joelr
Well-Known Member
This is incorrect. First Ehrman like almost all biblical historians does not believe the gospel narratives are true.
Although there are older mythicist theories that have been shown to be crank, the current PhD historicity study done since 1926 has shown mythicism to be favored 3 to 1. Weather the stories were based on a real person or not (that is the only debate in history, historicity vs mythicism) none believe in the supernatural gospel tales.
As Dr Carrier says:
"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.
No. We aren’t interested in that.
When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death."
Thomas Thompsons work in the 70's is now consensus and because of that Moses and the Patriarchs are 100% considered myth. This list goes on and on....
YOu like Wiki quotes:
"Generally Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE"
This is true. The 7 authentic Epistles do not speak of any earthly Jesus. The gospels are considered all sourced from Mark, even Christian scholarship admits this:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
This article from bible.org covers the 7 main arguments as to how scholars know Mark is the first and the source.
That leaves 1 gospel which contains verbatim lines from the OT, borrows heavily from other fiction, uses parables and literary styles used only in fiction and takes information in the Epistles and creates earthly narratives. This leaves no room for oral transmission but looks like a fictional narrative.
We also know for a fact that other dying/rising savior gods were worshipped before Jesus only in this region.
"and most scholars believe that the best solution to the problem is that Mark was the first gospel to be written and served as the source for the other two"
Several scholars have now gone over to Carriers mythicist side now that the facts have been laid out. But either way, historicity or mythicism, almost no historians accept the gospel narratives as true any more than Islam, Mormonism or Hindu stories.
What Bible scholars are in consensus on is that nothing in the scriptures is certain. But even if a man was crucified (thousands of Jews were crucified in the 1st century) it does not make the myths created around this man true.
Mark is the only actual gospel creating a narrative. The others are re-writing Mark. But the sources are mostly known with Mark. Even the description of the crucifixion is taken from Psalms:
Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”
Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”
Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”
Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”
Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.
This is fiction.
This is easy. This is only spoken about in wildly fictive myths. Savior demigods (sons or daughters of a sky-god) were being killed undergoing a passion and their resurrection allowed baptized members to get into the afterlife. Christianity is the Jewish version of this myth.
You cannot use a book to demonstrate the book is true. This is absurd circular logic and shows you do not care at all about what is actually true.
Of course it isn't reasonable. In science there is one theory that can be demonstrably shown to be correct. Today we have Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, JW and many others all using these same ridiculous lines of evidence to show they are the one true religion. They also know in their hearts that God and Jesus/Krishna.Mohammud, are telling them they are correct.
But they all use the same evidence to show the same non-evidence.
Again in this example you are sourcing stories with no reason to believe these are true.
Your appeal to popularity could be debunked with the simplest thoughts.
If you add up Judaism, Hinduism and Islam that is 2/3 of all religious people. But you believe they are wrong. So more people believe a false religion than believe Christianity (not to mention different Christian sects). So this demonstrates conclusively that this is not a measure of truth.
Unreasonable demands and irrational expectations
Based on the above, it is unreasonable to demand that Jesus should have left any trace outside what we have - the testimony of those who witnessed Jesus alive after his murder.
It is irrational to expect that Jesus should somehow appear to unbelievers to prove to them that he live, and perhaps beg them to accept that fact.
And Islam also says the angel Gabrielle doesn't have to return and Mormons say Moroni doesn't have to return and neither does Krishna. This excuse every religion uses only shows that deep down everyone knows no Gods are showing up because they are not really there.
But we can see the myths in scripture from beginning to end were already formed in earlier cultures. So this one time did a God from a story who looks like all the others decide to hide his teachings in what looks exactly like all other myths? Or is it all just a myth? Yes, probably all just mythology.
Each account of the empty tomb is different. Mark clearly forgot to address that people would ask "how do you know the body wasn't stolen" and Matthew added something to fix that. Clearly not historical.
If you read the gospels and note all the spectacular events and people supposedly involved in this events and all we have is a vague possible forgery in Tacitus from almost 100 years later shows exactly nothing happened as claimed.
These is no evidence for any resurrections in any religion ever. There is evidence that every story is a borrowed myth, that people who claim to be having a conversation with a God are always lying, delusional or just attempting to add traction to a new movement.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Last edited:
