Why People Doubt Jesus Existed

[Oberon]

When is enough?:help:

It is never enough....

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is never enough....

muwhahahaha

 

[dogsgod]

Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

(by Dennis R. MacDonald; Yale University, 2000)

by

Richard Carrier




Having read this book, I am now certain that the historicity of the Gospels and Acts is almost impossible to establish. The didactic objectives and methods of the authors have so clouded the truth with literary motifs and allusions and parabolic tales that we cannot know what is fact and what fiction. I do not believe that this entails that Jesus was a myth, however—and MacDonald himself is not a mythicist, but assumes that something of a historical Jesus lies behind the fictions of Mark. Although MacDonald's book could be used to contribute to a mythicist's case, everything this book proves about Mark is still compatible with there having been a real man, a teacher, even a real "miracle worker" in a subjective sense, or a real event that inspired belief in some kind of resurrection, and so on, which was then suitably dressed up in allegory and symbol.


However, the inevitable conclusion is that we have all but lost this history forever. The Gospels can no longer support a rational belief in anything they allege to have occurred, at least not without external, unbiased corroboration, which we do not have for any of the essential, much less supernatural details of the story. And if Alvar Ellegård is right (Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Overlook, 1999), Mark was almost entirely fiction, written after the sack of Jerusalem to freeze in symbolic prose the metaphorical message of Christianity, a faith which began with a Jesus executed long before the Roman conquest, who then appeared in visions (like that which converted Paul) a century later, in the time of Pilate, to inspire the new creed. What is important is not that this can be decisively proven—nothing can, as our information is too thin, too scarce, too unreliable to decisively prove anything about the origins of Christianity. What is important is that theories like Ellegård's can't be disproven, either—it is one among many distinctly possible accounts of what really happened at the dawn of Christianity, which MacDonald's book now makes even more plausible. And so long as it remains possible, even plausible, that the bulk of Mark is fiction, the contrary belief that it is fact can never be secure.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier seems to define mythicist in a stricter sense than I would. Mythicists wouldn't disagree with an historical Jesus as Ellegard proposes, though some might on the grounds that there is no way to prove the connection. An historical Jesus type figure preaching in the 70's or eighties after the destruction of Jerusalem as Q might suggest is plausible. Doherty is open to that. However, that Jesus was executed at the time of Pilate is child's play.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's why Peter Jennings used my Essays for his 'Search for the Historical Jesus' program-because I'm an idiot who knows nothing.

*someone needs to kiss his booty*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's why Peter Jennings used my Essays for his 'Search for the Historical Jesus' program-because I'm an idiot who knows nothing.

IF this really happened, I suspect that this is precisely the reason why Jennings was interested in you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's why Peter Jennings used my Essays for his 'Search for the Historical Jesus' program-because I'm an idiot who knows nothing.

I suppose I can add two more cents to this...

I don't think that you're an "idiot who knows nothing."

I do think that you're showing contempt for your subject [not the historical Jesus himself, but the topic of the historical Jesus] and your intellectual integrity by interacting with quite limited sources with an impressive measure of carelessness and lack of thought.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

You blew all credibility when you said:
>>>by interacting with quite limited sources

Anyone and everyone can see I'm the one with resources backing everything and the opposite argument lacks anything based on facts or resourcing comments they make.
All you did was flood the forum with posts to hide what you didn't and couldn't answer and you avoided basically the whole commentary. Avoidance and displacement and flooding posts to hide things is a famous tactic by Christianity to avoid truths. This behavior is very revealing.

 

[Oberon]

Actually you admitted you didn't when you asked me which figures were used for his image.

No. I am simply familiar with many people claiming all sorts of ridiculous sources for the gospels. I was asking which ones you were referring to.

Not insulting you but this is everyone's problem when they make claims on the gospels then when you test them about facts the oral traditions

After getting an M.A. in classics and one in biblical studies, I worked for years in post-grad research specifically on oral tradition. In addition to studying in detail the scholarship on orality in the Jesus tradition, I have examined oral tradition in other cultures, religions, etc, for comparisons (which is a common method for building a model of orality in the Jesus sect). Exactly what scholarship have you read on oral tradition?

Yeah the finding of over 50,000 errors/contradictions/ and fallacious accounts.

I'm interested in where you are getting these figures. Because within the scholarly community there is no agreement on any number of issues pertaining to whether this or that aspect of the gospels is historical.

