Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[oldbadger]

It’s quite obvious that Mark has taken Paul’s teaching and simply rewritten it into a pithier teaching from Jesus.

Look, I wanna help you and so here's my first tip:
Don't bother disproving anything written about Jesus before his visit to see the Baptist, and don't bother with anything after Magdalene finding an empty tomb. Then you can concentrate on what was in the earliest manuscripts' of G-Mark.
Now there is quite a lot of Christian editing, addition and adjustment still to be found but if that is removed you're still left with a big fat story about the man (probably two men) called Jesus and what he/they said and did.

This might help you to reduce the waffle.....ok?

 

[oldbadger]

No it's in several books and journals by PhDs who study the original Greek. Write a paper, submit it for review and get it prinited. Until then I care about what is true not delusions.

That's lovely, but you haven't written any verses yet that I would argue for!

And we get yet another apologist who denies scholarship, calls it "nothing" with an uneducated, pet theory, based on English translations .

Your ability to investigate anything is severely weak if you think I am a Christian apologist.

 

[oldbadger]

It's evidence Mark used Paul, in part. There are many other sources as well to create thois story.

Those accounts in the gospels don't interest me so I'm not interested in trying to argue for them!
Wake up!

1 Corinthians 15:5​

and that he appeared to Cephas,[a] and then to the Twelve.​

Twelve Apostles.​

That's funny, correcting a Biblical scholar. Or course you are wrong.

So because Paul thought that there were 13 apostles you've decided that this was the real number? That's sweet!

"“Son of Man.” was a way to identify the messiah, not an average Jewish person. You couldn't use more hilarious bad examples.

All Northern Jews were the sons of men.
A clue is in their second names, but you don't seem to know about this.
If you ask for details about this I will teach this to you.

I'm too busy to reply to more......

 

[Augustus]

Strawman. You actually said:"Same with most of ancient history , we can only consider it probable."
So I pointed out it isn't the same with everyone. Of course it's probable? But there are levels.

Yes, most of ancient history is only probable. Even with something as basic as 'existence', let alone anything more complex like what they actually did.

What % of people in the ancient past can be definitively proved to have existed based on eyewitness testimony? What % of these are non-elites?

Josephus mentions a dozen or more “messiah” figures beginning with Hezekiah/Ezekias c. 45 BCE. It was a trend. The name used in the story, Joshua (Messiah), happens to mean ""Yahweh is salvation". Bit of a coincidence.

The majority of scholars consider he mentions Jesus and his brother too.

But you cannot name a potential writer who should have mentioned him during his lifetime? Noted.

Also, in a time where there were lots of holy men, a holy man with a common name is not really that much of a coincidence.

He wasn't a savior deity. He was also written about by a Roman Emperor, so his historicity isn't questioned.

He was a God, not a son of a God and was associated with different gods by different groups.

"Gods can be real people, but the very specific type of god that I'm thinking of can't be a real person".

People are utilising all kinds of mythical tropes from their surroundings, there weren't limitations on which ones they could imagine relevant to specific figures. Commonalities identified with hindsight by modern scholars are not reified categories that played a role in the imaginings of historical cultures.

All kinds of mythical beings had similarities and differences and you can slice them into all kinds of different groups based on your own preferences and theories.

Antinous was specifically criticised by Christians for his resemblance to Jesus. They were very similar to people from that age. They both were deified close to their purported lives, a trait only shared by deified humans.

People in the past saw the similarities, people in the past didn't think in terms of Hellenistic dying and rising demigods making them completely different. Identifying similarities is one thing, attributing causation or that these belong to reified categories meaningful to those at the time is a very different process.

"But Antinous doesn't belong to this artificial category invented by modern historians to group things according to their preferred and highly subjective taxonomy so these similarities don't count."

I don't know any dying/rising savior demigods based on real people.

You don't know any gods not based on real people that emerged in the lifetimes of their contemporaries either. Funnily enough, only one of these things matters to you.

Scholars are not going to drop this assumption anytime soon. Even if it's true you cannot **** off donors to Universities and tell them their religion isn't even based on a real person.

There are universities outside of America that have no need to mollycoddle Christian donors and have not done so for the past 100 years+

The idea that scholars are being censored by these unis is ludicrous.

