It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity

[Augustus]

Nope. Still don't see the connection.
But in answer, it's not something I've thought about. You?

Irreligious people in the West often think of the impact of Christianity as negative as if their values are universal, not culturally contingent, and would necessarily have emerged regardless and without all of the negatives.

So Christianity held back the tide of rational humanism, rather than being its precursor.

My view is that if you like secular, rational, humanistic society then you should view Christianity as having contributed more good than bad, even if you think we have 'outgrown' it.

Even though such values could have emerged faster via a different path, a look around the world says it's highly unlikely.

 

[Colt]

No atheists see evidence in fossils that prokaryotes existed. Which is reasonable because life existed then. There has never been good evidence for anything supernatural.
There is excellent however that most of the early OT comes from Mesopotamian myths and the historical aspects are also incorrect. Even better evidence that Christainity is a combination of Hellenism and Persian myth, both cultures who occupied Israel during the time the changes were made?
Evidence that all the gospels were copied from Mark and that he was writing a myth, in a mythic literary style and using narratives from the OT (verbatim), Pauls letters and other fiction and any other mention of Jesus outside the gospels are historians saying that there are a group of people who follow the gospels.
Several other religions before Christianity were also Hellenized so Jesus is the last version of a dying/rising savior demigod who underwent a passion to get the followers into the afterlife.

Atheists would rather have an afterlife (another addition from the Greek myths) and generally have no interest in living some crazy sinful life like the ridiculous apologetic suggests. Most want to work and spend time with family and help the community? They just don't believe myths are actually true?

You have no proof that the aspects of religious history are complete myth, what atheist have is a "hope" that there is no God else you may have to surrender dead end loyalties. There was a basis of truth to Mesopotamian stories used by the Israelites in their story of origins. Stories would be carried by oral tradition over ages of time. Not perfect by any means but that's what they did.

Mark wrote first and the others were written by different people with a variation of perspective and content. The scriptures are as imperfect as should be expected. John wrote last and included things omitted by the first. But there is enough there for the spirit born individual to find sustenance and some insight into Jesus of Nazareth.

Perhaps Jesus patterned his entire life so as to "appeal" to preexistent beliefs outside of Judaism considering he knew his original gospel of the Kingdom would be rejected by Judaism??? When people within a culture switch to new beliefs they tend to modify their new belief with their old belief system. The Roman Mysteries married Paul's version of Jesus; the result is Christ-ianity.

 

[Augustus]

Now that there is a peer-reviewed book by a credible historian that outlines the evidence it's going to have an effect.
On the Historicity of Jesus by Dr Richard Carrier

Why do you think that book will have any meaningful effect?

 

[KWED]

Now that there is a peer-reviewed book by a credible historian that outlines the evidence it's going to have an effect.
On the Historicity of Jesus by Dr Richard Carrier
He's done at least 10 good debates that are on youtube and answered all reviews that were negative on his blog. So his work has not been countered. Except with super butthurt people who just claim he's "crazy" or "a devil" or some way to just write him off.
He's doing a lot of social media as well on podcasts so the information is getting around. He debates Canadian Catholic a few months ago and completely smashed him but CC seemed to be in denial later on his podcast?

Irreligious people in the West often think of the impact of Christianity as negative as if their values are universal, not culturally contingent, and would necessarily have emerged regardless and without all of the negatives.

So Christianity held back the tide of rational humanism, rather than being its precursor.

My view is that if you like secular, rational, humanistic society then you should view Christianity as having contributed more good than bad, even if you think we have 'outgrown' it.

Even though such values could have emerged faster via a different path, a look around the world says it's highly unlikely.

My point was that all the "good" stuff that apologists claim Christianity is responsible for does not actually require belief in the supernatural or a supremacist, intolerant worldview. However, there are ideas that come only from Christianity that are intolerant, divisive, oppressive, etc. And it's all very well claiming that those ideas weren't considered "bad" back in the day, but they still negatively affected those on the receiving end, and still do in many places.