That is an ignorant statement....ignorant of the ways authorities use propaganda that you claimed you fully understood.

What authorities and what propaganda? How about some citations?

Needing a new name and new dating is all the evidence one needs.

There aren't any new names. And as for dates, one general aspect of ancient history is that we can rarely nail down exact dates. Sources disagree all the time.

We also know the dating of Rabbis accurately kept and major events such as the Pharisee revolt.

You obviously are unacquainted with rabbinic scholarship. For decades now, it has been pretty much universally acknowledged that the rabbinic sources are a minefield of altered traditions, spurious accounts, etc. If you think the gospels are full of issues, when they were recordings of oral traditions a few decades after Jesus, how can you possibly accept rabbinic accounts, which were recorded 5 centuries later (or, with the mishnah, 2 centuries)?

Did Lysanias and King Herod exist in the time of Jesus as recorded in the NT?

Jesus was likely born shortly before Herod died.

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Only christ figure living in the era of Lysanias is Yehuda of Galilee who died in 6BC, he lived in the Era of Lysanius and King Herod who died in 4BC which is why they had to change the birthdate of the character back to 6BC to fit their account of Herod. However this still failed to fit the time period of Lysanias who died in 36BC and never could be in the accounts of Jesus.[/FONT]
Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus!
Meaning Lysanias dates the Christ in the time of Yehuda of Galilee and King Herod who died in 4 BC.

[/FONT]

1. Did you get this all from one website, or more than one?
2. There is no doubt that there are geographical, historical, etc., errors in the gospels. SO WHAT? How does that have anything to do with whether they contain historically accurate information? Historical texts from Herodotus to present day authors like Freke and Gandy write history books filled with errors. The gospels are not the best biographies of the ancient world. Nor are they the worst.

but no other christ figure was from that area

Ironic claim, given that we have more sources for Jesus than any of the convoluted accounts you have for other figures.

The NT even collaborates the account of being slew(stoned) and hanged on a tree.
-Acts 5:30 Acts 10:39 Acts 13:29 1 Peter 2:24

Act 5:30 states: ο Θεος των πατέρων ημων ἤγειρεν ᾿Ιησουν, ὃν υμεις διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες επι ξύλου/ho theos ton pateron hemon egeiren Iesoun hon humeis diecheirisasthe kremasantes epi xulou/the god of our fathers raised Jesus, whom we killed having hanged upon wood/tree.

The word for "killed/slew" is diacheirizo. It means to handle or manage, but in the middle voice, as here, it means to murder or kill. There is nothing about being stoned. As for "being hanged on a tree" the word for tree (in acts and 1 peter), xulon, really means (uncrafted) wood. However, by extension it can refer to anything from a tree to a cross to cultic images (e.g. Theophilus Antiochenus) or even a club (e.g. Herodotus). So it doesn't at all contradict the crucifixion. You don't know what you are talking about.

Under Rabbinic Law

Rabbinic law didn't exist in Jesus' time. In fact, in his day the word "rabbi" simply meant (more or less) "sir." It wasn't until after the destruction of the temple that rabbinic judaism began.









>>>The earliest references to Jesus are from Paul

Not only is Jesus formed from at least 3 characters but so to is Paul who is taken from Saul

Paul and Saul are the same person. Your "characters" upon which Jesus was based I am guessing are taken from some websites you found. Not from any work of scholarship nor from actually reading the primary texts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You blew all credibility when you said:
>>>by interacting with quite limited sources

Anyone and everyone can see I'm the one with resources ....

Yes. You have obviously copied and pasted a good deal of material from one or a few websites.

But the range of resources are elementary (or below) and you render them useless by your poor usage of them.

So you're using bad "resources" poorly. Bragging about them only embarrasses yourself.

 

[Oberon]

Part 2:

University of Sheffield has an Essay on this discovery
January 1922 edition of "Quest" which describes tablets belonging to the cuneiform documents which were discovered by German excavators in 1903 and 1904 at Kalah Shargat, the site of the ancient Assur formed in the 9th century BC or even earlier. There are however, copies of still earlier Babylonian tablets, which also contain astounding facts, which would be perturbing to most Christians.
It is not (only) the similarity between the two stories of Jesus and Baal/Bel that should excite their astonishment: The two being one and the same *

So no, you haven't actually read the primary source.

