oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I've no idea. I'm sorry, I missed a question mark at the end of my question to another member.
My studies about the historical Jesus don't lead me as far as Paul's letters.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?
- Thread starter Comradio251
- Start date
My studies about the historical Jesus don't lead me as far as Paul's letters.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, that he didn't exist. I already know that. But he usually puts it at 1 in 3 odds against. I thought you meant the other way around. Your gaslighting just shows insecurity. Most of us grew out of the "I know you are in love with him...." phase around 6th grade.
Well this will fall flat on it's face. Maybe you should be snarky when you actually know what you are talking about? What do I know, I love Richard Carrier, he's my favorite.
They already exist.
BUILDING A GOD: THE CULT OF ANTINOUS AND IDENTITY IN THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
There are few contemporary historical sources on Antinous’ life, and for this reason, combing ancient texts for information on Antinous and his cult presents a challenge. Antinous’ origins, in fact, are absolutely unknown, with no record of his parents, family or any interactions with members of Hadrian’s court. All information 8 about Antinous comes from after his death and deification. Both the Historia Augusta and Cassius Dio’s Roman History were written decades, if not centuries, after the deaths of both Hadrian and Antinous, with Dio’s account having been written in the early to mid 9 third century and the Historia Augusta disputed, but generally believed to have been written in the late fourth and early fifth centuries; their authors never met Hadrian, and the stories which they recount have had centuries to acquire rumors and gossip. Only Pausanias, the Greek geographer, was alive during Hadrian’s reign and even he writes that he “never saw [Antinous] in the flesh.” 10 Of the three ancient Roman sources that name Antinous and describe his death and cult, Pausanias and Cassius Dio, both from Anatolia--Dio was from Bithynia, the birthplace of Antinous--and both writing in Greek, mention Antinous’ place of origin, whereas the Historia Augusta does not. For the Anatolians, it would have been a source of pride to mention a man of their own country, exalted by Hadrian, whereas the Historia
Consensus? Continue on to see more examples of this new fake reality emerging.
What fact? The one you made up and now proclaim is real?
The latest peer-reviewed historicity study, since 1928, is OHJ by Carrier and another by Lataster.
The assumptions that he was a real person do not hold up to any reasonable standards. He was not identified as similar.
Re-stating it in different words doesn't make it false. Re-stating it with more gaslighting doesn't make it false. It just brings into question your motivation.
What's worse is the examples given were not all mythicists. The biggest example was Thomas Thompson, an OT scholar.
That's great that yet another internet rando can ad-hom Carrier like he's owns the world. Yet, where is your peer-reviewed book on the subject? What interviews are you paid to give your opinions? Oh, right, there are none, you write for free on an internet forum. You keep talking about actual successful people as if they are nothing if it helps you feel better about whatever is going on .
He also never said he couldn't get a job for those reasons. You made that up. He told a true stories about other scholars. Like Thompson.
So now, instead of evidence, we have ad-hom attacks. I'm seeing a pattern, things don't go your way, tantrum.
Born of the flesh of humans is part of the myth, that doesn't demonstrate historicity. The John reference is not the Greek word for biological brother. So we don't know if it's used as "brother in the Lord", as he uses it in other passages. Being 50/50 doesn't help us.
See, the tantrum continues.
You are arguing suspiciously like a theist.
You seem to think that the opinions of scholars who study this are meaningless compared to your amateur musings and repeatedly can't believe your vague speculation isn't the final word. Bizarre.
First of all, in this matter, you don't have reasoning. None. Zero. It is a complex subject that requires a study of the period, what and how they thought of religion and politics. As usual, it's often an anacronism to apply modern thought to this.
So again, I'll quote a scholar, Ehrman:
The narrative of how Constantine became a Christian is both intriguing and complex. It involves issues that we today would consider strictly social and political and other issues that we would consider strictly religious. But in the early fourth century – as in all the centuries of human history before that time – these two realms, the socio-political and the religious, were not seen as distinct. They were tightly and inextricably interwoven. On just the linguistic level, there were no Greek or Latin terms that neatly differentiated between what we today mean by “politics” and “religion.” On the practical level, the gods were understood to be closely connected with every aspect of the social and political life of a community, from the election of officials, to the setting of the annual calendar, to the laws and practices that governed social relations, such as marriage and divorce, to the administration of civil justice, to the decisions and actions of war, to all the other major decisions of state. The gods were active in every part of social and political life, and the decisions made and actions taken were done in relation to them.
Maybe I should ask an internet rando who can provide his 2 cents which gives zero actual meaningful information.
Who then gaslights me for using a scholar and tries to call it "parroting". Please use manipulation on someone else. OR how about no one else.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
This is another strawman. But it's also highly sketchy and more of the same pattern going on here.
" simply saying that 1 person says X therefore you must either agree with in or write a journal article is dumb."
Yeah, it might be, if someone said that. But I provided you with a variety of scholarly opinions, the sources were:
Wendy Doniger (ed.), "Constantine I", in Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2006), p. 262.- ^ Jump up to:a b Noel Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine (Cambridge University Press, 2006), "Introduction". ISBN 978-0-521-81838-4.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin (1978) [1948]. Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (1962 ed.). University of Toronto Press (reprint 2003) [Macmillan: Teach Yourself History, 1948, Medieval Academy of America: Reprint for Teaching, 1978]. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-8020-6369-4.
- ^ Hans A. Pohlsander, The Emperor Constantine (Routledge, NY 2004), pp. 82–84. ISBN 0-415-31938-2; Lenski, "Reign of Constantine" (The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine), p. 82.
- ^ Gonzalez, Justo (1984). The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. Harper Collins. p. 176. ISBN 0-060-63315-8.
- ^ "Eusebius of Nicomedia". Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2018-12-18.
- ^ Pohlsander, The Emperor Constantine, pp. 78–79.
So I didn't really do that did I? But in your magical re-telling, I did? Huh, it's like you are twisting reality so I don't know what's what. Which is why people try to gaslight others when they have nothing of value to say. It's gross and manipulative.
"Especially given you keep promoting minority opinions on other issues and say the majority consensus "doesn't count". Funny that."
And another made-up reality. The only minority opinion is mythicism, which I fully acknowledged is not the consensus. No one has debunked the current work. Sorry, AnswersinGenesis isn't scholarship.
The Josephus thing has changed and I gave you the current work. But I stated, this is work since 2014.
But what's worse is I keep giving you sourced scholarship on Constantine, yet it isn't minority opinions you keep turning back to, it's JUST YOUR SPECULATION??? And then you try to say it's me who is backing minority opinions?
How about the opinion of ONE AMATEUR who clearly has some agenda?
So let me get this straight.
I give you an article, citing several scholars, explaining it's complicated and so on, and you change this to "given many other historians consider Constantine actually was a Christian, why do you consider....."
WTHeck are you talking about? You have "given" ZERO other historians. When one sums up the historical consensus, that it's complex and involves political and religious considerations, and you just ignore that and make up a fake reality where these mysterious historians consider Constantine a Christian, something fishy is going on here.
You are either a theist who isn't admitting it and needs Constantine to be a fellow believer, or falling back on weird manipulation that I don't want anything to do with.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Not interested. If you want to know something about Josephus, ask the top scholar Steve Mason.
If you think you know something he doesn't , write him and tell him. Not into conspiracy theories.
Dr. Steve Mason: Josephus on Jesus & the Testimonium Flavianum
joelr
Well-Known Member
You haven't demonstrated any of it is rubbish. You only demonstrated you don't care about truth, seem to feel any thought that enters your mind must be profound truth and by magic you know more than the scholars who study the material. Calling it "rubbish" just confirms this perfectly.OK joelr.......... Bye bye joelr.........
So I don't need to read your rubbish any more!
Those pesky scientists and their, "germs" and "round earth", why would I listen to them?
Keep using your computer, a marvel of science, to deny the scientific method of investigation. Keep irony alive.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Joelr........Bye Bye....... !
Augustus
…
In that video "the top scholar" explains at length why he thinks the TF mentions Jesus, his brother James and also the numerous times Paul discusses a human Jesus.
He explains in detail why a human Jesus is far more parsimonious, and why a mythical Jesus requires much more convoluted reasoning.
If people side with a) the consensus and b) the more respected scholars you insist they must "write a peer reviewed paper" though. Strange...
You said: "If you want to know something about Josephus, ask the top scholar Steve Mason."
I will listen to your advice. What does the top scholar Steve Mason say on this? (hint - it's in the video above)
Jesus wept. There is existent peer reviewed scholarship on all of these topics we discuss, yet you constantly insist those that disagree with Carrier need to write a peer reviewed paper if they don’t accept his logic as gospel truth. You even told me to "write a paper" about the idea that Constantine actually was most likely a Christian
Talking of falling flat…
Funny you didn’t include a link to that unpublished MA thesis which you claimed as peer reviewed scholarship. So what do you know?
If you are going to be smug and play the expert, best not be deliberately dishonest in an easily provable manner.
More than that though, I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make with that. What is in that MA thesis that is supposed to contradict anything I said? What is your point?
Again, stop whining and provide an example of a purely mythical god who was deified and placed on earth within the lifetime of his contemporaries.
All of the examples of people deified in this timeframe have been real people, if you think there are ones who are not name them.
Otherwise, no matter how much you want it not to be true, someone who cares about facts rather than supporting their pet theories will have to accept it likely is.
Yes, it is a consensus that Paul refers to a human Jesus. Again this is inconvenient for you, but if you don't like it you can always write a peer-paper so devastating that it overturns the consensus and earn yourself scholarly immortality
No one has really been persuaded by Carriers attempt to overturn the scholarly consensus you mean as it requires multiple convoluted arguments to all be true. You can listen to the top scholar Steve Mason debunking serval parts of it in your own video above.
Maybe you can take your own advice and write a better book and overturn the consensus though.
It's not really complicated. Either you think he was cynically pretending to be a Christian for reasons of "realpolitik" or he was not (which includes all other possibilities)
I argued that the former is implausible. Do you agree?
Your constant sealioning is tiresome.
The wiki you posted clearly notes that many scholars consider his conversion genuine whereas others consider it "Realpolitik". I mentioned nothing about a majority, I simply asked you to explain your own reasoning in your own words rather than just pasting a wiki summarising different views.