We have no way of knowing if the world would have been a better place with a different controlling culture for the past 2000 years, but claims that Christianity has not caused problems is demonstrable nonsense.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Which is what, exactly?

When I read the Gospels, what it seems to me that what Jesus wants from - or expects of - his followers is to be:

- on the margins of society with no political power.
- completely destitute, relying on charity, owning nothing more than the clothes on their back and a begging bowl.
- alienated from their family.
- disinterested in the future of the world beyond the Second Coming, which is due to happen sometime in the first century.

The thing is there are conflicting quotes. I guess I am looking at the positive quotes. Trying to be hopeful anyway. Maybe Jesus was Buddhist.

 

[KWED]

You have no proof that the aspects of religious history are complete myth,

No one with any sense is claiming that every part of religious scripture is pure myth. However, it is clear that sizeable parts are, including some of the more important elements. The evidence for the evolution of belief from earlier sources is also quite clear.
So, given all this it is unreasonable to claim that the whole package is some kind of universal and unchallengeable "truth".

what atheist have is a "hope" that there is no God else you may have to surrender dead end loyalties.

This is yet another misunderstanding of atheism. For most people it is a position arrived at because of the evidence and rational argument. Unlike religionists, we do not start with the conclusion and then desperately look for anything that might support it. Ironically, it is the religionist who hopes their beliefs are true.
The combination of childhood indoctrination, personal incredulity and wishful thinking is a pretty powerful mix and it is entirely understandable why people can hold such beliefs, even in this day and age.

There was a basis of truth to Mesopotamian stories used by the Israelites in their story of origins. Stories would be carried by oral tradition over ages of time. Not perfect by any means but that's what they did.

Indeed. Stories about terrible local floods that the region was prone to amalgamate and exaggerate into a story of a major catastrophe. Eventually this becomes the Biblical flood myth. All quite understandable.

But there is enough there for the spirit born individual to find sustenance and some insight into Jesus of Nazareth.

You mean that there is enough for the credulous to find convincing.

Perhaps Jesus patterned his entire life so as to "appeal" to preexistent beliefs outside of Judaism considering he knew his original gospel of the Kingdom would be rejected by Judaism??? When people within a culture switch to new beliefs they tend to modify their new belief with their old belief system. The Roman Mysteries married Paul's version of Jesus; the result is Christ-ianity.

Indeed. It is almost certain that the tales of magic in the Bible are just stories created after whatever the real events were.

 

[lukethethird]

Now that there is a peer-reviewed book by a credible historian that outlines the evidence it's going to have an effect.
On the Historicity of Jesus by Dr Richard Carrier
He's done at least 10 good debates that are on youtube and answered all reviews that were negative on his blog. So his work has not been countered. Except with super butthurt people who just claim he's "crazy" or "a devil" or some way to just write him off.
He's doing a lot of social media as well on podcasts so the information is getting around. He debates Canadian Catholic a few months ago and completely smashed him but CC seemed to be in denial later on his podcast?

I think it is having an effect on scholarship but the Apostles Creed will continue to be recited and believed unchecked.

 

[Colt]

You mean that there is enough for the credulous to find convincing.

credulous???

"Neither should science discount religious experience on grounds of credulity, not so long as it persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling."

" Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged. UB 1955


So you know everything that is knowable in the universe?

To God nothing is a "miracle" because God and his subordinates know how to do things that we don't. For Jesus turning water into wine wasn't a miracle, those celestial beings that he had at his disposal easily converted the water to wine because they know how.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now that there is a peer-reviewed book by a credible historian that outlines the evidence it's going to have an effect.
On the Historicity of Jesus by Dr Richard Carrier
He's done at least 10 good debates that are on youtube and answered all reviews that were negative on his blog. So his work has not been countered. Except with super butthurt people who just claim he's "crazy" or "a devil" or some way to just write him off.
He's doing a lot of social media as well on podcasts so the information is getting around. He debates Canadian Catholic a few months ago and completely smashed him but CC seemed to be in denial later on his podcast?