Carrier gives it 3 to 1 odds in favor. He isn't saying Jesus was definitely a myth.

IIRC, he personally considers it something like 2000-1 odds in favour (or perhaps 20,000-1), the 3-1 is what he say is a "best case".

During the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great (306–337 AD), Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Historians remain uncertain about Constantine's reasons for favoring Christianity, and theologians and historians have often argued about which form of early Christianity he subscribed to. There is no consensus among scholars as to whether he adopted his mother Helena's Christianity in his youth, or, as claimed by Eusebius of Caesarea, encouraged her to convert to the faith he had adopted.

Constantine ruled the Roman Empire as sole emperor for much of his reign. Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore he chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the imperial cult. Regardless, under the Constantinian dynasty Christianity expanded throughout the empire, launching the era of the state church of the Roman Empire.[1] Whether Constantine sincerely converted to Christianity or remained loyal to paganism is a matter of debate among historians.[2] His formal conversion in 312 is almost universally acknowledged among historians,[1][3] despite that it was claimed he was baptized only on his deathbed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337;[4][5][6] the real reasons behind it remain unknown and are debated also.[2][3] According to Hans Pohlsander, professor emeritus of history at the State University of New York at Albany, Constantine's conversion was a matter of realpolitik, meant to serve his political interest in keeping the empire united under his control:

Historians have a range of incompatible views on the issue. Some, particularly from the mid-20thC, have a tendency to assume ancient people thought very much like people living in the modern, disenchanted world.

Why do you personally believe it most probable that he cynically tried to "unite" the empire around a small, minority religion not popular among those he depended on for support?

 

[Betho_br]

Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan is indisputable evidence that a "Christ" was venerated or worshipped as a god (elohim) or God. However, linking this historical proof to Jesus is another matter entirely...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan is indisputable evidence that a "Christ" was venerated or worshipped as a god (elohim) or God. However, linking this historical proof to Jesus is another matter entirely...

Didn't Tacitus link in his Annals, XV,44 connect Jesus to Pontius Pilate
Suetonius did Not doubt that Jesus existed -The Deified Claudius XXV,4
Pliny the Younger - Pliny-Letters Book X,XCVI in connection to Trajan
and Josephus mentioned James the brother of Jesus - Jewish Antiquities XX,200
ALL the people Luke mentions were real people named at Luke 3:1-2
Interesting also to me that Einstein thought that No myth is filled with such life as Jesus

 

[joelr]

Look, I wanna help you and so here's my first tip:
Don't bother disproving anything written about Jesus before his visit to see the Baptist, and don't bother with anything after Magdalene finding an empty tomb. Then you can concentrate on what was in the earliest manuscripts' of G-Mark.
Now there is quite a lot of Christian editing, addition and adjustment still to be found but if that is removed you're still left with a big fat story about the man (probably two men) called Jesus and what he/they said and did.

This might help you to reduce the waffle.....ok?

I'm interested what experts, trained to read the original language and highly trained in historical research, and much much more, have to say and demonstrate.

Please write a paper, with sources, submit it for peer-review and if it passes I will read it. As of now you have nonsense theories based on zero evidence and speculation.What you call "waffle" is peer-reviewed scholarship, with dozens of sources, so the odds that you are in your own fantasy world are very high.

 

[joelr]

That's lovely, but you haven't written any verses yet that I would argue for!

Says an amateur, who doesn't read the Greek, doesn't have evidence, isn't an expert and is pushing an agenda that is also without evidence, is amateur and based on English translations. Not interested.

Your ability to investigate anything is severely weak if you think I am a Christian apologist.

You are an apologist for your own ideas, based on nothing but amateur speculation. Again, write a paper, source your sources to back up what you claim and submit it for review.

 

[joelr]

Those accounts in the gospels don't interest me so I'm not interested in trying to argue for them!
Wake up!

You said Mark was not influenced by Paul, evidence shows he was.

So because Paul thought that there were 13 apostles you've decided that this was the real number? That's sweet!

As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. There was 12 original, Paul and then others and no-one knows the exact amount.

All Northern Jews were the sons of men.

And in Daniel it is the Messiah, Daniel 7:13–14

A clue is in their second names, but you don't seem to know about this.
If you ask for details about this I will teach this to you.