As such I asked why you favour the latter as I find it very implausible that anyone would cynically try to unite an empire around a religion followed by a tiny minority and that he had no personal stake in. It is much more plausible that he was genuinely a Christian. This is a very simple question
Given you already presented evidence that both views are supported by scholars, insisting on more evidence is just sealioning.
scholars now recognize that the Christianity of Constantine’s day, while more organized than any ancient religion had ever been, was still by later standards sim- ply a loose assemblage of local congregations, held together by regular meetings of their bishops, but still differing significantly in character and even in the fine points of belief.1 Constantine thus had a variety of Christians with whom he could choose to work – some certainly deter- mined to war to the death against the old gods, but others prepared to live in harmony with their pagan neighbors. This choice in turn means that the question about Constantine’s conversion needs to shift from “Did he become a Christian?” (about which there can be very little doubt) to “What kind of Christian did he become?”...
But if it is a mistake to think of Constantine as a doctrinaire Christian, it is an even greater mistake to think of him as a politician interested only in the power the church could help him achieve. There was no separation between church and state in antiquity; indeed, except among Christians, there was no idea of a “church” that was anything other than the “state.” For this reason, the task of sorting out “polit- ical” from “religious” motives in a ruler like Constantine is bound to fail. It is possible, however, to consider the political implications of his actions without having to conclude that these actions were politically motivated. In fact, it could be said that the mistake of earlier scholarship was to ignore such political considerations and depend too heavily on the theological implications of Constantine’s behavior, forgetting that theology is a very weak tool for analyzing developments in the public sphere.
5: The Impact of Constantine on Christianity
H. A. Drake in The Cambridge companion to the Age of Constantine
This is one of the most embarrassingly obsequious rants I’ve ever read on RF.
No attempt to make a rational argument as to why the most left wing and progressive institutions in countries where most people are not practicing Christians are censoring Jesus mythicism. Who are these Christians they are appeasing?
People can, and do, say literally everything about Christianity is not true.
You keep posting a list of scholars who "take mythicism seriously", yet several of these have jobs at universities and haven't been rooted out by the inquisition.
Your standards for being a success also seem a lot lower than most people’s.
Carrier is a fringe scholar who had to beg for money on the internet so he could write a book. He has published a handful of journal articles in 20 years of scholarship. He is not employed by any university. He has not written any books that have met with either critical or popular success. He is not a successful scholar by any means.
His main claim to fame is basically being a niche, internet microcelebrity popular among a subset of internet atheists.
Like many people here, I am in fact paid to give my opinions, as I have job. RF is a hobby. A form of entertainment. I also play football and golf, but using your logic I should not do or enjoy these things as I haven't reached the level of being an unremarkable semi-professional.
I also don’t need to beg on the internet before someone will pay me to do my job and then blame my lack of success on a conspiracy of Christians who are preventing folk from recognising my true genius.
How could you possibly think it was the other way round and that I thought Carrier was actually arguing for the near certain existence of Jesus? That makes absolutely no sense in context of this thread and dozens of posts. Your comprehension in context must be bad.
He personally thinks it is near impossible he is wrong, which shows a very telling hubris.
Having a joke about your predictability in resorting to the Gospel of RC is very far from a "tantrum". RF is an entertainment medium, nothing we say here really matters you know.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yeah, telling you to consult work from an actual scholar is part of being done with you.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Bye bye Joelr......
Peace to all,
To me in logic, Jesus pre-existed, re-existed immortal and incorruptible, descended through death, resurrected re-existed glorified trnasfigured.
“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen”, Romans 11:36
In logic and faith the Person of the Trinity, Jesus existed before creation was ever created was even created and became flesh through the Immaculate Conception by the Virgin Birth, blood and water birth is not required for the Soul's of The Christ, the Person Holy Spirit and the Person of Jesus in the Christ as shared preexisted. Rebirth back to Heaven is the blood and water from the Cross, the blood and water flowed from the side of The Christ, the New Adam for all mankind's rebirth back from where the Holy Spirit Person in the Souls of all mankind came, Heaven.
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
To me in logic, Jesus pre-existed, re-existed immortal and incorruptible, descended through death, resurrected re-existed glorified trnasfigured.
“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen”, Romans 11:36
In logic and faith the Person of the Trinity, Jesus existed before creation was ever created was even created and became flesh through the Immaculate Conception by the Virgin Birth, blood and water birth is not required for the Soul's of The Christ, the Person Holy Spirit and the Person of Jesus in the Christ as shared preexisted. Rebirth back to Heaven is the blood and water from the Cross, the blood and water flowed from the side of The Christ, the New Adam for all mankind's rebirth back from where the Holy Spirit Person in the Souls of all mankind came, Heaven.
Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
joelr
Well-Known Member
That's some more reality warping, which is now fully expected.
First I gave the reference because someone had ideas about Josephus that sounded uninformed. Nothing to do with mythicism. Mason is a highly respected scholar on Josephus.
But he is not a NT historicity specialist and his arguments on the TF made some strange assumptions and are not "in detail". That doesn't make him a bad scholar, he's not following the latest scholarship, doesn't seem to know about Carrier's work and you can read Carrier's response to the mention of the issue.