Wrong:

"As we know them, the Mithraic mysteries are a Roman phenomenon that flourished in the Roman Empire from the second century C.E. on." p. 199.

Meyer, M.W. ed. (1987). The Ancient Mysteries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

"The Roman cult of Mithras, documented from the end of the first century CE, spread widely throughout the Roman empire over the next three hundred years." p. 188.

Martin, L. H. (2005). Performativity, Narrativity, and Cognition: “Demythologizing” the Roman Cult of Mithras. In Braun, Willi (Ed). Rhetorics and Realities In Early Christianities. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, pp. 187-217.

"A second impouls behind the growth of pagan monotheism was the influence of Christianity itself. Jan Bremmer has noted how, from the second century onwards, apparently new mystery religions appeared, devoted to gods who die and resurrect, such as Atis, or act as personal saviors, such as Mithras." p. 89

Hutton, R. (2003). Witches, Druids, and King Author. London: Hambledon and London.


"Archaeologically, the cult of Mithras first appears in the Roman world in the Flavian-Trajanic period [well after Jesus], when traces of it (inscriptions, mithraea) are suddenly found at several widely separated sites, in Rome, Germania Superior, Raetia/Noricum, Moesia Inferior, Judea. The contexts are those we might expect: the military, the provincial toll system, harbor towns; the big surprise is Alcimus at Rome, the rich slave-bailiff of Tiberius Claudius Livianus, praetorian prefect from ad 102 (ILS 4199). No less striking is the fact that the first clear literary reference dates from the same period: the poet Statius refers to Mithras, identified with solar Apollo, “twisting the recalcitrant horns in a Persian cave,” Persaei sub rupibus antri/indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mithram (Thebaid 719f.), a passage probably written in the mid-80s. p 395."

Gordon, Richard. (2007) Institutionalized Religious Options. In Rüpke, Jörg. (ed). Companion to Roman Religion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 392-405.

I could go on and on.

No even in Luke it admits asking to be placed in the OT to make it look like they fit it so they fully plagiarized and admitted they were gonna plagiarize.

The above sentence isn't very coherent, so it is difficult to respond to.

Nope, you are wrong and you are giving false info about dating of the talmud

Then cite some sources on when the talmud was finally comitted to writing.

>>>First, the reference to being "handed on a tree" is a euphemism for crucifixion.

No it isn't, the hanging was the type of punishment they used after stoning.
Stop rewriting history.

Where is the evidence for this? You have already shown that your reading of "stoned" is completely wrong on the basis of the Greek text. Now, are you really going to argue that Luke/Acts, which states that Jesus was crucified, also contends he was hanged and not crucified?

I showed above the verses in the NT which admit this

There is nothing about being stoned. Moreover, your analysis of "having been hanged on wood/tree" as indicating something other than crucifixion is nonsensical, as the same source clearly says that Jesus was crucified, which IS being hanged on wood.

and the fisherman in Capernaum is found in:

Of course Jesus interacted with fisherman. I asked where the NT said he WAS a fisherman, which you claimed. None of your citations show this. As for living in Capernaum, well, he moved. How is that a contradiction?

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Now Capernaum was close to Nazareth, but the town now known as Nazareth was yet to be built [/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Wrong. [/FONT]

"Since the nineties, excavations less than half a mile from the center of first-century Nazareth reveal some challenging structures. A winepress has been exposed, and beautifully constructed stone-wall terraces are now visible. Most importantly, three circular stone towers only about fifty feet apart now rise majestically above the rocky terrain. These cannot be fortifications; they seem related to a vineyard. pg. 38

Charlesworth, J. H. (2006). Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective. in Jesus and Archaeology. Charlesworth, J. H. (ed). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 11-63.

See also e.g. see e.g. Laughlin, John. (2005) Fifty Major Cities of the Bible. London: Routledge.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

That's why Peter Jennings used my Essays for his 'Search for the Historical Jesus' program-because I'm an idiot who knows nothing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:beach:

.....

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I doubt that many who make arguments about douting Jesus' existence really care whether he did or not. I can understand the motivation to try to make people question their standards of evidence, but it's fundamentally irrelevant, as well as fruitless.

 

[Oberon]

:beach:

.....

If only I were at the beach with a mojito...

