The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Yes, Jesus existed … but relax, you can still be an atheist if you want to > Comments

Yes, Jesus existed … but relax, you can still be an atheist if you want to : Comments

By Mike Bird, published 30/12/2014

The Jesus mythicists are a group of enthusiastic atheists who through websites and self-published books try to prove the equivalent of a flat earth.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Why does everything has to turn out to be christian?
Why do all of the usual christian god-botherers spend so much time attacking people (mainly atheists) who quite rightly ridicule the naive essentially childish, even infantile nonsense that they promote.

We dont even know what we are. We cant even account for our own appearance here, or the appearance of a single "thing" too.
And yet all these christian true-believers presume to "know" so much Jesus and what he supposedly did and said 2000 years ago - whenever and wherever that was.
And which of the now over 30,000 christian denominations, sects and sub-sects competing for market share in the market place of whats-in-it-for-me consumerist religiosity is true?

So what if someone called Jesus did or did not live approximately 2000
Does any of the nonsense and illusions associated with that name enable anyone to live with Real Intelligence in the "21st century"?

Meanwhile, The Very Divine Person Who is the supposed subject that "theologians" have been prattling on about for forever and a day (by necessity) spent 50 years doing the most profound deeply considered exploration of the fabricated origins of the "New" Testament, and of the complexities of Christian dogma and truth claims, every single one of which is essentially untenable.
These closely reasoned references summarize his summary findings. Christians are of course very big on what they call "reason" - or at least when it suits them!

http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity

Speaking of the ABC Religion & Ethics website, it currently features a very long essay by Alan Jacobs titled We Have Seen Our SALVATION.
The trouble is Salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that Alan writes about, or belief in "Jesus" - as this brief essay points

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/salvationdestiny.html

Also this radical essay: http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 11:12:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The emphasis on belief is itself questionable. If one believes in a set of unprovable propositions then one is accounted as righteous by those who believe in the same set of unprovable propositions. It seems to me far more important what one does than what one believes. The history of missionary religion is littered with the bodies of those who believed differently.

However, the article implies that the opposite of Christianity is atheism. Many non-Christian religions such as Judaism, Islam and Baha'i believe in God without his having a quasi-human sidekick. Buddhism and Hinduism are non-monotheistic religions. The opposite of Christian is non-Christian. The opposite of atheism is theism.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 1:08:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, what next an article about the flood?

The author can only cite one piece of evidence that there was a Jesus. How is it any more relevant the say the Buddhism equivalent or what about that guy from Mecca? Arguing points about someones biography that was written many years after they died is pointless.

The important point for the author is not whether the was a Jesus, was he God.
In the same way that none of the religious claims of any other religions should be taken seriously nor should Christians.
Posted by cornonacob, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 4:49:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with Christians is not with their belief in the existence of Jesus. The problem is the belief that he is some sort of divine being with a connection to a non-existent God to whom they have given all kinds of qualities. It is appropriate at this time of year that we reflect on the absolute nonsense that is sung in many of the popular carols as well as the drivel delivered from the pulpit about Jesus bringing peace into the world. Spare me please.

There is nothing wrong with the ideals to which Christians aspire, but the basis on which these ideals are founded is just so implausible.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 4:49:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mike. A well written and interesting article. I, like you, are at time "flabbergasted" that "academics', with reams of literature at their disposal, the skills and knowledge in historic research and a wealth of resources at their disposal can, with a strait face, publish what can only be described as 'balderdash'.... Where do these universities find these people?

Of far more interest is the scholarly works by some German historians questioning the existence of Mohammed.

I must, however, take issue with your comment that "They are the equivalent of climate change deniers". There are many many eminent scientists, published (barely), that question the accepted climate change meme. Dr Richard Linzen, Tim Ball, Dr Jennifer Marohasy plus some 30 000 other eminent experts in the field, submitted to the US senate, arguments that dispute the 'settled' notion of climate change.

However, this is 'off topic' and I would not want to diverge the commentary from the sensible paper (replete with understandable frustration you express) from your primary arguments. Your analogy with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is cogent to your argument.

Have you any thoughts on the veracity of Mohammed as a genuine historical figure I wonder?

Cheers Pete.
Posted by Prompete, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 5:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
its not unusual for the secularist to get it totally wrong. Whether it be the gw scam, the denial of a Lawmaker in a universe full of laws or the revision of Australian history. With moral relativism as one of their mantras who says truth matters anyway. Its no wonder they deny the Truth personified. Well I suppose they can always justify their stand with pseudo science whether it be the something from nothing fantasy, the failed climate models or just plain arrogance. 'Theologians' are often pretty good at this nonsense also.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 5:55:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

The faults associated with most religions are:

1. The belief that there is such a thing as religious truth.

2. The belief that a particular group has that truth.

Pope Francis seems to be an exception who grants legitimacy to other beliefs and to non-belief.

How do you know that what you believe is Truth?
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 6:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh poor Mike Runner is on his side... I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
Posted by cornonacob, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 7:07:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem isn’t that there are no “early” sources; it’s that there are no contemporary ones. It’s possible there was an historical Jesus. The evidence is so vague and weak that it’s also possible that there were many people upon which the legend of the divine Jesus was based.

That Christ Mythicists are such a minority has nothing to do with the strength of the evidence, but a cultural bias. Even by their fellow non-believers it is merely assumed that he must have existed. Ask one of these people who assume the existence of an historical Jesus if they think there was an historical Hercules or Horus, and they would probably dismiss the idea out of hand.

The consensus argument is weak. Much of the alleged evidence is assumed from past Christian teachings. As Richard Carrier said:

“A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus. This should teach us how important it is to stop repeating the phrase “the overwhelming consensus says…” Because that consensus is based on false beliefs and assumptions, a lot of them inherited unknowingly from past Christian faith assumptions in reading or discussing the evidence, which even secular scholars failed to check before simply repeating them as certainly the truth.” (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/08/car388028.shtml)

There is no reliable evidence for an historical Jesus. I also don’t think there’s any solid evidence that an historical Jesus didn’t exist either, so if you want to believe in a divine Jesus, then why should stretching your credulity that tiny bit further, to account for the lack of evidence for an historical as well Jesus, be such a problem? Any credibility one may have had was gone with the belief in a divine Jesus. Worrying about salvaging some from an historical Jesus seems as pointless as wondering whether one should jump from the 18th floor or the 20th floor. The result is still the same.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 7:25:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"'Theologians' are often pretty good at this nonsense also."

Runner, this is an interesting thing for you to say. Care to elaborate on which theologians you are referring to and their errors of reasoning that worry you?

Btw, like Minister Morrison and PM Abbott who keep referring to "illegal" boat arrivals as if their repeating it endlessly will somehow make their accusation true, you still seem to think that "secularist" connotes someone who is anti religion. It would be civil of you to find out what it really means and to begin using it correctly.
Posted by GlenC, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 8:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf you state

'The faults associated with most religions are:

1. The belief that there is such a thing as religious truth.

I suggest the absence of truth is what makes the secular world so immoral and based on lies. I don't know what you define as ' religous ' truth but I assure you truth exist. Deep down every human being knows that. They are the first to scream when a terrorist kills innocent people.