Mason on Josephus on James • Richard Carrier Blogs
A German academic reference book appeared in 2017 titled Jesus Handbuch (more or less meaning “Jesus Handbook” or the Jesus Manual) edited by Jens Schröter and Christine Jacobi (you can access its table of contents and descriptive foreword at Mohr Siebeck). It’s largely useless for the...
www.richardcarrier.info
Mason on Josephus on James
Perhaps the only entries in it that are even interesting are the two chapters by Steve Mason covering the extra-biblical sources, which is particularly relevant as he is a noted expert in Josephan studies, who really believes Josephus discussed Jesus and James in the Antiquities. Mason provides an English translation of that section at Academia.edu. There is now one in print. But the online paper actually adds an introduction not in the Handbuch (German or English edition). In that Mason mentions doubt of historicity and affirms it should be taken seriously, though he never goes into any of the actual basis for those doubts or why historicity should be affirmed over them. He shows no awareness of my peer reviewed historical work in On the Historicity of Jesus or Proving History, the very thing he asks for here, yet inexplicably thinks hasn’t been done yet. For example, Mason asks a bunch of rhetorical questions on page 3 that are answered in those works, as if he has no idea; and he likewise says things that are weirdly false, like that “the Christ-myth side downplays the diversity of early Christ-following,” which is literally exactly the opposite of the truth—that early sectarian diversity is actually a significant component of our case. And none of this is in the Handbuch.Mason says very little about the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF). He seems to struggle with his conclusion, as if he doesn’t want it to be the case that “of the three main options—Josephus wrote the whole passage, or none of it, or some but not all—majority opinion has settled on the diplomatic middle ground” but “some scholars still find a Jesus-free Josephus most compelling,” citing solely Olson’s 2013 study, even though he should be citing several recent devastating critiques of the “partial TF” thesis (see my summary in Josephus on Jesus: Why You Can’t Cite Opinions Before 2014). It’s as if Mason just lazily picked one example of the position he doesn’t like, rather than do his duty to summarize the latest scholarship. So we get no mention of Goldberg 1995, Whealey 2008, Feldman 2012, Hopper 2014, or Carrier 2014; even though collectively they make a pretty powerful case against what Mason deems “majority opinion.”
This matters because, for example, most of the scholars Mason might list as forming that “majority opinion” based that opinion in significant part on the argument from the Arabic Testimonium; but in 2008 Whealey proved that derived from Eusebius and not Josephus, thus destroying the entire basis for their opinion. It also matters because at this point Mason goes off the rails of all logical sense when trying to defend the James passage in Josephus as wholly authentic.
Here Mason weirdly argues that “every part of the James passage makes decent sense” if we take it “in the larger context of Antiquities, if Josephus has recently referred to a man known as Christos.” Yet Mason just got finished arguing Josephus cannot have used the word Christos in the TF. You heard that right. He flatly contradicts himself. Mason likewise says this “second passage appears to assume” the TF. But it doesn’t. The TF never mentions Jesus having a brother or Christians being persecuted or teaching anything about giving up Torah law. So in fact the James passage does the exact opposite of “assuming the TF.” It seems connected to it in no way at all. Indeed, the James passage doesn’t even say James was a Christian or that that’s why he was killed. It doesn’t say any Christians were killed. So why would Mason say something exactly contrary to the truth? He does not seem to have a functioning epistemology here. Logic, not his game.
It gets worse than this. Because when Josephus assumes one passage relates to another, he says so. And yet that is precisely what he doesn’t do here. So in fact this is actually evidence against this passage having anything to do with the TF, or any other passage in Josephus that explained anything in it—with the one exception proving this very point: Josephus assumes this passage relates to the other where he explained the proclivities of Sadducees. How do we know that? Because he says so.
How let's get to the chane reality to fit your argument portion of the question:
Tricky, taking something I said about Constantine, where you were continually sourcing your own opinion against all of scholarship and I got tired of the entire ridiculous approach and siad:
"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."
Simply because you cannot stop getting references from scholars on Constantine, fluffing them off and saying "but do you really think....?"
No, I don't think, PhDs who study the period think. If you want to contest it on your hunch, write a paper and submit it. I'm not interested.
But that is a different matter. Yet, somehow, here it is being applied to a DIFFERENT subject, as if I said it about everything.
You simply cannot form an honest argument. It is impossible.
Holy crud. I was trying to avoid the term, but this is straight up gaslighting.
I said it to SOMEONE ELSE about a different matter. I don't care what he thinks about mythicism. I don't care if Carrier presents an argument against that one thing, it's a different discussion.
If we are discussing mythicism, Mason did not represent the current work as well as it should have been.
The advise wasn't for you. Mason is still an overall expert on Josephus. Which I am sure you know but can't seem to resist attempting to muddy the waters and confuse me enough to actually think I'm wrong. A tactic. The lowest tactic to resort to.
And more made up reality, you need a mirror and a long look. I suppose it just confirms you have no argument whatsoever and are completely desperate.
Listen to this, it's actually insane. I "constantly insist" EVEN about Constantine.
UH, no, I said that about Constantine because you constantly ignored all the scholarship opinions I provided, favoring your "but do you really think" crud.