Well, based on his Wikipedia article he seems biased.

 

[Augustus]

My point was that all the "good" stuff that apologists claim Christianity is responsible for does not actually require belief in the supernatural or a supremacist, intolerant worldview.

Of course the don't require supernatural beliefs, but has there been a successful pre-modern society without a supremacist self-concept?

How long do you think a Secular Humanist regime would have survived in the pre-modern era?

To spread your values you first have to survive.

However, there are ideas that come only from Christianity that are intolerant, divisive, oppressive, etc. A

Not at all. Anything bad from Christianity could have come from an analogous source.

Which successful pre-modern society wasn't intolerant, divisive and oppressive?

The idea religion is primarily divisive though seems as wrong as it is possible to be though. It only makes sense if we assume people are naturally united until something appears to divide them.

If we start from the perspective we are divided by default, particularly in a world without modern communication and transportation technology, what historical force has united a bigger and more diverse range of people than religion?

Yes of course it can divide too, but not more than it has united. Unity requires something to bind, but this process necessarily also creates division.

We have no way of knowing if the world would have been a better place with a different controlling culture for the past 2000 years, but claims that Christianity has not caused problems is demonstrable nonsense.

Of course we can never truly know, but we do have many other modern and historical societies to compare with and these show our current values are rare.

As such we can say that it is less likely we would have had our current humanistic, scientific society without it.

 

[lukethethird]

To God nothing is a "miracle" because God and his subordinates know how to do things that we don't. For Jesus turning water into wine wasn't a miracle, those celestial beings that he had at his disposal easily converted the water to wine because they know how.

Ancient double walled and double spouted clay vessels have been discovered, pour from one spout and water comes out, pour from the spout on the other side and wine comes out of the inner walled chamber. It was a cheap parlor trick performed at weddings and credulity plays a part for those that believe in the magic.


Thus, it is entirely possible that one of Hero of Alexandria's devices was used by a new sect of Judaism in the 1 st century, and this cunning device became rather famous in later centuries and millennia. And we can be fairly certain that this did indeed happen, because among Hero’s many contraptions designed for entertainment, he created several different trick jars and jugs that, through ingenious internal compartments, plumbing, siphons and air-holes, a magician could alternate between the pouring of water or wine from the same vessel. An original account and image of this device is contained in Hero’s treatise on siphons, entitled ‘A Vessel from which Wine or Water may be made to flow, separately or mixed’ . Hero of Alexandria and his Magical Jugs

 

[Colt]

Ancient double walled and double spouted clay vessels have been discovered, pour from one spout and water comes out, pour from the spout on the other side and wine comes out of the inner walled chamber. It was a cheap parlor trick performed at weddings and credulity plays a part for those that believe in the magic.

In the Cana wedding miracle real water was turned into wine.

 

[lukethethird]

In the Cana wedding miracle real water was turned into wine.

I since added a source to my post 191

 

[KWED]

credulous???

Yes, credulous.
Having or showing too great a readiness to believe things. (OED)

"Neither should science discount religious experience on grounds of credulity, not so long as it persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling."

" Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged. UB 1955

Cool story bro.
But anyway, science is sceptical. It demands evidence for extraordinary claims, especially those which would mean discarding what we already have evidence for.
Faith is credulous. It wants to believe, and does not require evidence. Rather, it eschews it.

So you know everything that is knowable in the universe?

Genuinely puzzled as to where that came from.

To God nothing is a "miracle" because God and his subordinates know how to do things that we don't. For Jesus turning water into wine wasn't a miracle, those celestial beings that he had at his disposal easily converted the water to wine because they know how.

As I said, "credulous". The demonstration was not necessary but is appreciated all the same.

 

[lukethethird]

In the Cana wedding miracle real water was turned into wine.

Sure it was, it was real magic, trust me.

 

[KWED]

Of course the don't require supernatural beliefs, but has there been a successful pre-modern society without a supremacist self-concept?

How long do you think a Secular Humanist regime would have survived in the pre-modern era?