2. The belief that a particular group has that truth.

If you were to read the Scriptures you would find that Jesus Himself claimed that all who came before Him were thieves and robbers and all who came after Him likewise. Either He told the truth, He lied or He did not exist (as claimed by many pseudo historians). No the truth does not belong to a group. It is available to anyone who wants to know it.

' How do you know that what you believe is Truth?'

Because it comes from the only Man who never lied. Why do you think dishonest historians deny His existance.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 8:55:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

You make statements which are at variance with the facts. The secular world is most moral. It is based on science, democracy and the separation of religion and state. Religion may be based on lies since believers will believe the incredible. Science cannot be based on lies since scientific results are discarded if they cannot be replicated.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results takes you to the corruptions perception index for 2014. According to that index the least corrupt country is Denmark. As you go down the list you will see that faith, religious or non-religious is correlated with corruption. The Scandinavian countries in general contain people who are skeptical of religion and are much less corrupt than most of the world.

You merely state your beliefs as though they are facts. Most religions have scriptures. I have read the Bible. It was written long after the events in it took place. There is no reason to place the Bible above other scriptures such as the Buddhist Tripitaka, the Muslim Koran or the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. I am sure you believe in a man who supposedly never lied. However, belief no matter how sincere and how deep does not make the belief true. I have no doubt that there are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus who have as deep and sincere belief in their religion as you have in yours. That illustrates one problem of religion. Faith breeds atrocity. The Inquisition saw sincere Christians murder people, and ISIS has sincere Muslims murder people.

Possibly none of the words Jesus is quoted as saying were actually said by him. The New Testament was written after his death and incorporates many of the feats performed by other wonder workers of his time. I think scriptures of all religions have accounts of miracles. I think it is reasonable to doubt all such accounts.

I wish you could admit facts rather than rely on superstition.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 9:56:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The secular world is most moral.' 'It is based on science, democracy and the separation of religion and state.'

please David f you demonstrate naivity at its best and deception at its worst.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 30 December 2014 10:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

I deal with facts. You don't. Your beliefs are not based on fact. Belief that nonsense is true does not make it true.

When your beliefs are challenged you write, "you demonstrate naivity at its best and deception at its worst."

Calling me or anybody else names is no substitute for reason or evidence. You have neither on your side. Secularity or the separation of religion and state goes along with a greater morality. Morality is determined not by what you believe but by what you do.

Many people believe sincerely that their religious beliefs are valid. Some of those beliefs are the same as yours. Some of those beliefs are different from yours. It is reasonable to reject all of them.

However, all is not lost. You can abandon superstition for reason at any age. May you join enlightened humanity.

Perhaps some are impervious to reason. Maybe you are one of them. Maybe not. I hope you are not completely lost.

Reasons greetings.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 3:17:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author writes:

‘… the majority of scholars would probably adopt a check-list of ten events attributed to Jesus which they are fairly confident about’

I’m sorry, but ‘probably adopt’, ‘attributed to Jesus’ and ‘fairly confident about’ is no substitute for EVIDENCE. And there is absolutely none that proves any of the ‘check-list of ten events’ that are supposed to be the ‘academically’ accepted facts of Jesus’ life.

There are no facts about any historical existence of Jesus (meaning ‘saviour’ – which, in itself, should ring some academic alarm bells), only what is mostly described as ‘scholarly consensus’. This does not equate with proof.

Every supposedly ‘known fact’ is entirely based on retrospective hearsay. Despite the Romans being meticulous record keepers, not a single contemporary piece of writing mentions anyone who could equate with the New Testament character of Jesus – either his birth, childhood, adult life or death.

No contemporary Roman record shows that Pontius Pilate executed such a man. Why is there no Roman, Greek or Aramaic account of the very public execution of this very public figure for the very serious crime of high treason?

Those who deny the existence of an historical Jesus, based on lack of contemporary evidence, are being far more scholarly than a bunch of theologians who are ‘fairly confident’ about a ‘check-list of events attributed to Jesus’ so-called life.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 4:32:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" Authors like Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus from the late first and early second century wrote about Jesus too."

Pliny the Younger, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus wrote only about Christians and their following of a Christ. The Jesus myth holds that there was belief in a 'Christ' before their was a belief in 'Jesus-as-the-Christ', so the writing of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus fit with that hypothesis. To appeal to authority, as Bird does, there are several scholars who have acknowledged that eg. France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20

Scholars have long questioned the authenticity of the 'Testimonium Flavium' (Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3). Several papers questioning the veracity of the Josephus passages have been published in peer-reviewed articles -

Goldberg GT (1995) “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke”
The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Vol 13; pp 59-77.

Carrier R. (2012) “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.”
The Journal of Early Christian Studies. Vol 20; no 4, (Winter edn); pp. 489-514.
Abstract: Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

Carrier has also published on Tacitus's Annals ref -

Carrier R .(2014) "The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44" Vigiliae Christianae, Vol 68, Issue 3; pp 264–283
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 9:13:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Debates on the existence of Jesus strike me as a colossal waste of time and effort. I am reminded of the old quip about two bald men fighting over a comb. Surely what should be more relevant is whether Jesus was, or was not, an impressive, 'divine' figure. The scanty evidence we have in the Gospels (incidentally, no dates, no independent corroboration) would suggest a bipolar, intransigent individual who would not accept that not many things are in black and white, the other people's views may differ from his own, etc. etc. Not a very impressive picture, certainly not one to instil awe and admiration. The whole edifice of creation, divine intervention where and when it cannot be verified, the belief in "original sin", the idea of a "messiah" who will redeem humankind are so absurd as to not merit lengthy arguments and discussions. In one word, bah! humbug...
Posted by el dingo, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 9:37:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal Those source you have mentioned are creditable, either crude insertions by copyist many hundreds of years after the fact.
Or only mention Christians, and no one is saying that Christianity is not real.

but back to the real point.

Gautama Buddha existed, should his claims be taken seriously? What about Joseph Smith he was real, what about his claims.
Even if you convince people that your Jesus actually existed, it doesn't follow that his claims of divinity are true.
Posted by cornonacob, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 9:54:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“the academic profession of religion”

Why does the author need to attach this claimer to his arguments? Surely the arguments should stand or fall on their own merits without reminding us that they are the results of the musings of academics. This implies that academic arguments are true simply because they are academic and it is a way of patronising those people who present arguments without academic credentials. He talks of those with ‘flat earth’ attitudes. These attitudes were once the truth taught by ‘academics.’

Why does he need to present arguments for the existence of an historical Jesus? If we aim to live by the authority of Jesus then we might need to try and prove that he first of all existed and that secondly he has authority. The real problem here is not whether he existed or whether he has authority but why people feel the need to live by authority instead of by reason.

Obviously it is based on insecurity about their own ability and faith in their own human nature to determine what is the best way to live. Whilst those who profess to live by nature often behave in ways that are at odds with that nature this does not of itself elevate Christianity or any other authority to a position of moral superiority. All other things being equal it must be said that living according to one’s nature is the most logical way. Even Christians live by their nature until they find it to be in conflict with the ‘authority ‘of religion then they abandon nature to their own and often to society’s detriment.