I completely lost interest in your lack of care about what is true and said write a paper and submit it. I'm done with your denial.
So here we are again, using this one thing as if it's constantly happening. To the point of saying I do it so much and "one time" I "even" did it with Constantine.
In reality I did it with Constantine, because denial gets old really fast. And you kept saying the same old thing from opinion. The fact I have to walk through what just happened, over and over, is exactly how people have to deal with this type of manipulation when they are stuck with this. And it gets them nowhere. Just as we see here.
Yes, your post was great because you thought it was snarky and it failed.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes, that fell flat. Again. You said nothing existed, yet here is a paper with sources.
I didn't even say write a paper on Constantine first, I just said what sources are you referencing?
These are sources, the end. Deal.
And do not call me dishonest when you make stuff up in almost every reply. Which you did AGAIN. I never said I was the expert, I said I am sticking to experts. So that would be, a lie. That makes every single comment so far.
Andrade, Nathanael J. (2013) Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Athanasius, Alexandrinus, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace (1986). Against the Heathen. on the Incarnation. Orations against the Arians. on the Opinion of Dionysius. Life of Antony. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans. Beard, Mary, North, John, and Price, S. R. F. (1998) Religions of Rome. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bell, H. Idris. (1940) Antinoopolis: A Hadrianic Foundation in Egypt. Reprinted from the Journal of Roman Studies, Etc. Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro. (1987) Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Cassius Dio Cocceianus. (1914) Dio's Roman History. London: W. Heinemann. Clay, Jenny Strauss. (1989) The Politics of Olympus : Form and Meaning in the Major Homeric Hymns. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,. Clement, Of Alexandria, Saint. (1882) The Writings of Clement of Alexandria. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Courtney, E. (1980) A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. London: Athlone Press. Hornblower, Simon., and Spawforth, Antony. (2003) The Oxford Classical Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press. Jerome, Saint,, and Thomas P Halton. (1999) On Illustrious Men. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. Jones, C. P. (2019) New Heroes in Antiquity : From Achilles to Antinoos. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Justin, Martyr, Saint. (2009) Justin, Philosopher and Martyr : Apologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lambert, Royston. (1997) Beloved and God : The Story of Hadrian and Antinous. London: Phoenix Giants. Magie, David, trans. (1921) Historia Augusta. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nicklas, Tobias, and Janet E Spittler. (2013) Credible, Incredible : The Miraculous in the Ancient Mediterranean. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck. Origen, and Henry Chadwick. (1980) Contra Celsum. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press. Pausanias, W. H. S Jones, and R. E Wycherley. (1926) Pausanias Description of Greece: With an English Translation. London: W. Heinemann. Price, S. R. F. (1984) Rituals and Power : The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. New York: Cambridge University Press. Propertius, Sextus., Heyworth, S. J, and Morwood, James. (2011) A Commentary on Propertius, Book 3. New York: Oxford University Press. Propertius, Sextus, and Phebe Lowell Bowditch. (2014) A Propertius Reader : Eleven Selected Elegies. Mundelein, Illinois, USA: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. Smith, Martin S. (1975) Petronii Arbitri Cena Trimalchionis. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Versluys, M. J. (2002) Aegyptiaca Romana : Nilotic Scenes and the Roman Views of Egypt. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World ; v. 144. Leiden ; Boston: Brill Vout, Caroline. (2005) "Antinous, Archaeology and History." The Journal of Roman Studies 95: 80-96. Webster, J.; Cooper, N. (ed.) Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives, pp. 99-109. 44
So now you want me to go to your argument and remind you? What is happening here?
I said:
"Antinous , wasn't the lifetime of their contemporaries."
You said:
"According to scholarly consensus it was.
If you disagree, write peer reviewed papers, etc bla bla"
So I provided information, with sources, to which you pretend you can't remember that you got shown to be incorrect.
Straight up, you were wrong and mysteriously can't remember the topic. Uh-huh. Of course you try to attack the source. Forgetting the argument is give ANY SOURCE besides vague speculation.
You said:
"According to scholarly consensus it was.
I said:
"Antinous , wasn't the lifetime of their contemporaries."
And showed information about that, with sources.
That's some "whining". But you have to make stuff up right. Because when things don't work out, this is what we get.
No savior demigods that I know of have been real people.
We can use the Mason video here:
Dr. Steve Mason addresses Jesus Mythicism
39:40 Just because you haven’t heard about mythicism in church doesn’t mean scholars don’t know. This is not news, it’s been well known since the 19th century. There is a whole direction of scholarship from the 19th century in Germany, many huge names in critical scholarship.
These scholars deeply investigated the Mystery religions and showed Paul to be a Hellenistic fusion of the Mystery cults theology and philosophy.
One popular explanation was Jesus was a fusion of the Hellenistic savior, dying/rising, deity where initiates go through baptism and so on.
The people who had a problem with this was the church leaders and politicians. Many of these scholars lost their teaching license. They often had to publish anonymously or posthumously.
Bruno Bowers and other scholars.
Masons point here is that Jesus being a syncretic savior from Mystery religions influenced by Helleinsm is not new but goes back centuries. They were shut down by church leaders.