Sure, if you forget to read Daniel and ignore 99.9% of the scholarship I gave you, which you haven't one single counter for and are not interested because you would rather just make stuff up based on no evidence, training, english translations. Then, you ignore what you have been shown and pretend you are going to teach me? Please go away. Do your fantasy thing somewhere else.

I'm too busy to reply to more......

Ignoring reality takes time.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm interested what experts, trained to read the original language and highly trained in historical research, and much much more, have to say and demonstrate.

Then off you go and find your choice of experts.

Please write a paper, with sources, submit it for peer-review and if it passes I will read it. As of now you have nonsense theories based on zero evidence and speculation.What you call "waffle" is peer-reviewed scholarship, with dozens of sources, so the odds that you are in your own fantasy world are very high.

I've written a digital book about my perceptions of the story in G-Mark but it isn't on this forum and I can't send you to other forums, Joelr.

If you're so affixed on 'peer reviewed scholars' what on earth are you bothering me for?

In any case, please quote your ONE pet 'pet reviewed scholar' at me and then I'll pick ONE 'peer reviewed scholar' to answer yours.

That way I won't have to bother writing much myself. Happy days!

 

[oldbadger]

Says an amateur, who doesn't read the Greek, doesn't have evidence, isn't an expert and is pushing an agenda that is also without evidence, is amateur and based on English translations. Not interested.

Then whatever are you posting stuff at me for?

You are an apologist for your own ideas, based on nothing but amateur speculation. Again, write a paper, source your sources to back up what you claim and submit it for review.

Tell me what you really really believe, Joelr, and I'll pick a couple of professional expert opinions for you to rubbish. That'll save me so much trouble.

 

[joelr]

Yes, most of ancient history is only probable. Even with something as basic as 'existence', let alone anything more complex like what they actually did.

Those are not arguments used for mythicism.

What % of people in the ancient past can be definitively proved to have existed based on eyewitness testimony? What % of these are non-elites?

Nor are those.

The majority of scholars consider he mentions Jesus and his brother too.

The evidence however, doesn't favor this. Carrier goes over the scholarship since 2014 on this subject.

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

• Richard M. Mitchell, The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ (1887), pp. 188–90.
• Nicholas Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A Re-Evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7.1 (2017), pp. 1–27.
• Chris Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion,” American Journal of Biblical Theology 22.6 (2021), pp. 1–21 (6).
• Nicholas List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 32 (2024), pp. 17–44.
• Marian Hillar, “Flavius Josephus and his Testimony Concerning the Historical Jesus,” Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 13 (2005).
• Nicholas Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A Re-Evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7.1 (2017) and Christian Forgery in Jewish Antiquities: Josephus Interrupted (Cambridge Scholars 2020).
• Chris Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion,” American Journal of Biblical Theology (2021).
• Margaret Williams, Early Classical Authors on Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2022), p. 54.

As well as Olsen, Goldberg and several others.

But you cannot name a potential writer who should have mentioned him during his lifetime? Noted.

Philo mentions a mythical firstborn favorite of God who will save humanity, The Ascension of Isaiah mentions Jesus, battling the devil in the celestial realm.

Also, in a time where there were lots of holy men, a holy man with a common name is not really that much of a coincidence.

Or a myth which names the character as their function, like Abraham and Adam.

"Gods can be real people, but the very specific type of god that I'm thinking of can't be a real person".

People are utilising all kinds of mythical tropes from their surroundings, there weren't limitations on which ones they could imagine relevant to specific figures. Commonalities identified with hindsight by modern scholars are not reified categories that played a role in the imaginings of historical cultures.

All kinds of mythical beings had similarities and differences and you can slice them into all kinds of different groups based on your own preferences and theories.

Antinous was specifically criticised by Christians for his resemblance to Jesus. They were very similar to people from that age. They both were deified close to their purported lives, a trait only shared by deified humans.

That assumes Jesus was a human. Strange Paul didn't know that?

People in the past saw the similarities, people in the past didn't think in terms of Hellenistic dying and rising demigods making them completely different. Identifying similarities is one thing, attributing causation or that these belong to reified categories meaningful to those at the time is a very different process.

"But Antinous doesn't belong to this artificial category invented by modern historians to group things according to their preferred and highly subjective taxonomy so these similarities don't count."