 

[dogsgod]

I doubt that many who makes arguments about douting Jesus' existence really care whether he did or not. I can understand the motivation to try to make people question their standards of evidence, but it's fundamentally irrelevant, as well as fruitless.

True. It's tough to care about characters written of within an allegorical fiction.

 

[fallingblood]

You do not understand the idea of the Jesus myth. Not even remotely. You've done no research whatsoever which is evident by what you have just posted.

You presume wrong. If you are going to claim that I'm ignorant of the Jesus myth, show me why. Do not simply state that I'm ignorant. By simply stating what you did in your post, all you do is supply a logical fallacy.

 

[fallingblood]

This post is illogical, as you are stating that a historical Jesus existed that does NOT match the one talked about in the bible, which IS STATING that a man resembling the biblical Jesus never existed. Thanks for proving my point.

Really? I never said that Jesus would not have resembled what was in the Bible. I stated that the Bible is not a literal account of Jesus's life, and that is (as you're showing) where a large problem occurs.

Lets look at Augustus, or even Julius Caesar. Do we believe everything that was written about them? Not at all. We discern what is factual and historical, and what are later mythical additions as well as exaggerations. Based on what you're saying, I can then assume that Buddha never existed, Augustus never existed, Alexander the Great never existed, and so on. Because honestly, most people who look at their ancient biographies, and the stories that ended up being created about them would see that the historical figures do not match exactly the biographical characters. By what you're saying, that means they did not exist.

There is a difference between a historical Jesus, and a Biblical Jesus. They are the same person, but a distinction seems to be needed. The historical Jesus looks at what Jesus would have been like as a historical person. The Biblical Jesus adds mystical and supernatural qualities to a historical person, which was a common practice. It should be logical that we can discard those mystical and supernatural qualities as we do so with a plethora of other historical characters.

 

[fallingblood]

1. Did you get this all from one website, or more than one?

I think I can answer this one. I was looking at IfYouDon'tKnowMeByNow was saying and it reminded me of a document I printed off around 5-10 years ago when I was really considering the Jesus myth position.

The document is entitled Did Jesus Live 100 B.C. and is by G.R.S. Mead, having been written in 1903. I just did a quick search, and the site I printed the article off no longer has it, but I found it on another site Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? by G. R. S. Mead.

The resemblance is quite strong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think I can answer this one. I was looking at IfYouDon'tKnowMeByNow was saying and it reminded me of a document I printed off around 5-10 years ago when I was really considering the Jesus myth position.

The document is entitled Did Jesus Live 100 B.C. and is by G.R.S. Mead, having been written in 1903. I just did a quick search, and the site I printed the article off no longer has it, but I found it on another site Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? by G. R. S. Mead.

The resemblance is quite strong.

Very good.

 

[Quagmire]

A good article, I have seen and posted a number of reasons included in this article a number of times as reasons against the existence of a historical Jesus, as always poo-poohed by the "Jesus does exist" apologists mainly on the basis of "their experts are better than ours" and not on the arguments themselves. Clearly, the evidence for the existence of a real historical Jesus is meager to non-existent.

Look at what you said here, Logician: "as always poo-poohed by the "Jesus does exist" apologists...."

We're discussing historicity here, not theology, and yet in spite of the fact that no one in this thread is arguing for the theological, present-tense, existence of Jesus in any way shape or form, you said "does" rather than "did".

What does that tell you?

What it tells me is that you're doing exactly what I described in this post:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...people-doubt-jesus-existed-4.html#post1928758

ie., that your main concern is with the theology, even when you're talking history. In other words, even when you're making a conscious effort to address the issue on a completely mundane level you're underlying concerns over the theological aspects override everything else.

In other words: you're not really interested in the history, or the truth thereof, except to whatever extent you can use it to nullify the effects the theology has had on you personally.

And again: the easiest, quickest way to do that is to convince yourself that the central figure of that theology is completely made up, mythical, and therefore the theology itself is founded on a lie.

It's understandable, but their are problems with this approach:

This isn't exactly an objective approach to the topic for one thing, and for another thing, it doesn't work. If it did you would be over it by now.

 

[roger_pearse]

One of the problems with the internet is that all sorts of stuff gets uploaded. Unfortunately not all of it is genuine, or even checked for factual accuracy. Stuff about Mithras is one of these.

Wrong: first a predating Jesus cross with sickly man on it the kind the pope carries was found, it was a mithraic cross found I believe in Ireland.