Modern people are seeing these YouTube lectures and think it’s new but scholars have known this for a long time.
Steve Mason doesn’t agree with mythicism but believes the Gospel Jesus is a myth projected onto a real man.
46:15 “the guy lived but they projected all this stuff onto him (Greek myth)”
I don't know of any " Hellenistic savior, dying/rising, deity " based on real people.
Says the person who rejects scholars on Constantine "because do you really think....."
AND, hasn't read the latest historicity study and the follow-up work by Lataster.
But interesting that the historicity study is my "pet theory" and without facts. A 700pg peer-reviewed monogram without facts. Wow. That sounds like something made up in your mind.
I don't have to. Carrier's work addresses these issues that were assumptions before being tested. There is a list of over 40 historians who now consider it plausible. Ehrman won't debate him.
Time will tell how accepted it becomes. More scholars will need to do more research. I don't care. The fact remains that the issues he worked on were just accepted without analysis before this. But when studied they don't confirm what was thought.
It sounds a lot like this is an inconvenient truth for you, I don't care. You sound suspiciously invested.
Over 40 historians have. So, wrong . Again.
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
suspiciously invested. Now making up false things. Hmmmmm.
Oh, please give me one "convoluted argument" from the book you never read. Yet feel you know the material enough to pass judgement. Hmm, almost apologist-like? Yet another apologist reviewer who didn't read it. Sus.
No, he doesn't debunk anything.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Further illustrating Mason’s stalwart refusal to even read the article or know any of its arguments, he tries to argue “against” its thesis in the most bizarre way yet (emphasis now mine):
Carrier’s reconstruction, brilliant though it is, creates more problems than it solves. It would not explain the allegation of law-observance (a live issue in early Christianity, in which James was reportedly implicated [Acts 21:17–26; cf. Gal 6:12]), the men condemned along with James, the reported reaction from other members of the elite to this breach of due process, or the prospect of a high priest’s exceeding his authority ‘in judgements/court cases’—not against elite rivals. The most economical explanation of the text in Antiquities 20 is that Josephus had written about a Jesus called Christos in Book 18, which he could therefore use as a reference point to explain why he singled out this Yakob among Ananus’ victims: he was the brother of that Jesus mentioned earlier.
Holy Bat Man. Where to even begin. I already noted Mason is wrong about pretty much everything here: Mason himself said the TF did not mention the word Christ nor would have without explaining it; in fact the TF does not say any of the things Mason now claims it would “explain” about this James passage—so, in fact, it is Mason’s theory that would not explain any of those things! Do you know what theory does explain every single one of these things? Mine. Why does Mason not know that?
- First, “these are Christians” does not explain “the reported reaction from other members of the elite.” In fact that is one of the arguments I make (in the article Mason claims to be responding to) against the “Christ” reference here coming from Josephus. Why would the Jewish elite almost unanimously be outraged by the execution of Christians? By contrast, illegally executing the brother of a man in contention for the high priesthood sure would provoke that reaction.
- Second, there is no allegation about law-observance in this James passage; Josephus simply said they were accused of breaking the law, like literally any other criminal (what laws, even if they were guilty, is completely irrelevant to Josephus’s story—which is the only plausible reason why he doesn’t discuss either); whereas if what Josephus meant was “Christians promoted abandoning Torah law and therefore some Jewish leaders wanted them convicted and executed for this,” that’s what Josephus would have said. So that he didn’t say it, confirms he didn’t mean it. Mason is literally inventing facts that don’t exist here; and then arguing that Josephus would act entirely contrary to how Mason himself argues Josephus would act.
- Third, “they were Christians” does not explain “the prospect of a high priest’s exceeding his authority” at all. What does explain it is Josephus—because he gives us the explanation: Ananus was a Sadducee and was especially strict and cruel even for a Sadducee. No further explanation is required than the one Josephus gave. So why is Mason acting like it’s “not explained”? Why is he acting like his theory would even explain it? Neither makes any sense.
- Fourth, the only reason Josephus mentions others were killed should be too obvious to require mentioning: because that’s what happened, and Josephus is a historian.
Mason on Josephus on James • Richard Carrier Blogs
A German academic reference book appeared in 2017 titled Jesus Handbuch (more or less meaning “Jesus Handbook” or the Jesus Manual) edited by Jens Schröter and Christine Jacobi (you can access its table of contents and descriptive foreword at Mohr Siebeck). It’s largely useless for the...
www.richardcarrier.info
Stop, this line of debate has already failed and embarrassed you above. But more input on the work you never read, you wouldn't know if it was better would you? Because you haven't read it.
It doesn't matter what an amateur on Constantine thinks. You seem to be convinced it does. Even after Ehrman explained to you politics and religion were not really seperate things. Yet you don't care one bit about scholars who study the period and his life. You are STILL on this trip about amateur opinion mattering.
This is amazing, incredible confirmation about why I said, "I don't care, write a paper". It's still going on. Don't listen to informed sources, use your
anachronistic speculation. Kind of like AnswersinGenesis
Improper use. If you were asking me the correct way to do heart surgery I would continue to say consult a heart surgeon. That is not "sealioning".