View attachment 96957




You don't know any gods not based on real people that emerged in the lifetimes of their contemporaries either. Funnily enough, only one of these things matters to you.

Wasn't the lifetime of their contemporaries. In the 50's Paul knew only of visions and scripture. In the 70's Mark wrote a story using all sorts of older stories, Paul, Romulus, Homer, sounds pretty made up. Greek schooled writers took a hero, real or not and were taught how to create a dense narrative with all the fictive techniques.
The later Gospels all invented sources, and were not eyewitnesses.

There are universities outside of America that have no need to mollycoddle Christian donors and have not done so for the past 100 years+

Yes and the idea that Jesus was a myth started in Germany in the 1800's by an older group of scholars.

The idea that scholars are being censored by these unis is ludicrous.

Yet a Historian says it's 100% true with several types of examples of how it happens, to secular scholars as well? "Ludicrous"? Later when you see the term "snowed by an amateur", go back to this example.

43:20

IIRC, he personally considers it something like 2000-1 odds in favour (or perhaps 20,000-1), the 3-1 is what he say is a "best case".

You don't recall correctly.

Historians have a range of incompatible views on the issue. Some, particularly from the mid-20thC, have a tendency to assume ancient people thought very much like people living in the modern, disenchanted world.

Please demonstrate a historian who doesn't know the difference between modern though and ancient thought.

Why do you personally believe it most probable that he cynically tried to "unite" the empire around a small, minority religion not popular among those he depended on for support?

You are making it into a generalization that seems unlikely. Yet experts are giving informed opinions and it seems it's probable he found he could use this religion in his favor. Once again, assuming a limited, non-specialist opinion would need to ask why one would listed to informed scholars, is just nonsense. I haven't spent an academic career studying Constantine, however, some have. Yet somehow when it comes to religion, everyone is an expert in all related fields. So boring.

According to Hans Pohlsander, professor emeritus of history at the State University of New York at Albany, Constantine's conversion was a matter of realpolitik, meant to serve his political interest in keeping the empire united under his control:

Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore he chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the imperial cult.

Write a paper, provide sources, make your argument and submit it to a journal. I'm not interested in being snowed by an amateur. I want to know what experts find by using their training and expertise.

Do I "really believe" scholars who know the period? Whatever?

 

[oldbadger]

You said Mark was not influenced by Paul, evidence shows he was.

All the church dogma was influenced by the church......and the Pauline letters.
But the basic story of Jesus was not.

As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. There was 12 original, Paul and then others and no-one knows the exact amount.

At last, there were 12 persons who became the disciples of Jesus and were with him through the gospel story. What happened afterwards is of no importance to me.

And in Daniel it is the Messiah, Daniel 7:13–14

I'm really not interested in pre gospel prophesies.

Sure, if you forget to read Daniel and ignore 99.9% of the scholarship I gave you, which you haven't one single counter for and are not interested because you would rather just make stuff up based on no evidence, training, english translations. Then, you ignore what you have been shown and pretend you are going to teach me? Please go away. Do your fantasy thing somewhere else.

Every Northern male Jew's second name shows that he was a son of a man. But you haven't bothered to learn about that, and if you'd like an old amateur to teach you about this then I'll bother to help you.

Ignoring reality takes time.

You're talking to a Deist who doesn't believe in spiritual answers to the gospel story.

But I DO believe that Jesus existed.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm interested what experts, trained to read the original language and highly trained in historical research, and much much more, have to say and demonstrate.

You're interested in Carrier?!!!!!

Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an American ancient historian.[2] He is a long-time contributor to skeptical websites, including The Secular Web and Freethought Blogs. Carrier has published a number of books and articles on philosophy and religion in classical antiquity, discussing the development of early Christianity from a skeptical viewpoint, and concerning religion and morality in the modern world. He has publicly debated a number of scholars on the historical basis of the Bible and Christianity. He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[3] However, Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to most ancient historians,[4][5][6][7] and he and his theories are often identified as fringe.[8][9][10]

 

[joelr]

All the church dogma was influenced by the church......and the Pauline letters.
But the basic story of Jesus was not.

It's rewrites of Paul, OT stories, Romulus and more.
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.

Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself. In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead.

At last, there were 12 persons who became the disciples of Jesus and were with him through the gospel story. What happened afterwards is of no importance to me.

Weird way to admit you were wrong?

I'm really not interested in pre gospel prophesies.

And another way to try and avoid the fact you were wrong. Daniel demonstrates what I said. Can't even own that I guess?

Every Northern male Jew's second name shows that he was a son of a man. But you haven't bothered to learn about that, and if you'd like an old amateur to teach you about this then I'll bother to help you.

Like I said, in Daniel it's used as the Messiah. Nice diversion. You were wrong. Who learned is you, despite the denial.

You're talking to a Deist who doesn't believe in spiritual answers to the gospel story.

But I DO believe that Jesus existed.

Cool, provide evidence.

 

[joelr]

You're interested in Carrier?!!!!!

Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an American ancient historian.[2] He is a long-time contributor to skeptical websites, including The Secular Web and Freethought Blogs. Carrier has published a number of books and articles on philosophy and religion in classical antiquity, discussing the development of early Christianity from a skeptical viewpoint, and concerning religion and morality in the modern world. He has publicly debated a number of scholars on the historical basis of the Bible and Christianity. He is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works.[3] However, Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to most ancient historians,[4][5][6][7] and he and his theories are often identified as fringe.[8][9][10]

It's like being wrong is your job.

I have books here by Joel Baden, Fransesca Stavrakoplou, Bart Ehrman, Mary Boyce, lectures by John Collins, Christine Hayes, William Dever, Klauk on Mystery religions, Elaine Pagels on Gnostic Gospels, Justin Martyr, videos by James Tabor, Litwa, Miller and many more.

Your Wiki source is dated. There are 50 historians who now take mythicism seriously. Lataster also has a peer-reviewed book on mythicism, in favor.

List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously • Richard Carrier Blogs

There are legitimate reasons to doubt Jesus existed, even as a mundane man whose legend became exaggerated (which is, definitely, always plausible too). These reasons have survived peer review—twice. And yet a common fallacy deployed against this fact is that “no relevant experts take this...

www.richardcarrier.info

List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously​

He also debated Ehrman on his blog and Ehrman provided no good argument against his work.



But here is the hilarious thing. The stuff about Mark using Paul and other stories, NOT CARRIER????????


The principal works to consult on this (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:

Just Paul alone being used by Mark, not Carrier at all???

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (De Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)
• Christine Jacobi, Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (De Gruyter 2015).
• Mar Pérez I. Díaz, Jesus in the Light of Paul’s Theology (Mohr Siebeck 2020).
• John-Christian Eurell, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: Reconsidering the Relationship Between Paul and the Synoptics,” Journal of Early Christian History 12.2 (2022): 1-16.

See also (as concurring):

• Michael P. Theophilos, “The Roman Connection: Paul and Mark,” in Paul and Mark Comparative Essays Part I: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Oda Wischmeyer, David C. Sim, and Ian J. Elmer (De Gruyter 2014): 45–71 (cf. other scholars in that same volume).
• Harm W. Hollander, “The Words of Jesus: From Oral Traditions to Written Record in Paul and Q,” Novum Testamentum 42.4 (2000): 340–57 (346).

WHICH I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN TWICE. Yet, you still mis-represent me, which is basically a lie. I no longer care about your opinion or speaking with you. You lack any reason, evidence or even speak truth or listen to the other side at all. Even worse, you try to act as if using an actual historian is a bad thing???? Typical apologist behavior. Total manipulative gaslighting? Gross. I want nothing to do with this. Please go away.

 

[Augustus]

You don't recall correctly.

You may be his number one fan, but you need to pay more attention:

"In other words, in my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero. For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lightning is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus. Nevertheless, as my estimates might be too critical (even though I don’t believe they are), I’m willing to entertain the possibility that the probability is better than that. But to account for that possibility, when I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3.”

On the Historicity of Jesus
Richard Carrier

Wasn't the lifetime of their contemporaries.

According to scholarly consensus it was.

If you disagree, write peer reviewed papers, etc bla bla

If you think the fact that similar deified humans existed and were criticised by Christians for their similarities is wrong, write a peer-reviewed paper etc.

