Jews making trouble for Christians in Rome.
3) He says the riots were instigated by Chrestus himself, but Jesus was neither alive or in Rome at any time under Claudius.
4) Acts depicts Jews at Rome knowing little about Christianity beyond distant rumors, which makes no sense if the whole Jewish population rioted over it a decade earlier.

This gives huge reason to doubt it is authentic.

His second passage only says 'punishments were inflicted on the Christians, a class if men given to a new and mischievous superstition'. This says nothing about a historical Jesus, but it does say that Suetonius knew the difference between Jews and Christians. This gives more reason to the first passage talking about the Jews.

4. Pliny the Younger- "They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up." Letter to the Emporor Trajan [Chapter 5 p. 83]

This says nothing about a historical Jesus, just what Christians were doing/preaching at the time.

Pliny the Younger also said that he never attended a trial of Christians, knew nothing of what they believed, or were guilty of, until he interrogated them for this letter. This means that Pliny the Elder almost certainly never wrote about them either, even in his account of the Neronian fire, to which he was an eye-witness of and devoted an entire volume of work to that year.

Pliny the Younger, being an admirer of Pliny the Elder, would have known about any record of Pliny the Elder's work on Christians if it existed.

Jesus existed. Please cut the out the crap. Constantly remaking these threads makes you atheists seem insecure.

You have not demonstrated anything yet. And I am not posting this as an atheist, I am posting this as an aspiring historian. If you want to actually discuss this, then we can discuss. Though, I have already seen enough of your comments in the religion forum to know that you don't wish to discuss anything that doesn't fit your belief.

aspiring historian? more like an aspiring disinformationalist. Same old garbage pale of lies and distortions spread and promoted by the religious leaders and the ungodly politicians whose careers and livlihoods were threatened by the changes made in people's lives when they believed on the resurrection of Jesus after He was seen alive by more than five hundred at one time and his fame began to spread throughout the world and continues to spread today, 2000 years later and will continue to spread untill He subdues all of His enemies forever. He's coming back. You will see Him. If you are alive, you will see Him on earth. If you are dead, you will see Him when you are called up from Hell to His judgement seat. If you are in heaven, you will be like Him and with Him forever. His fame before His crucifixion was for the miracles He did, He was crucified because He pointed out the hypocracy of the religious leadership. All of His followers forsook HIm when the soldiers came to arrest Him. They all turned their back on Him.....untill He showed Himself alive and they knew He forgave them and they knew He is the Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of all who believe on Him.

You think those who saw him alive after He rose from the dead, after they saw the miracles He did before he was crucified, would not make sure to carefully preserve the gospel story and the record of the early church as recorded in the Book of Acts? You think that throughout the centuries there have not been many different groups who tried to change the story and cast doubt on the credibility of God's preserverd Word?
Jesus gives LIFE!!! scarrrryy