I demonstrated the problems, explained by Ehrman, and also the problem of amateur historical arguments, which you have entirely ignored. To favor a subreddit slang. I can't force you to care about facts and academic methods. But you are not going to gaslight me for sticking to it. Fail.
Q&A on the Inspiring Philosophy / Godless Engineer Historicity-of-Jesus Debate (Part I)
The topic was whether evidence establishes Jesus existed. The whole debate illustrates the problem with only asking amateurs to debate things like this (neither participant has a relevant advanced degree or any peer reviewed publications in the subject).
I think they both run good channels. Obviously I find a lot of what Jones argues on his channel to be face-palmingly bad, as all Christian apologetics is, but he does some of the best communicating of what are, honestly, common beliefs and assumptions among his peers. And Godless Engineer, with whom I obviously more often agree, likewise runs a sharp and entertaining channel and is even doing great work editing the CHRESTUS app developed to assist with debating the historicity of Jesus (with significant updates currently in the pipe), for which I’m a paid consultant, ensuring the quality of its content. But live, an issue like this needs expert discussion. Because when Jones makes claims any historian can easily poke holes in, Engineer won’t know he’s being snowed. Nor will the audience or the host. And this is a methodological issue, not a partisan one. Even if you’re rooting for the other team, you can say the same thing, the other way around: how do you know Michael Jones and the public isn’t being snowed by Godless Engineer? Both participants are disarmed; and both prone to error. So why run these “all amateur” debates? I see no sound reason to. It can only spread disinformation and miseducate the public.
99 Problems & the Truth Ain't One: Q&A on the Inspiring Philosophy / Godless Engineer Historicity-of-Jesus Debate (Part I) • Richard Carrier Blogs
In March of 2018 the NonSequitur show hosted a debate between two YouTubers: Godless Engineer, who runs the popular eponymous atheist channel, and Michael Jones, who runs the popular Christian apologetics channel Inspiring Philosophy. The topic was whether evidence establishes Jesus existed. The...
www.richardcarrier.info
Wow, it just never ends. And I simply said, no. I prefer to use informed opinions. Not you apparently.
Ehrman goes over evidence for political reasons at 36:00
Which confirms an amateur has no possible say in this matter and doesn't understand the culture, AT ALL. It would be using modern views completely incorrectly.
It should be, because it's accurate and your gaslighting and insistence on ignoring scholarship for personal feelings as well as making up fake facts, and putting Carrier down as well as attempting to ridicule use of a scholar, as if it's 8th grade.
You should be embarrassed.
You are just making a claim that is unsupported
Not true when Thompson came out with his work in the 70's. It's a well known story. Wrong again.
You said no historians take it serious. You were wrong.
Another random unsupported claim .
And internet rando is still at it. He has 9 books on Amazon, is called for lectures, debates, you haven't provided evidence his books haven't done as well as any other in the field. Complete nonsense.
You keep criticizing scholars for free on an internet forum if it makes you feel fuzzy. I'm so not interested.
There is enough gaslighting for everyone. Tell someone else. Tell it to a rock for all I care. He's famous enough to have debated William Lane Graig, Licona, and other top apologists and historians. But being judg-y like this is so gross. I need a shower.
joelr
Well-Known Member
There is enough gaslighting for everyone. Tell someone else. Tell it to a rock for all I care. He's famous enough to have debated William Lane Graig, Licona, and other top apologists and historians. But being judg-y like this is so gross. I need a shower.
Who cares? Maybe you have good opinions on something, here using tactics to confuse me, I'm not impressed.
Your rendition of my logic is again, a construction based on misinterpretations. A simple criticism of you being judgmental. Which you now try to twist into something manageable. If you can't own it, don't say it.No, using my logic you should not degrade people who are successful, at any level, as if they are not. Especially when you are not even close.
Using my logic, I don't care to speculate on the 3rd century Rome when scholars have done detailed studies on the issue.
I have many hobbies I am not a pro at. Chess. MMA, Bodybuilding, I never said anything to such effect.
Again, for the 3rd time? He was telling stories about other scholars.
I do not care. I read it quickly. I am reading these quickly due to tactics I do not prefer to engage with people who use them.
Like the hubris of knowing more than Ehrman on Constantine?
That isn't the crux of the tantrum. Maybe tantrum is the wrong word. Gaslighting is part of something else, I cannot mention.
It took a considerable length of time before Christianity developed into a belief of its own, clearly distinct from Judaism.
That arguably only happened by Constantine's initiative, by way of the Edict of Milan in 313 CE and the Nicene Council in 325 CE.
About ten to twelve generations after the tale, therefore. For most of that time not only were most of the very early Christians, those who presumably met Jesus in person, already dead, but so was Paul who decided that Christianity was to be spread far more aggressively than Judaism.
So the scenario presented is that of a then already multigenerational creed, superficially indistinguishable from Judaism, that existed within Judaic communities for at least a few years before it was proposed (presumably by Paul) that it should develop into something different from Judaic Orthodoxy; that its own Orthodoxy was only decided because a Roman Emperor (Constantine) born several generations after that decided that one was needed; that to this day there is some degree of controversy on whether said Roman Emperor was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia according to Arian Christianity or by Pope Sylvester under the then-Orthodox custom.