If you think Jesus was of a special type of god that definitely couldn't be based on a real person despite being identified as similar by people living in that era, write a peer-reviewed paper, etc.

Yet a Historian says it's 100% true with examples?

Historians say all sorts of nonsense with selective examples, see for example David Irving.

The idea that European universities across the board are in hock to Christian apologists who are driving their hiring policies is beyond stupid.

Universities are basically the most liberal left-wing institutions in society, most European academics are irreligious. Many, even within religious studies departments, are pretty anti-religious. Yet all these brilliant mythicists are being kept of of their rightful place in the sun, by devious Christians.

Or at least so says a "brilliant mythicist" who couldn't get a job in University and wants to pretend it is due to hidden forces rather than the fact he's just not quite the genius he is absolutely certain everyone should regard him to be.

That assumes Jesus was a human. Strange Paul didn't know that?

Strange that a man who notes him being a descendent of human, born or the flesh of humans, with a human brother who he had met etc. didn't know he was human?

Wait for it...... "Buuut Richard Carrier says he was manufactured in space from cosmic jizz which is much more plausible..."

You are making it into a generalization that seems unlikely. Yet experts are giving informed opinions and it seems it's probable he found he could use this religion in his favor.

Again, what is he basing this on? Why is it most likely he was trying to unite an empire around a religion almost no one important followed?

Why in a pre-modern world without modern communication and transportation technology does he think he can rapidly make everyone convert to monotheism and be "united in Christ" a deity he is simply cynically using out of realpolitik?

Why is this more plausible than him actually being a Christian who then wanted to promote and use his faith?

What reasoning does he provide that you find persuasive?

Write a paper, provide sources, make your argument and submit it to a journal. I'm not interested in being snowed by an amateur. I want to know what experts find by using their training and expertise.

Do I "really believe" scholars who know the period? Whatever?

Then why do you simply cite 1 scholar from a wikipedia article that specifically highlights there is no consensus and just uncritically parrot what he says?

Historians disagree on almost everything, simply saying that 1 person says X therefore you must either agree with in or write a journal article is dumb. Especially given you keep promoting minority opinions on other issues and say the majority consensus "doesn't count". Funny that.

Given many other historians consider Constantine actually was a Christian, why do you consider that it's most likely he was cynically using the religion, rather than him actually being a Christian?

 

[oldbadger]

The evidence however, doesn't favor this. Carrier goes over the scholarship since 2014 on this subject.

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs​

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier Blogs

On whether Josephus actually ever mentioned Jesus, usually you hear people claim “the consensus is” or “such-and-such renowned Josephus expert said” that he did, so shut-up already, nothing more to see here, “move on!” Well, there are two reasons you can’t do that anymore. General Principles...

www.richardcarrier.info

• Richard M. Mitchell, The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ (1887), pp. 188–90.
• Nicholas Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A Re-Evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7.1 (2017), pp. 1–27.
• Chris Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion,” American Journal of Biblical Theology 22.6 (2021), pp. 1–21 (6).
• Nicholas List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 32 (2024), pp. 17–44.
• Marian Hillar, “Flavius Josephus and his Testimony Concerning the Historical Jesus,” Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 13 (2005).
• Nicholas Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A Re-Evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7.1 (2017) and Christian Forgery in Jewish Antiquities: Josephus Interrupted (Cambridge Scholars 2020).
• Chris Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion,” American Journal of Biblical Theology (2021).
• Margaret Williams, Early Classical Authors on Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2022), p. 54.

As well as Olsen, Goldberg and several others.

Josephus did write about Jesus, joelr....we just don't know what he wrote.

Here's a step-by-step reasoning behind my claim.

Look at the size of the paragraph where Josephus mentions Jesus and compare it with the paragraph about John-the-Baptist.
Which is larger?

If you answer that simple question I can go to the next point. OK?

 

[oldbadger]

I no longer care about your opinion or speaking with you............................................. Please go away.

OK joelr.......... Bye bye joelr.........

So I don't need to read your rubbish any more!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..............................................................................................................................................
So because Paul thought that there were 13 apostles you've decided that this was the real number? ................

After Judas Iscariot transgression he was replaced by Matthias to be the 12th apostle replacing Judas - Acts 1;23,26
Where does Paul say 13 __________