Articles like this are not trying to prove something that is of importance to anyone but those, like the author, who need to live by authority.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 11:05:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good to see all the usually crappy Jesus Myther arguments are being trotted out right on cue:

"There are no contemporary references to Jesus so this means he didn't exist"

Terrible argument. We have no contemporary attestation for MOST ancient figures. That's just the nature of ancient source material. We have no contemporary references for many people who were much more famous and prominent than some peasant Jewish preacher from the back of nowhere. Given that we have zero contemporary references for Hannibal, to expect them for Jesus is absurd. We have no contemporary references to any of the other various early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants, so the fact we have none for this one tells us precisely nothing about whether or not he existed.

"The Romans kept meticulous records but none of them mention Jesus"

Really? Perhaps that's because none of these meticulous records survive. We have no Roman records from first century Judea. None. So how are we meant to find a reference to Jesus in records that we don't have?

"There's a bit academic conspiracy against the Jesus Myth theorists and their position is only rejected out of cultural bias."

No, their position is rejected because it's crap. They are peddling the same weak arguments and ad hoc workarounds that scholars have considered and rejected for the last 100 years. These arguments aren't getting any better just because a few fringe cranks with an axe to grind keep repeating them.
(cont.)
Posted by TimONeill, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 11:41:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont.)

"No hisotrian of the time mentions Jesus"

Wrong. He's mentioned in Josephus *Antiquities* XVIII.3.4, XX.9.1 and Tacitus *Annals* XV.44.

"Scholars have rejected the reference to Jesus in Josephus as a forgery".

Nope. The scholarly consensus is actually that the reference to Jesus in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.4 has clearly been clumsily added to by later Christian scribes, but that he still gave an account of Jesus and his execution. And the reference to the execution of Jesus' brother in *Antiquities* XX.9.1 is not only considered genuine, but is also very close to first hand testimony, given that Josephus was 25 and living in the same small city as James at the time. So, fail. Again.

"Richard Carrier says ..."

No-one cares what Richard Carrier says. Richard Carrier is a failed academic and unemployed blogger who is also a full time anti-Christian activist. To pretend he's some great authority is ridiculous. To pretend he's some kind of unbiased objective analyst is even more so. He's a joke.
Posted by TimONeill, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 11:42:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tim you keep missing the point, we really need you to answer the big questions like "How many Angles can dance on the head of a pin"?
Posted by cornonacob, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 12:35:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tim O'Neill

"The scholarly consensus is actually that [if] the reference to Jesus in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.4 has clearly been clumsily *added to* by later Christian scribes" Jospehus may have still given an account of Jesus and his execution.

OR, the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation.

"The reference to the execution of Jesus' brother in *Antiquities* XX.9.1" ... is dubious. If the NT Jesus was a real person, there is nothing that substantiates assertions that he had a blood-brother: the term 'brother' had other meanings.

Moreover, the vague reference to Jesus in Antiquities* XX.9.1 is weird. It may well be a scribal error as carrier has argued in a peer-reviewed journal article -

Carrier R. (2012) “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.”
The Journal of Early Christian Studies. Vol 20; no 4, (Winter edn); pp. 489-514.
Abstract: Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

It cannot be considered genuine.

Lastly, Tacitus Annals 15 does not refer to Jesus; only Chrestians (sic) following a Christ.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 12:42:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much anger, TimONeill. Perhaps you should heed my advice at the end of my last post?

If you’re going to respond to statements in quotation marks as if they were direct quotes, then you’d want to ensure that someone has actually said what you’re responding to. Your first quote, for example, was rubbish. No-one said that. You’ve done nothing but attack a strawman there. Really poor form there.

<<We have no contemporary attestation for MOST ancient figures.>>

Sure. So as with an historical Jesus, we can’t know for sure if they actually existed. No-one here has claimed that this means they mustn’t have existed. This is certainly a problem for a divine Jesus, however.

Your third quote was also rubbish. No-one said that. Your response was weak either way. You provided no examples of your assertions.

Your final paragraph was just as pitiful with an ad hominem attack on Richard Carrier that contained no reasoning to support your attacks, just assertions.

In amongst all this outrage and scoffing at Jesus Mythicicsts, you Christians miss an even bigger problem for your theology: why would a god, who has an important message for us and wants to convey it to us, only reveal it to certain individuals who then write it down so that thousands of years later we need to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals? The Christian god is incredibly stupid if it wants to rely on texts and anecdotal testimony, written in languages that die off, to achieve its goal of spreading its message to humanity.

That’s the nail in the coffin for Christianity. Not whether or not an historical Jesus existed.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 1:01:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Mike (the author)

.

« Even if there is no God, there was still an historical Jesus. »

In that hypothesis there is no need to write the word “god” with a capital “g”. Also, the “historical Jesus” to whom you refer (in that hypothesis) could not have existed because he could not have been the son of a god who did not exist. Consequently, a more precise formulation of your hypothesis would be:

« Even if there is no god, there was still an historical Jesus who was not the son of god. »

That is not the only problem with your term: “an historical Jesus”. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jesus at the time. Jesus was a very common name. There may have even been several Jesus of Nazareth. There were certainly many historical Jesus – perhaps even some corresponding to one or more of those ten events on the check-list you indicate.

I should be interested to know if there is also a check-list of events which scholars are equally confident raise serious doubts about the existence of the “historical Jesus”. Why, for example, wipe away all physical trace of “the historical Jesus” on earth? Was there something to hide, that nobody should know about? Why, for example, should “god” take human form if it was just to do the disappearing act so that nobody could check the facts out seriously?

That seems closer to the conjuror or the illusionist than the divine, which, I imagine, was not the intent. In fact, in the final analysis, the whole operation appears to have been more of a failure than a success. Wouldn’t you agree?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 1:05:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McvReal wrote:

"OR, the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation."

Ummm, no. Perhaps you don't understand what "scholarly consensus" means. The majority of scholars accept that the Flavian reference has been added to but is not a wholesale interpolation. The latter position is held by a shrinking minority.

""The reference to the execution of Jesus' brother in *Antiquities* XX.9.1" ... is dubious..... the term 'brother' had other meanings."

So here is where you need to provide evidence that it has some other meaning in Josephus' mention of James. Simply waving around the mere possibility that it meant something else is not good enough. So, what have you got?

"Moreover, the vague reference to Jesus in Antiquities* XX.9.1 is weird. It may well be a scribal error as carrier has argued in a peer-reviewed journal article -"

Carrier's article is his usual weak, supposition-laden crap. Origen quotes the passage in question, *with* the key phrase "the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah" no less than three times. Carrier's attempt at waving this away with some weak nonsense about how Origen was muddling up Josephus and Hegesippus is undermined by the fact that he quotes Josephus word for word each time - this is not some memory, it's a reference to the text. Carrier also seems unaware that the phrase in question is a use of the *casus pendens* - a Semiticism typical of Josephus. And his claim that the "Jesus" in question was Jesus son of Damneus fails about about three count, not least of which being the fact that this Jesus goes on to become friends with the former high priest Hanan - who according to Carrier has just killed ben Damneus' brother! Carrier's argument is nonsense, which is why that article has sunk without trace.