This is mistaken. No archaeological evidence of any kind for Mithras exists prior to around AD 80. Since Ireland was not even part of the Roman world, there is something horribly wrong with this.

Biblical source: Mithras was worshipped as "the Mediator", he is the pagan Lord of the covenant, "baal-berith" in Judges 8:33 33

This does not refer to Mithras.

Historical sources on Mithraism and Mithraic text itself as a source:
1. Strabo (ca.63bce-24ce) Greek geographer
"They [The Persians] honor also the Sun, whom they call Mithras"
- From "Geography", XV, 3, written around 20bce. His book was an early "travel guide" to the then-known world, and was one of the first western references to the Mithrasic Faith.

This is not a reference to Mithras, but to the ancient Persian cult of Mihr, or Mitra. The two are distinct, although scholars in the early 20th century were confused by statements such as these. But the archaeology shows otherwise; there are, for instance, none of the distinctive Mithraeums in Persia.

2. Plutarch (ca.46ce-120ce) Greco-Roman historian and biographer
"They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time, having received their previous insitution from them."
- from "The Life Of Pompey", chapter 24. Pompey was a Roman general who defeated the nation of Cilicia, where Mithras had been worshipped. The "Mount Olympus" doesn't refer to the mythical dwelling of the Greek gods, but can refer to any holy mountain, probably in Cilicia itself.

Plutarch is writing ca. 100 AD. It is possible that he knows that the Cilician pirates of 160 years earlier worshipped Mithras; but the archaeology says otherwise.

3. Lucius Agrius (ca.107bce-41bce) Roman soldier and Mithrasic High Priest (ca.67bce- 41bce)

"Among these soldiers was a strong and mighty warrior, whose personality drew many of the Cilicians to him. By enquiry, I discovered that he was a holy man, and was therefore sought after as a man of wisdom. He led the Cilicians in Prayer at dawn, and again at mid-day and at dusk, never failing to praise his God, Whom he called Mithras."
- from "The Conversion of Lucius Agrius", paragraph 2, written ca.67bce. Lucius Agrius was a soldier in Pompey's army and became the first Roman to serve Mithras, converted by Cilician immigrants to Italy after their defeat by Pompey's army. Lucius Agrius served as the first Roman High Priest, and his book is included in the Mithrasic Canon of Scripture.

This is fake, I'm afraid. No such ancient text exists.

From this I learn that all this is being repeated from some low-grade site such as this. [this site won't let me post the link]

4. Marcellinus (ca.95bce-33bce) Roman soldier and Mithrasic High Priest (41bce-33bce)
"...and the soldiers of the Faith vow to be chaste for months at a time, in dedication to the Lord. And when we marry, we marry women of pure heart, quiet disposition, and clean spirit, for women of ill repute are despised by the men of the Mysteries."
-from "The Fragment of the Letter of Marcellinus", paragraph 1, written between 41bce and 33bce. This, too, is included in the Mithrasic Canon of Scripture. Only this and three other paragraphs of this letter survive.

Also fake. No such document exists.

The reference to a "Mithraistic canon of scripture" is also fake. The Roman cult of Mithras was a mystery cult, and had no requirement for or interest in such things.

5. Statius (ca.45-96ce) Historian and writer
"These rites were first observed by the Persians from whom the Phrygians received them, and from the Phrygians, the Romans."
- from "The Thebans", 717.

Statius is the earliest literary testimony to the cult, ca. AD 80. But he does not say these words; these are from the fifth century AD writer Lactantius Placidus, commenting on Statius.

All the genuine ancient literary testimonies to Mithras are available online at my site (which the stupid forum software won't let me mention).

The "Phrygians" lived in Asia minor, in the southern portion of the present-day nation of Turkey.

More or less in the middle, actually.

Most Mithrasists of the the early first century, bce lived in the nearby region of Cilicia, but some also lived in Phrygia, and Mithras is always shown wearing a hat from this region.

There is no evidence of Mithras worshippers in this religion in that period. But Mithras is one of several deities depicted wearing a Phrygian cap.

in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras.

This duplicates the claim about Plutarch.

Stop rewriting history.

An unfortunate comment, considering the material above.

We have to be sceptical. I have found that a few people will post the most outrageous lies about Christian origins -- we need hardly ask why -- and of course others then repeat the stuff in good faith.

All the best,

Roger Pearse