Christianity by then had well over thirty Popes already, and that is according to Roman Catholicism (disregarding competing claims). By the time there were already at least a few dozen of those, many of which were repressed by force, several of which survive to this day in some form.
All this based on four rather small books which largely repeat each other and which skip without comment over about half of the time of living of its protagonist, who is explicitly described as a miracle maker who supposedly came back from death and then disappeared.
I am surprised that there are people who seriously propose that Jesus existed as a literal person. The whole context strongly suggests otherwise, and that early Christianity was far more of a parody or identitarian movement, a source of legend and language, than anything with aspirations of historical truth.
Yes, the prevailing academic opinion these days is that there was a historical Jesus. But I find that weak, unconvincing. The arguments that are presented seem to fail to notice that they largely evidence the existence of early Christians, not of a historical Jesus as such.
That arguably only happened by Constantine's initiative, by way of the Edict of Milan in 313 CE and the Nicene Council in 325 CE.
About ten to twelve generations after the tale, therefore. For most of that time not only were most of the very early Christians, those who presumably met Jesus in person, already dead, but so was Paul who decided that Christianity was to be spread far more aggressively than Judaism.
So the scenario presented is that of a then already multigenerational creed, superficially indistinguishable from Judaism, that existed within Judaic communities for at least a few years before it was proposed (presumably by Paul) that it should develop into something different from Judaic Orthodoxy; that its own Orthodoxy was only decided because a Roman Emperor (Constantine) born several generations after that decided that one was needed; that to this day there is some degree of controversy on whether said Roman Emperor was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia according to Arian Christianity or by Pope Sylvester under the then-Orthodox custom.
Christianity by then had well over thirty Popes already, and that is according to Roman Catholicism (disregarding competing claims). By the time there were already at least a few dozen of those, many of which were repressed by force, several of which survive to this day in some form.
All this based on four rather small books which largely repeat each other and which skip without comment over about half of the time of living of its protagonist, who is explicitly described as a miracle maker who supposedly came back from death and then disappeared.
I am surprised that there are people who seriously propose that Jesus existed as a literal person. The whole context strongly suggests otherwise, and that early Christianity was far more of a parody or identitarian movement, a source of legend and language, than anything with aspirations of historical truth.
Yes, the prevailing academic opinion these days is that there was a historical Jesus. But I find that weak, unconvincing. The arguments that are presented seem to fail to notice that they largely evidence the existence of early Christians, not of a historical Jesus as such.
Augustus
…
This is the problem with Carrier he frequently distorts his sources.
Read the paper yourself and see if you can think independently enough to see how Carrier is misrepresenting what Mason says here.
It’s really not difficult.
You might want to read your own posts and see if you can spot the same you are complaining about. But I suppose pointing out your hypocrisy would be "gaslighting".
For once I agree. You don’t think (hence you pretend you are simply presenting scholarship neutrally rather than parenting an opinion based on an evaluation of competing evidence)
You can’t form any opinions on much of history if you simply take everything said by a phd at face value as much of it is mutually incompatible. For example on the question of whether Constantine was genuinely a Christian .
Historians almost never agree. As such you always have to choose which ones you find more persuasive and why. So when I ask what you think, just saying "one scholar said X" in defence of why you are promoting one view over another is silly.
I wrote extensively about this before and asked how you were judging technical arguments beyond your abilities, but you ignored it multiple times.
Again, you posted a wiki that as much supported my argument as yours. Pretending otherwise is silly (you would whine about gaslighting probably)
And when I did post peer reviewed scholarship, you flat ignored it (as usual).
The point is you must form opinions that go against some experts on any area of ancient history, I explained why I found the “cynical realpolitik” argument silly, and favoured the arguments supported by the scholars who consider he was Christian.
You just seem to want to find an excuse not to explain what you think and why while posting sources that all align in one direction is evidence of your noble pursuit of truth.
This is what you kept ignoring, but if you won’t answer it it’s pointless to discuss anything as simply pasting stuff without comment gets nowhere as there is no scholarly consensus on most aspects of ancient history.
So what heuristics do you use when forming your opinions on matters you lack the technical skills to evaluate yourself?
Augustus
…
Directly followed by his explanation of why he personally believes Constantine’s conversion was genuine
Something he describes as “crystal clear” (even if he also used it politically)
Do you just assume folk won’t bother to fact check you or do you simply not understand either what you post or what arguments you are replying to?
Haha, he agrees with what I said. So by your own assertion, your disagreement with him is hubristic.
You are either deliberately dishonest or incapable of understanding the material you post.
Either way, it makes what you say worthless and boring.
Bye bye
Augustus
…
Err, as I already clarified after your initial mistake that comment was about Paul.
That you made the initial error then doubled down on it by ignoring the clarification and constructing a monumental strawman is par for the course with you.
You copy pasting some random bibliography of sources you’ve never read and have no idea what they say to “refute” a strawman of your own creation is why it’s just getting too boring to continue.
You write lots but read little as you just want to confirm your own biases.
That’s pretty clear from your repeated failures in comprehension.
Hence it’s pointless trying to actually discuss anything with you as you will just misrepresent and say whatever most chimes with your personal biases.