"Lastly, Tacitus Annals 15 does not refer to Jesus; only Chrestians (sic) following a Christ."

Yes, a Christ who was executed by Pilate in Judea during Tiberius' reign. Sound like anyone you know? Get a clue please.
Posted by TimONeill, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 1:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips wrote:

"So much anger, TimONeill."

Anger? I'm perfectly calm thanks. Or maybe just slightly amused at the usual crappy Myther arguments being wheeled out yet again.

" No-one here has claimed that this means they mustn’t have existed."

The lack of contemporary attestation has been raised here as some kind of problem when it comes to Jesus' historicity. And it isn't.

"Your third quote was also rubbish. No-one said that."

It's not a quote, it's a paraphrase. And someone did say that.

"ou provided no examples of your assertions."

No examples of what? The weak arguments of the Mythers? All my paraphrases are examples of those.

"Your final paragraph was just as pitiful with an ad hominem attack on Richard Carrier that contained no reasoning to support your attacks, just assertions."

I can back them up in great detail if you like. Give me an argument by Carrier that you find persuasive and I'll show you why real scholars don't.

"In amongst all this outrage and scoffing at Jesus Mythicicsts, you Christians miss an even bigger problem for your theology ..."

I'm an atheist. If you want to rant against Christianity, I'm not your man. My interest is in the objective analysis of history and debunking ideologically driven pseudo historical crap.
Posted by TimONeill, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 1:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timmy,

quote> "OR, the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation."

Ummm, no. Perhaps you don't understand what "scholarly consensus" means. The majority of scholars accept that the Flavian reference has been added to but is not a wholesale interpolation. The latter position is held by a shrinking minority. <<

ah, so the latter position - "the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation" - IS held by some scholars!
.
.

Brother = adelphos http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family;

6. brethren of Christ

... a. his brothers by blood; see 1 above.

... b. all men: Matthew 25:40 (Lachmann brackets); Hebrews 2:11f (others refer these examples to d.)

... c. apostles: Matthew 28:10; John 20:17.

... d. Christians, .. who are destined to be exalted to the same heavenly doxa/opinion/glory which he enjoys: eg Romans 8:29.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 1:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, let me recap: the whole cosmic edifice of a god-given creation; the making of humans; the fall; the redeemer; the salvation or damnation of billions of souls; etc.etc., all of these hang on a couple of lines, likely to be apocryphal, by an obscure first century historian named Josephus who is probably only read by a few hundred scholars in each generation? I am, quite simply, gobsmacked.
Posted by el dingo, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 2:36:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would hate to see you upset then, TimONeill.

<<Anger? I'm perfectly calm thanks.>>

Your entire manner of communication is emotive, and people tend to use emotive language (and paraphrasing) only when they are emotionally invested in a topic.

<<The lack of contemporary attestation has been raised here as some kind of problem when it comes to Jesus' historicity. And it isn't.>>

But that’s not the same as what you “paraphrased” now, is it? And I would say that it is a problem, as it is with any historical figure for which there are no contemporary records.

<<It's not a quote, it's a paraphrase. And someone did say that.>>

Paraphrasing is still supposed to accurately reflect what was said, and what you said didn’t.

No-one so much as alluded to a conspiracy. This was just your emotive method of communication at work again. I did, however, suggest that cultural bias was the main reason why Mythers are in a minority, but it’s not necessarily the only reason (if I thought it were the ONLY reason, then I would have said so). Unless you claim that the average Joe on the street has all the knowledge of Biblical scholars to make an informed decision? Of course not. It’s assumed by the average Joe that an historical Jesus existed.

As for expert opinions, I concur with what Richard Carrier said, which is why I've quoted it and linked to a page where he elaborates.

To me, the best evidence for the Jesus myth theory are the tell-tale signs that the Gospel of Mark was a deliberate work of fiction and that the author didn't even seem to be trying to hide that.

By the way, I don’t believe you’re an atheist. No-one gets this flustered over the existence of an historical figure. I’ve seen this kind of claim-to-atheism made here several times before in a grab for credibility, but I’ll run with the assumption anyway.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 2:38:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An important fact that has not been mentioned in this discussion is that Jesus whether real or not was not in any sense a Christian, and there is no evidence that he wished to found a religion. He lived and died a Jew. Those who call themselves Christians do not follow the religion of Jesus since they reject his religion. Paul founded a religion in the name of Jesus, but it was not the religion of Jesus. Judaism believes in God without a sidekick.

According to the Bible God had other sons besides Jesus. (KJV) Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

According to the Bible Jesus was neither a Christian nor the only son of God.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 3:28:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

a modest contribution to the yuletide festivities …

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRQPdZ5Fo1I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-CoD452CFs

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 10:27:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, if he was real or at least based on a historical figure then it is perhaps insufficient to say that he was just a person who practised Judaism wouldn't you say *DavidF?*

I accept though that it is very important to recognise that he was Jewish in origin.

But did he not see himself as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy?

And if the stories regarding him are true then it seems that he clearly took some issue with the manner that Judaism was being practised back then.

Perhaps if he had of been not just an itinerant preacher, but also a triumphant Warrior and subsequent King that Judaism may have accepted him as their Messiah?

What do you say?
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 1 January 2015 5:42:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Tim you keep missing the point, we really need you to answer the big questions like "How many Angles can dance on the head of a pin"?"
Posted by cornonacob, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 12:35:31 PM

Why would Tim O'Neill, who happens to have been an atheist for near on 30 years, answer a theological question like that?
Check out his profile on http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/
Posted by The Mad Rabbi, Thursday, 1 January 2015 5:46:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"By the way, I don’t believe you’re an atheist. No-one gets this flustered over the existence of an historical figure. I’ve seen this kind of claim-to-atheism made here several times before in a grab for credibility, but I’ll run with the assumption anyway."
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 2:38:52 PM

A predictable ad hominem attack on Tim O'Neill to avoid avoid debating the issue with him. Tim O'Neill is an atheist who despises ideologically driven history. He tends to unleash on anyone who distorts history for ideological ends. I have seen him slap Christians and New Atheists as well as those who distort history for nationalistic ends. He does not discriminate.

see here: " Here I criticise Rodney Stark for distorting history and presenting pseudo historical junk reasoning out of ideological bias. And I criticise Charles Freeman for distorting history and presenting pseudo historical junk reasoning out of ideological bias. And I criticise Stephen Greenblatt for distorting history and presenting pseudo historical junk reasoning out of ideological bias."