To spread your values you first have to survive.

Still don't see what that has to do with my point.

Not at all. Anything bad from Christianity could have come from an analogous source.

The claim that, for example, the homophobia in Christianity originated from some earlier belief set is stating the bleeding' obvious, because Christianity itself originated from some earlier belief set. It's like an abuser claiming they are not responsible because they were abused.

Which successful pre-modern society wasn't intolerant, divisive and oppressive?

I'm not necessarily talking about pre-modern societies. The same principle applies today.

The idea religion is primarily divisive though seems as wrong as it is possible to be though.

You really think that claim is the epitome of wrongness? My, you must have led a sheltered life.

It only makes sense if we assume people are naturally united until something appears to divide them.

That would actually seem to be the case.

If we start from the perspective we are divided by default,

To borrow a phrase, that seems as wrong as it is possible to be.

particularly in a world without modern communication and transportation technology, what historical force has united a bigger and more diverse range of people than religion?

Given not only the incessant conflict between religions, but also the ceaseless sectarian conflict, the claim that religion is essentially a uniting force is clearly wrong.

Yes of course it can divide too, but not more than it has united.

That depends entirely on perspective. Undoubtedly the religious missionaries and colonial armies believed they were uniting the world for the better but not so sure the rest of the world saw it that way.

Unity requires something to bind, but this process necessarily also creates division.

Not so. Our innate empathy and altruism promote unity but do not create division. As you mentioned earlier, it is when some other element comes to play, like territory, resources, ideology, etc, that conflict arises.
If we were essentially driven by divisive impulses, the earliest communities would never have formed. To see what we are like in essence, we only have to study groups of higher primates.

Of course we can never truly know, but we do have many other modern and historical societies to compare with and these show our current values are rare.

Whose values?

As such we can say that it is less likely we would have had our current humanistic, scientific society without it.

How do you arrive at that conclusion, when the development of more tolerant, humanistic, rational societies has coincided with the decline of the ideologically driven ones?

I am yet to hear any examples of social benefits that could only have been delivered through a religious society.

 

[KWED]

Ancient double walled and double spouted clay vessels have been discovered, pour from one spout and water comes out, pour from the spout on the other side and wine comes out of the inner walled chamber. It was a cheap parlor trick performed at weddings and credulity plays a part for those that believe in the magic.

Thus, it is entirely possible that one of Hero of Alexandria's devices was used by a new sect of Judaism in the 1 st century, and this cunning device became rather famous in later centuries and millennia. And we can be fairly certain that this did indeed happen, because among Hero’s many contraptions designed for entertainment, he created several different trick jars and jugs that, through ingenious internal compartments, plumbing, siphons and air-holes, a magician could alternate between the pouring of water or wine from the same vessel. An original account and image of this device is contained in Hero’s treatise on siphons, entitled ‘A Vessel from which Wine or Water may be made to flow, separately or mixed’ . Hero of Alexandria and his Magical Jugs

I have seen Derren Brown up close. I am a scientist and a sceptic. Even after he explained what he did, it still looked like magic.

 

[KWED]

In the Cana wedding miracle real water was turned into wine.

You: Jesus turned water into wine.
Them: Here is evidence of an ancient trick to make it look like water was turned into wine.
You: .... But Jesus turned water into wine.

It reminds me of this...

 

[lukethethird]

You: Jesus turned water into wine.
Them: Here is evidence of an ancient trick to make it look like water was turned into wine.
You: .... But Jesus turned water into wine.

It reminds me of this...

I love that scene, cracks me up every time.

 

[Colt]

Yes, credulous.
Having or showing too great a readiness to believe things. (OED)

Cool story bro.
But anyway, science is sceptical. It demands evidence for extraordinary claims, especially those which would mean discarding what we already have evidence for.
Faith is credulous. It wants to believe, and does not require evidence. Rather, it eschews it.

Genuinely puzzled as to where that came from.

As I said, "credulous". The demonstration was not necessary but is appreciated all the same.

Well, you've mastered condescending.