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html

O'Neill has also had guest posts on blogs by atheists like Thony Christies "The Renaissance Mathematicus" http://thonyc.wordpress.com/ and other atheist blogs like http://www.strangenotions.com/author/tim-oneill/
Posted by The Mad Rabbi, Thursday, 1 January 2015 6:18:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction. "Strange Notions" is not an atheist blog. The contributors are predominately Catholic. Tim O'Neill was simply a guest on the forum.
Posted by The Mad Rabbi, Thursday, 1 January 2015 6:28:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mad Rabbi et al,
As the point under discussion is the existence of a human Jesus as the core for the biblical NT theological character, whether commenters are atheists or theists is not the primary issue. However, there are a couple of issues: 1/ O'Neill's self-description as an atheist to poison-the-well in his favor, and 2/ whether that description is true, as AJ Phillips questions.

As far as O'Neill 'unleashing' or 'slapping' people: that is a common feature of his interactions that hides his many misrepresentations or emphasis on half-truths or side-issue red-herrings.

eg. http://vridar.org/2012/01/24/david-fitzgerald-responds-to-tim-oneills-review-of-nailed/

A clear example is his posts here where O'Neill has posted obscure statements and "answered" them. with half truths eg. trying to claim Josephus was contemporaneous to an alleged 30AD NT-Jesus.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 1 January 2015 6:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dream On,

The legend of the Messiah originated in Jewish history when the Kingdom of David and Solomon was split into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The first appearance of the legend was in the person of a military figure who would reunite the two kingdoms. This legend grew until it became that of a figure who would cause swords to be beaten into plowshares and nations to study war no more. Jesus fulfilled neither vision of the messiah. He neither reunited the kingdom nor brought peace to earth.

However, there has been a successful attempt to portray Jesus as the messiah of Jewish scriptures. At the time of Jesus many legends of saviours born of a virgin were current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births tells of them. The Hebrew scriptures in Isaiah told of an almah or young woman who would bear a son. It is nothing unusual for that to happen. However, when the scriptures were translated into Greek, almah was translated as parthenos which indeed means virgin. This mistranslation has been preserved in the King James version and many other translations.

I do not believe in messiahs, God, human virgin births or the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament as any more reliable than the Koran, Tripitaka or Bhagavad Gita. I also have no way of knowing, if he existed, how Jesus regarded himself.

I do not see why his supposed Jewish origin is important. I believe none of the miracles in the Bible really happened. I have no way of knowing what facts if any the biblical myths were based on.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:02:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Lastly, Tacitus Annals 15 does not refer to Jesus; only Chrestians (sic) following a Christ."

Yes, a Christ who was executed by Pilate in Judea during Tiberius' reign. Sound like anyone you know? Get a clue please.

Posted by TimONeill, Wednesday, 31 December 2014 1:07:28 PM

"A Christ": Yes, a 'Christ' allegedly executed by Pilate; not a Jesus, not a Jesus Christ, nor a Jesus the Christ.

There is no substantiated reference to a Jesus who could fit the NT-Jesus narrative Before the late 2nd C: possibly before the P52 fragment of John (Bird incorrectly has P25 in his article).

There are plenty of assertions the Pauline epistles and the Gospels are mid-late 1st century to early 2nd century but I have never seen a cogent-inductive or valid/sound-deductive argument for those assertions.

So, there seem to be more clear indications of references to Christ or Christs before there were references specifically to Jesus [the Christ]: Tacitus; Seutonius; & Pliny the Younger.

And Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated "The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the [Greco-Egyptian] God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ .."
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal wrote:

" the latter position - "the reference in *Antiquities* XVIII.3.3(!) is ALL interpolation" - IS held by some scholars!"

Yes. Did I give you the impression it wasn't? It is held by a shrinking minority. The consensus position is that it isn't a wholesale interpolation.

"Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-ChristiaN"

I'm well aware that the word *could* be used that way. What you've failed to do is show that it's being used that way when Josephus refers to James. Try again.
Posted by TimONeill, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:29:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips wrote:

"I would hate to see you upset then, TimONeill."

You're mistaking mild scorn for me being "upset".

" I would say that it is a problem, as it is with any historical figure for which there are no contemporary records.
"

Then we have a "problem" with most ancient figures then. Write to your nearest university and explain this to the historians there. I'm sure they'll be devastated.

"As for expert opinions, I concur with what Richard Carrier said"

Carrier simply makes the assertion that other scholars "assume" Jesus existed. Other scholars have responded to him and corrected him, explaining that they have *concluded* he existed. Spot the difference.

"By the way, I don’t believe you’re an atheist."

*chuckle* Congratulations, you've set a new world speed record for resorting to that weak slur. Yes, you've got me. I've been posting as an atheist since 1992 as an elaborate ruse to try to fool people like you. I've been a paid up member of the Australian Atheist Foundation for years and have even served as a state president of the Australian Skeptics as part of this remarkable deception. But now it seems I am unmasked. Seriously, get a grip.
Posted by TimONeill, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:37:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal wrote:

""A Christ": Yes, a 'Christ' allegedly executed by Pilate; not a Jesus, not a Jesus Christ, nor a Jesus the Christ."

So, by an amazing co-incidence, there were *two* groups called "Christians" who both traced their origins to a "Christ" who was executed by Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius? Amazing.

"There are plenty of assertions the Pauline epistles and the Gospels are mid-late 1st century to early 2nd century but I have never seen a cogent-inductive or valid/sound-deductive argument for those assertions."

Yes, yet again all the scholars have got it wrong. But thankfully we have random internet nobodies to show us the truth. Lucky us.
Posted by TimONeill, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal: "There are plenty of assertions the Pauline epistles and the Gospels are mid-late 1st century to early 2nd century but I have never seen a cogent-inductive or valid/sound-deductive argument for those assertions."

O'Neill: 'Yes, yet again all the scholars have got it wrong. But thankfully we have random internet nobodies to show us the truth. Lucky us.' Posted by TimONeill, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:42:26 PM

So, what are the scholars' arguments for the early dating of the key NT texts??
..............................

"Carrier simply makes the assertion that other scholars "assume" Jesus existed. Other scholars have responded to him and corrected him, explaining that they have *concluded* he existed. Spot the difference."

That is semantics/equivocation. Many 'conclude' he exits by assuming the NT texts are historical texts, rather than actually being redacted and embellished over a few centuries to give an illusion of documenting history.
..........................

"So, by an amazing co-incidence, there were *two* groups called "Christians" who both traced their origins to a "Christ" who was executed by Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius?"

There are many permutations: eg. a. NT texts were later redacted to make 'a Christ' the "Jesus-the-Christ"; b. Some think Tacitus is redacted favourably; c. there were several Christian sects borrowing stories.

There is much to yet be fully evaluated about the 1st-3rd centuries.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Paul’s letters are written about 20-30 years after Jesus’ death, and the Gospels about 50-70 years after his death. Our oldest piece of papyrus with a fragment of John 18 is P25 and is dated to about 125-150 CE. Authors like Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus from the late first and early second century wrote about Jesus too."

The Josephus passage is a widely-acknowledged forgery; Paul's epistles are quite independent of a historical, earthly Jesus; and the other authors mention Jesus as being something in which christians believe. No-one is disputing that there were christians.

Every mythicist knows these basic points. This article is not directed at mythicists - it's simply preaching to the choir, reassuring them that even if they are a little too sophisticated and clever to actually believe the walking-on-water and casting-demons-out-of-pigs stuff, they can still pretend there was a person they can reasonably pretend was "Jesus".
Posted by PaulMurrayCbr, Thursday, 1 January 2015 9:43:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Mad Rabbi,

My comment was a side note, hence why it appeared at the end of my post and began with a "By the way...". Whether or not TimONeill is a Christian posing as an atheist says nothing for the strength (or lack thereof) of his arguments and I acknowledge that, nor would any attempts to divert attention from what he says with a personal attack make sense after I had just spent the majority of that very post addressing much of what he had said, so my comment was not an ad hominem. For the reason McReal pointed out, however, his atheism is still worth questioning.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 1 January 2015 9:49:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TimONeill,

If you really are an atheist with no emotional investment, then why can't we just discuss this civilly? You have been on the offensive with a very snarky and sarcastic tone from the word go. Why do you have to be so unpleasant? Just chill. I have no definitive position on this topic and I'm happy for you to be right. That should have been clear from my first post. The fact that you have become so emotional about all this that you missed that suggests, to me, that there is something more to your position than a mere concern for historical accuracy and what you perceive to be nonsense arguments. Your blog's strong focus on this particular topic, too, only further arouses my curiosity.

Perhaps you're a far-Right Nationalist who wants to ensure the survival of Christianity for cultural purposes? Who knows? All I know - from my years of experience with atheist-theist debates - is that something's off here and it has me intrigued.

<<Write to your nearest university and explain this to the historians there. I'm sure they'll be devastated.>>

Not necessary. I sure they're already aware of the problem. I will grant, however, that this point of mine is probably more relevant to Christians who believe in a divine Jesus with an important message for everyone.

<<Carrier simply makes the assertion that other scholars "assume" Jesus existed.>>

Not quite. In the link I provided (at least), Carrier makes the point that scholars often assume that certain *evidence* for Jesus exists.

<<Congratulations, you've set a new world speed record for resorting to that weak slur.>>

As I explained to your sock puppet, that wasn't just some ad hominem (or slur). The fact that you interpreted it as such just goes to show how defensive you're getting. But, again, why?

<<Seriously, get a grip.>>

Nothing I have said, nor the tone I have said it in, suggests that I lost my grip. This is just more emotive language from you. I would suggest that it is you who needs to get a grip. Your behavior is manic.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 1 January 2015 9:49:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bird" "Authors like Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus from the late first and early second century wrote about Jesus too."

PaulMurrayCbr: "The Josephus passage is a widely-acknowledged forgery; Paul's epistles are quite independent of a historical, earthly Jesus; and the other authors mention Jesus as being something in which Christians believe. No-one is disputing that there were Christians" ... Posted by PaulMurrayCbr, Thursday, 1 January 2015 9:43:33 PM

But Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus did Not write about Jesus - they wrote about a Christ as being something in which early Christians believed ie. they, like Paul (or whoever wrote the Pauline epistles), also wrote about something likely to be independent of a historical, earthly Jesus.

These vagaries, along with the vagaries of the Josephus texts, and vagaries about the origins and likely redactions and embellishments of all the so-called 'core' texts, make claims about the historical basis of the NT narrative so nebulous.

There are other pre-Christian references to Christs too (mainly as Greek versions of Chresto/Chrestos), which make the terminology less Jesus-specific.

The word Chrestos is found on the epitaphs of almost all the ancient Larissians

010 CE - Philo Judaeus speaks of
.. a. theochrestos ie. "God-declared," or one who is declared by god, and of
.. b. logia theochresta ie. "sayings delivered by God" ...
which proves that he wrote at a time when neither Christians nor Chrestians were yet known under these names, but there was a 1st C sect likely known as the Nazarenes (see link below).

Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated "The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the [Greco-Egyptian] God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ .."

Moreover, there were Galileans and Nazoreans/Nazarenes, etc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect%29

and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelnazoreans.html - that make a pot-pourri of various sects likely, before Christianity was cemented.
.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 1 January 2015 10:38:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amongst many other ridiculous things, AJ Philips wrote:

"Perhaps you're a far-Right Nationalist who wants to ensure the survival of Christianity for cultural purposes?"

That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

"As I explained to your sock puppet ..."

And that's the second funniest.
Posted by TimONeill, Friday, 2 January 2015 8:25:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is suggesting that you could be some far-Right Nationalist so funny? You’ve said nothing to suggest that you’re not and it would explain how an atheist could get so wound up and passionate about the existence of an historical Jesus. There are plenty of Nationalists who defend Christianity to the point of focusing the bulk of their attacks on their fellow atheists because having a strong Christian presence in their multicultural society helps them to feel reassured that those funny-looking people won’t destroy their own culture.

I also don’t know why suggesting that The Mad Rabbi was a sock puppet of yours was so funny. That happens a lot here. Particularly with new members who didn’t realise that there was a limit of four posts every 24 hours and get frustrated with it. It was a little convenient too that another newbie, who knew so much about you, made an appearance and finished posting within an hour of you showing up again. So please pardon my suspicions. This whole conversation has just been bizarre.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 2 January 2015 12:38:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by david f, Thursday, 1 January 2015 7:02:29 PM

" ... I do not see why his supposed Jewish origin is important. ... "

Thanks for all of that *DavidF*

I have to wonder though regarding the importance of his origin as if it is also true that some of the worst of anti-Semitism was in part fermented on the notion that "The Jews" as a whole were responsible for killing him, then if indeed he was a Jew as were supposedly many of his followers, it makes it all the more absurd that people accepted this as a reason to kill and persecute Jews in the wholesale fashions in which they were (6 million+ in WWII alone if I do not misrecall.)

..

I am confused as to how the earlier use "assume" as opposed to "conclude" can be considered as " ... semantics. ..."

"Conclude" in an academic or legal sense could mean that in the absence of a conclusive set of facts, but perhaps say on the basis of only a partial set of facts, that on the balance of probability a person could reasonably "conclude" that there was indeed a historical Jesus.

"Assume" on the other hand does not necessarily mean that the said assumption has any basis in fact at all, but may say be wholly drawn from a belief system. I am happy of course to be corrected about that however ..

..

As for the word "Christ" and again if I do not misrecall, this is not a name but rather a title. It may have its roots in old Greek but I would be pleased for someone who knows to clarify that. Additionally, as it pertains to Jesus, it may have been a title that was applied to him well after his death, assuming he lived at all, and part of the manufacturing of a legend.
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 2 January 2015 3:38:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why can't all you people just argue about the subject on hand instead of all this personal abuse. It does no one any credit and detracts from any cogent points which you may wish to pursue.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 2 January 2015 3:41:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal wrote:

"There are other pre-Christian references to Christs too (mainly as Greek versions of Chresto/Chrestos), which make the terminology less Jesus-specific."

Unless, of course, you actually look at the contexts in which these vaguely-similar-but-actually-different words are used and see that they have zero connection.

Speaking of which ...

"Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated "The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the [Greco-Egyptian] God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ ..""

So does this mean that the worshippers of Serapis were called "Christians"? Ummm, no. Because if you look at the context (there's that word again) of what he was saying you see this:

"The Egyptians, whom you are pleased to commend to me, I know thoroughly from a close observation, to be a light, fickle, and inconstant people, changing with every turn of fortune. The Christians among them are worshippers of Serapis, and those calling themselves bishops of Christ scruple not to act as the votaries of that God. The truth is, there is no one, whether Ruler of a synagogue, or Samaritan, or Presbyter of the Christians, or mathematician, or astrologer, or magician, that does not do homage to Serapis. The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ. It is a race of men, of all the most seditious, vain and mischievous. "

So he is saying that some Egyptians profess to be Christians but actually worship Serapis. Ditto for Jews, Samaritans and others. He's using this as an example of how "fickle" and "inconstant" the Egyptians are. It helps to actually read the text.
Posted by TimONeill, Friday, 2 January 2015 7:50:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips wrote:

"Why is suggesting that you could be some far-Right Nationalist so funny?"

If you knew me, you'd understand that it's hilarious.

"it would explain how an atheist could get so wound up and passionate about the existence of an historical Jesus. "

So let's see - either (a) I'm a "far-Right Nationalist" who has left a trail of left-leaning opinions on the net a mile wide and has consistently posted as someone with zero patience for fringe pseudo historical theories as a 20+ year cunning ruse to hide my true "far-Right Nationalist" views OR (b) someone with zero patience for fringe pseudo historical theories, thus the 20+ year posting history. And my lack of patience with Jesus Myther nonsense.

I know you have difficulty with the whole concept of Occam's Razor, but even you should be able to figure this one out.

"It was a little convenient too that another newbie, who knew so much about you, made an appearance and finished posting within an hour of you showing up again. "

They showed up very soon after this post appeared on another forum - one where I am well-known and where this weak accusation that I am not really an atheist is a regular source of amusement:

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/post/14645

Anything else I can help you with?
Posted by TimONeill, Friday, 2 January 2015 7:58:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tim: "Unless, of course, you actually look at the contexts in which these vaguely-similar-but-actually-different words are used and see that they have zero connection." ... Posted by TimONeill, Friday, 2 Jan 7:50:49 PM

Says you. They have plenty of connection: In Greek and in Latin.

Tim: "So he is saying that some Egyptians profess to be Christians but actually worship Serapis. Ditto for Jews, Samaritans and others. He's using this as an example of how "fickle" and "inconstant" the Egyptians are. It helps to actually read the text." ... Posted by TimONeill, Friday, 2 Jan 7:50:49 PM

err, No. The key aspects of your quote are these:

"The Christians among them [the Egyptians] are worshippers of Serapis, and those calling themselves bishops of Christ scruple not to act as the votaries of that God .... The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ. It is a race of men, of all the most seditious, vain and mischievous."

And -
"The cults of Serapis and Isis did not merely survive the emergence of Christianity, but in the 2nd century AD actually increased in popularity. Serapis and Christ existed side-by-side and were frequently seen as interchangeable. Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both" http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/8_serapis_and_christianity.htm

Again, no mention of Jesus.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 2 January 2015 9:51:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Again, no mention of Jesus."

Actually that's wrong -

" ... while paintings of Isis with her son Horus became identified by early Christians as portraits of Mary with her son Jesus."
http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/8_serapis_and_christianity.htm

ie. the implication is Mary and Jesus evolved because "Serapis and Christ existed side-by-side and were frequently seen as interchangeable. Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both"
Posted by McReal, Friday, 2 January 2015 9:57:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"As for the word "Christ" and again if I do not misrecall, this is not a name but rather a title. It may have its roots in old Greek but I would be pleased for someone who knows to clarify that. Additionally, as it pertains to Jesus, it may have been a title that was applied to him well after his death, assuming he lived at all, and part of the manufacturing of a legend."
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 2 January 2015 3:38:09 PM

There were two versions in Greek, which this site [onlineopinion] does not accept. The Latin versons are

Chrestus/Chrestos (Gk looks like: xpncToc) = 'good' or 'useful' (ie. adjectives) applied, for example, to slaves. "Xrestus ("useful, kindly") was a common slave-name in the Graeco-Roman world." http://biblehub.com/greek/5543.htm

Christos / Khristos / kri.stós / Xristos (Gk looks like: xpicToc) = 'anointed' (often literally), as in High-Priests, Rulers, or Kings.
Often used as much as a noun as an adjective. http://biblehub.com/greek/5547.htm

The have the root word chrió - http://biblehub.com/greek/5548.htm
Posted by McReal, Friday, 2 January 2015 10:21:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Mike (the author)

.

Allow me, once again, to recall that your article concludes:

« Even if there is no God, there was still an historical Jesus. »
.

As you have not yet responded to my previous post (page 5 of this thread), I thought I should elaborate a little further whilst “Waiting for Godot” (you, Mike).

Your conclusion raises the question of the paternity of the “historical Jesus”. If there is no god, presumably there is no holy ghost either. Who, then, could possibly have inseminated Mary? Do you adhere to the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, or do you discard or deny it? Are you suggesting that the conception of Jesus was just a fortuitous event whereby something was made out of nothing, or, perhaps, that Mary was inseminated by her husband, Joseph, or somebody else? Or, last guess: that the “historical Jesus” was not the same person as the Jesus of the biblical narratives.

If I understand you correctly, in addition to your four criticisms of Raphael Lataster’s article [Weighing up the evidence for the “historical Jesus”] you consider that the ten events on the check-list you indicate in your own article are conclusive evidence of the existence of “an historical Jesus”.

Unfortunately, on the basis of the arguments you produce I am afraid I do not share your absolute certainty on the conclusion. Nor could I concur beyond a reasonable doubt (at least 95% sure). I am, however, willing to go along with the theory of the existence of “an historical Jesus” on the balance of probabilities, i.e., consider that it is more likely than not (or more than 50% sure).

To be perfectly honest, Mike, my only certainty in this matter is that the supernatural and god concepts were invented by primeval man as an explanation of natural phenomena and that these were subsequently updated, refined and adapted by successive generations, down to this very day, in order to assure a workable degree of compatibility with the reigning scientific knowledge and philosophical thought.

They have become evolutive in order to survive.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 3 January 2015 4:30:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal keeps trying:

"Says you. They have plenty of connection: In Greek and in Latin."

Gosh. Okay, so how about you now present some of these vaguely-similar-but-actually-different words *in context* and show us how they are evidence of pre-Christian Christianities. This will be fun to watch.

Speaking of context ...

"The key aspects of your quote are these"

Translation: 'No, giving the whole quote spoils everything, so I'm going to cut out the pesky bits about the Egyptians being a "light, fickle, and inconstant people, changing with every turn of fortune" that show he was talking about their changeability and the parts about "no one, whether Ruler of a synagogue, or Samaritan, or Presbyter of the Christians, or mathematician, or astrologer, or magician" that show he was talking about Egyptians generally and pretend he was saying something else.'

Seriously, you pull weak crap like this and then dare to whine when we laugh at you?
Posted by TimONeill, Saturday, 3 January 2015 6:53:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
word salad, Timmy.

Again "The Christians among [the Egyptians] are worshippers of Serapis, and those calling themselves bishops of Christ scruple not to act as the votaries of that God .... The Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is by some compelled to worship Serapis, and by others, Christ."

Granted, it is unclear who the Patriarch is.
.

And, more fully -
"The cult of Serapis was to have sweeping success throughout Greece and Asia Minor, especially in Rome, where it became the most popular religion. There was a Serapis temple in Rome as early as 105 BC. Initiation into the Serapis cult included the rite of baptism, and Sir Alan Gardiner, the British Egyptologist, argued in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology in 1950 that Egyptian baptism should be seen as analogous to Christian baptism, of which he commented: "In both cases a symbolic cleansing by means of water serves as initiation into a properly legitimated religious life." The cults of Serapis and Isis did not merely survive the emergence of Christianity, but in the 2nd century AD actually increased in popularity. Serapis and Christ existed side-by-side and were frequently seen as interchangeable. Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both, while paintings of Isis with her son Horus became identified by early Christians as portraits of Mary with her son Jesus. The rite of baptism, part of the initiation ceremony of the Serapis cult, was also adopted by the Church as part of its initiation ceremony."
http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/8_serapis_and_christianity.htm

note -
>> "Some early Christians made no distinction between Christ and Serapis and frequently worshipped both, while paintings of Isis with her son Horus became identified by early Christians as portraits of Mary with her son Jesus"

Here's a pic of Serapis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis#mediaviewer/File:SarapisHead.jpg

oh; and they did baptisms; before the Christians. Maybe John the Baptist was a Serapian?
.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 3 January 2015 9:17:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal

"word salad, Timmy."

Says the guy who chops out the words that show his carefully pruned "quote" doesn't actually say what he claims. And then cites another crackpot theorist who opines the same nonsense he's trying to prove. Hint: Guys who have to reassure themselves by putting "Historian and Scholar" on their cheap-looking website are almost always neither.
Posted by TimONeill, Saturday, 3 January 2015 9:44:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A discussion of serapistemology.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 3 January 2015 9:49:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TimONeill,

<<If you knew me, you'd understand that it's hilarious.>>

Perhaps if I had asserted that my pondering was the only logical explanation there could be, but I didn’t. The “Who knows?” should have given that away. In your fervor, however, you appear to have overlooked that. As I pointed out in my last post, it was a reasonable hypothesis given what I had to go on.

All that aside, my main point there was that something wasn't (and still isn't) adding up. Even if the evidence for an historical Jesus was overwhelming, your tone, emotiveness, and concern for christian history only (specifically that which makes christianity look bad, judging by what I saw on the other forum you linked to) still wouldn’t make sense.

As for the two possibilities you list, (b) doesn’t explain your emotional investment in this topic (which is apparent in your emotive language and overlooking of certain details in your rush to respond), and it doesn’t explain why you only focus on history that makes religion look bad; whereas (a) does. But it doesn’t have to stop at those two possibilities. Perhaps everyone dear to you is a Christian and the thought of them losing a belief that seems to provide them with so much fulfillment breaks your heart? Unlike (b), that explanation wouldn’t leave so many question marks hanging.

Ultimately, all I’m saying that I think there is more to what drives you than you’re letting on and I’m fascinated by what it could be. There’s a reason why so many mistake you for a Christian, and it’s not because the rest of the world is stupid. Presenting yourself as an atheist gives you an air of impartiality (thus faking it online for 20+ years may not be such an absurd notion if you’re passionate enough about defending Christianity and its woeful history), and enables you make make more claims, without immediately backing them up, than you otherwise could.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 3 January 2015 11:23:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

Innocent or sinister, something more than a distaste for pseudohistory drives you and it could bear relevance to the discussion if there are some assertions that we’re just going to have to take your word for.

<<I know you have difficulty with the whole concept of Occam's Razor, but even you should be able to figure this one out.>>

You do? I think there would be some on this forum who find that amusing given how often I find myself explaining it to Christians.

Occam’s razor isn’t just about the fewest assumptions. The number of assumptions still needs to be adequate to explain what is that is trying to be explained. Fewer assumptions may be made in (b), but (a) leaves no contradictions. Besides, I was merely hypothesising so your point here is invalid anyway.

<<They showed up very soon after this post appeared on another forum - one where I am well-known and where this weak accusation that I am not really an atheist is a regular source of amusement…>>

You carry on as if I should be embarrassed here, but I’m not. As I have demonstrated above, my assumptions and musings have been quite reasonable. How unfortunate for you, though, that an acquaintance of yours dropped in to defend you under the circumstances that sock puppets usually appear.

<<Anything else I can help you with?>>

As a matter of fact there is. What is the evidence to suggest that there was one particular historical Jesus and not a few people on which the story was based? That’s not supposed to be a gotcha question, I’m genuinely curious.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 3 January 2015 11:23:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornonacob,
To answer your question, no, there won't be any articles to be found here discussing the flood.

Graeme Young has deemed that such issues found in the Pentateuch are not considered worthy discussion topics on the Onlineopinion website.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 3 January 2015 5:41:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Perhaps if I had asserted that my pondering was the only logical explanation there could be, but I didn’t."

It wasn't a "logical" explanation. If you have to explain my posting history via a 23 year long conspiracy theory, you are far from anything that can be called "logical".

" ... your tone, emotiveness, and concern for christian history only ... "

My "tone" was mild scorn. My only emotion at the moment is amusement. And my posting history shows I am just as harsh on Christians who misuse history as I am on atheists. Because that's ... rational. Try it sometime. I'm also not a fan of Holocaust deniers, but I guess that must be part of my 23 year campaign to hide my "far right nationalism". Or something.

"(b) doesn’t explain your emotional investment in this topic"

Yes, it does. Since you've totally overstated any "emotion" I have about it.

"all I’m saying that I think there is more to what drives you than you’re letting on"

You can convince yourself of whatever garbage you like pal. You certainly seem good at it.

"How unfortunate for you, though, that an acquaintance of yours dropped in to defend you under the circumstances that sock puppets usually appear."

Or the circumstances in which someone who knows me would intervene in the face of patently dumb accusations. Notice that they made the mistake of characterising one of the sites that has run my articles as a atheist one when it isn't? Then had to come back and correct this. Hardly something I would do, is it? Use your brain.
Posted by TimONeill, Sunday, 4 January 2015 9:37:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What is the evidence to suggest that there was one particular historical Jesus and not a few people on which the story was based?"

If you want to make the claim that all the sources are wrong and that the stories are based on more than one person, then do so. You are the one who will need to produce the evidence for that. I can see nothing in the evidence to suggest multiple people, given their proximity to the time they are set and their unanimity that they are talking about just one guy. I know what the tell tale signs of multiple figures look like - we see them in the Arthurian legends - but I can see none of them here. So, what have you got?

And actually discussing the history will make a pleasant change from watching you stumble around your brainless guesses about my personality and background. That was getting very boring.
Posted by TimONeill, Sunday, 4 January 2015 9:38:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy