It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity

[DNB]

The Nicene Creed is a Christian creed.

No, it's not. It's a Byzantium creed formulated by irreligious men, inspired by nefarious spirits.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, it's not. It's a Byzantium creed formulated by irreligious men, inspired by nefarious spirits.

 

[joelr]

I find it hard to believe you have read the book given he refers to it throughout the book, wrote an entire book explaining why he wanted to use "Bayes' theory" on this issue, and repeats his reasoning in the preface (xii-xiii):


The first step in that process was to assess the methods so far employed on the subject and replace them if faulty. I accomplished that in the previous volume, in which I demonstrated that the most recent method of using 'historicity criteria' in the study of Jesus has been either logically invalid or factually incorrect, and that only arguments structured according to Bayes's Theorem have any chance of being valid and sound. Here I apply that method to the evidence for Jesus and show what results.

Or section 6 chapter 1:

The argument of this book can be summarized as follows. A Bayesian argument requires attending to the question of applicable background knowledge, constructing therefrom a prior probability for all competing hypotheses, and then evaluating the consequent probabilities (the likelihoods) of all the evidence on each hypothesis. In accordance with this method..”

I could go on...

Given he himself is demanding we use Bayesian argumentation to analyse this issue, why should we believe your claims that a) he wasn't using this method and b) his competency in this method and its applicability to this question is irrelevant?

First a correction, that is chapter 1, section 6 entitled - Summary of the Remaining Chapters
right before it is 5 - The aim of this book will survey the most relevant evidence for and against the historicity of Jesus....


Whatever you are copy/pasting from is clearly not the entire book. It's clear you haven't read it also.
Carrier goes through a bit of background then explains prior probability which is how he's going to put a number on the odds.
Then he goes through the bulk of the book covering EVIDENCE. The Epistles, Gospels, Acts, huge amounts of stuff on extra-biblical evidence, more breakdown on why Acts is fiction, evidence of the Gospels being myth, more on the Epistles and what they don't say and how Mark uses them.
All of this is to demonstrate there is no good evidence for the historicity of Jesus and good reasons why he's a myth (many earlier saviors died in the celestial realm before their resurrection, the passion happened in the celestial realm and that was where the story took place. Some deities who did this were later euhemerized and earthly stories began to be created.)

THEN, he goes back to Bayes to produce an actual number on the odds. I do not care about the odds. I am interested in the evidence and what it shows. I don't care about an actual number. The evidence favors mythicism. That is his conclusion without Bayes. Why this is so hard for you to understand, I don't know? The point is the evidence from many directions shows this is a myth and that many other religions had saviors killed/resurrected in the celestial realm, and Paul never mentions a Jesus on Earth. Never. Paul only sees a ghost Jesus already resurrected. It is possible there were Epistles that also said his death took place in the celestial realm. Jesus said to Paul he was killed by the "archeons of the age" a term that has been used for supernatural things in Jewish folklore. Nothing was said about any death by Romans. That's it?
Then he uses Bayes to get a 3 to 1 odds favoring mythicism. I don't care about that . Every single believer immediately hand waves this off as if they all know more than Carrier about this math. I'm done speaking to people about that topic. Write to Carrier if you think he's wrong. His contact info is on his blog

I care about the conclusion that the evidence supports the gospels are fiction, mythicism is more likely, no extra biblical evidence supports historicity. I don't need a number on mythicism.

Written like a true fanboy of Dr Richard Carrier PhD.

How dare all of these scholars and published research scientists think they know more about Bayesian theory and maths than the historian Dr Richard Carrier PhD!

We have a) a Bayesian scholar in a peer-reviewed journal questioned his methodology b) multiple scientists (with better credentials) who question his maths and provide evidence of his errors (even one who says he actually is a mythicist).

Why should any rational sceptic assume Dr Richard Carrier PhD is smarter than these "internet people" because Dr Richard Carrier PhD says he is, and accept his work uncritically?

Yes I'm a fan. If you want to call me a boy, well, weak people need to do that.
Have one of your scholars write to Carrier. Again, if I did a Baysian analysis on weather Zeus is real you don't need the number to have a case.

You also don't need any maths to find a) more likely to be true than b)

a) Most people in history assumed to be real and written about as real in near contemporary sources were real and we know of countless real people who had magical powers assigned to them after death. In a time where there were many purported "messiahs" some apocalyptic preacher was killed and then recast by his followers as the messiah. We know from contemporary apocalyptic cults that when the apocalypse doesn't happen as promised they don't simply say "I was wrong" they rationalise away why it didn't happen and saw his death as a sacrifice that delayed the eschaton. The Gospels are far more likely to be working around a real person as no one would invent such a terrible messiah and then have to jump through hoops to makes him slightly less terrible. Not to mention, (almost) all other gods who Jesus is compared to are not simply "a man with a few magic tricks" who had a large following within a few decades of their purported earthly death, but clearly fantastical figures who live outside of a recent human timeframe.

No. Many saviors were undergoing their passion in the celestial realm. Paul wrote nothing about any of the Earthly stories in the Gospels. All of the Gospels were copied off Mark. Mark is using verbatim OT lines, other fiction and re-working Pauls letters. Paul says Jesus came to him and said "Tell them (future Christians) I am the body and blood, tell them to break this bread in my name...."

Mark took that and made it into Jesus being at an actual supper, with bread and a crowd and he was telling them.
Nothing in Mark comes from oral tradition, it's all OT, Paul, Barabos Jesus.
Also Marks Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale. Higher than King Arthur. This is a myth.
Mark also uses ring structure, triadic inversions, chiasmus, he plays with events in a way done only in fiction.

Also there is mention of a first born angel who sits at the right hand of God with a name that also means savior/Jesus in Philos writings.

b) Dr Richard Carrier PhD knows more about Jewish theology than they Jews. More about Mystery Cults than scholars of Mystery cults. More about the New testament than New testament scholars, etc. and all of these scholars are wrong in precisely the way required to meet Dr Richard Carrier PhD's ideological and financial agenda. The outcome is that some space Jesus became historicised and any reference to him having a physical body is actually because they made the space Jesus a body from David's sperm that they kept in a 'cosmic sperm bank' that was later crucified by demons in space. All of this contingent on if we start with a view of mystery religions that isn't really accepted by scholars, then reinterpret OT and NT words in a strange way that isn't really accepted by scholars, then invent some aspect of Jewish theology that isn't really accepted by scholars then we could totally imagine that this fleshy space Jesus from the cosmic sperm bank is the most probable assumption!

When you read the book instead of taking negative reviews serious you might figure a few things out? This is all wrong.
The cosmic seed things isn't counted as a plus for mythicism. There are examples of it in Jewish literature.
There is a RC blog article on that here:
The Cosmic Seed of David • Richard Carrier
if you care to understand what is being said.
If you are going to claim you read the book then only seem to know what reviewers (who didn't read it) write, I'm not interested.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First a correction, that is chapter 1, section 6 entitled - Summary of the Remaining Chapters
right before it is 5 - The aim of this book will survey the most relevant evidence for and against the historicity of Jesus....


Whatever you are copy/pasting from is clearly not the entire book. It's clear you haven't read it also.
Carrier goes through a bit of background then explains prior probability which is how he's going to put a number on the odds.
Then he goes through the bulk of the book covering EVIDENCE. The Epistles, Gospels, Acts, huge amounts of stuff on extra-biblical evidence, more breakdown on why Acts is fiction, evidence of the Gospels being myth, more on the Epistles and what they don't say and how Mark uses them.
All of this is to demonstrate there is no good evidence for the historicity of Jesus and good reasons why he's a myth (many earlier saviors died in the celestial realm before their resurrection, the passion happened in the celestial realm and that was where the story took place. Some deities who did this were later euhemerized and earthly stories began to be created.)

THEN, he goes back to Bayes to produce an actual number on the odds. I do not care about the odds. I am interested in the evidence and what it shows. I don't care about an actual number. The evidence favors mythicism. That is his conclusion without Bayes. Why this is so hard for you to understand, I don't know? The point is the evidence from many directions shows this is a myth and that many other religions had saviors killed/resurrected in the celestial realm, and Paul never mentions a Jesus on Earth. Never. Paul only sees a ghost Jesus already resurrected. It is possible there were Epistles that also said his death took place in the celestial realm. Jesus said to Paul he was killed by the "archeons of the age" a term that has been used for supernatural things in Jewish folklore. Nothing was said about any death by Romans. That's it?
Then he uses Bayes to get a 3 to 1 odds favoring mythicism. I don't care about that . Every single believer immediately hand waves this off as if they all know more than Carrier about this math. I'm done speaking to people about that topic. Write to Carrier if you think he's wrong. His contact info is on his blog

I care about the conclusion that the evidence supports the gospels are fiction, mythicism is more likely, no extra biblical evidence supports historicity. I don't need a number on mythicism.



Yes I'm a fan. If you want to call me a boy, well, weak people need to do that.
Have one of your scholars write to Carrier. Again, if I did a Baysian analysis on weather Zeus is real you don't need the number to have a case.






No. Many saviors were undergoing their passion in the celestial realm. Paul wrote nothing about any of the Earthly stories in the Gospels. All of the Gospels were copied off Mark. Mark is using verbatim OT lines, other fiction and re-working Pauls letters. Paul says Jesus came to him and said "Tell them (future Christians) I am the body and blood, tell them to break this bread in my name...."

Mark took that and made it into Jesus being at an actual supper, with bread and a crowd and he was telling them.
Nothing in Mark comes from oral tradition, it's all OT, Paul, Barabos Jesus.
Also Marks Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale. Higher than King Arthur. This is a myth.
Mark also uses ring structure, triadic inversions, chiasmus, he plays with events in a way done only in fiction.

Also there is mention of a first born angel who sits at the right hand of God with a name that also means savior/Jesus in Philos writings.




When you read the book instead of taking negative reviews serious you might figure a few things out? This is all wrong.
The cosmic seed things isn't counted as a plus for mythicism. There are examples of it in Jewish literature.
There is a RC blog article on that here:
The Cosmic Seed of David • Richard Carrier
if you care to understand what is being said.
If you are going to claim you read the book then only seem to know what reviewers (who didn't read it) write, I'm not interested.

About caring. If you care differently that me, then I care differently than you. But if we can care differently, yet both have a life as such, it doesn't matter, unless you claim that how I care for all aspects of the world as such, is something that you in effect hold authority over.

Now the moment we actually interact, then caring matters, but how that play out can differ on depending context and can even differ as how you care about and/or for me versus how I care about and/or for you.

As for evidence, in some cases we would properly care about it the same or similarly, but not same or differently.
As for the Bible I don't care about it neither as a negative or positive. I simply ignore it as me. I do fine without the Bible. The only evidence I care about in regards to what matters , is where evidence matters, but that is not always the case that evidence matters.

So yes, I probably care in some cases differently about evidence, and I accept that you do that differently.

 

[Augustus]

Yeah you don't have his book and you didn't read the book. The book on Bayes theorem is an older work. On the Historicity of Jesus covers all evidence from history and completely dismantles the few assumptions that historians use to say they believe in a historical Jesus. No math at all so all those links are completely off point.

Then he uses Bayes to get a 3 to 1 odds favoring mythicism. I don't care about that.

Every single believer immediately hand waves this off as if they all know more than Carrier about this math. I'm done speaking to people about that topic. ...Yes I'm a fan. If you want to call me a boy, well, weak people need to do that.
Have one of your scholars write to Carrier. Again, if I did a Baysian analysis on weather Zeus is real you don't need the number to have a case.

Fanboy, not 'boy'. Fanboy = someone who irrationally champions or defends a person, institution of cause they are emotionally invested in

When presented with some obvious facts about the book, you could:

a) Say something perfectly reasonable like: "I personally don't care about the Bayesian aspects of the book and am more focused on the evidence. I understand better credentialed people have criticised his methods in this regard, but as I'm not interested in the maths I'm not too bothered by this."

b) Make up some obvious nonsense: "The book containing no maths and is not premised on Bayesianism. Criticisms of his maths and methodology are thus irrelevant. Thinking that they are relevant means you've not read the book. But, even if they were relevant, Dr Richard Carrier PhD definitely knows more than the scholars with far better credentials than him and can't possibly be wrong. BTW their objections are definitely in bad faith as I'm going to wrongly assume they are believers so I can dismiss their credentials out of hand. Oh, and actually I've just remembered the book did contain Bayesian argumentation after all just like you said, but I don't really care about that part and the fact you were right and provided evidence to prove it is yet further evidence you have not read the book"

 

[Augustus]

No. Many saviours were undergoing their passion in the celestial realm. Paul wrote nothing about any of the Earthly stories in the Gospels. All of the Gospels were copied off Mark. Mark is using verbatim OT lines, other fiction and re-working Pauls letters. Paul says Jesus came to him and said "Tell them (future Christians) I am the body and blood, tell them to break this bread in my name...."

You have been impressed by the smoke and mirrors apparently. The problem is you take Carrier at his word, rather than looking at the scholarship in the fields he is discussing. Not apologists or blogs, but scholars who are discussing issues other than "Did Jesus exist?".

A lot of the axioms Carrier rests his arguments are far less accepted than he presents. They are fringe theories built on other fringe theories, built on spurious readings and a healthy dose of confirmation bias.

But to know this you have to dio more than take him at his word:


Perhaps the most surprising development in all this has been the gradual disappearance of the comparison between Jesus and the ‘rising and dying gods’ of the Ancient Near East. As is well noted by Jonathan Smith, in the early twentieth century scholars tended to postulate an archaic pattern of ‘dying and rising deities’ such as Osiris,45 Tammuz (Dumuzi: below), Adonis46 and Attis,47 and the more adventurous among them, such as the famous Sir James Frazer of the Golden Bough, also included the death and resurrection of Christ.48 However, more recently scholars have reversed the pattern, claiming that the pagan cults adapted themselves to Christianity.

His discussion of these ‘dying and rising gods’ clearly shows that the basis for the views of Frazer and his contemporaries has been undermined by the continuing publication and analysis of materials from the Ancient Near East. For example, in 1951 a tablet was discovered with the hitherto missing conclusion of the Sumerian myth of Inanna and Dumuzi: instead of his expected resurrection Dumuzi is killed as a substitute for Inanna.51 A steady trickle of new artefacts, inscriptions and archaeological monuments has enabled scholars to construct a much more sophisticated view of Late Antiquity


Or carrier's argument that "Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly only in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning'"

Whereas this seems to represent a later evolution, not something there from the origins

Whereas earlier Christian theologians, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, had declared that Christian teachings were public and taught in public, we now hear a different note. ‘We do not talk to pagans about the Mysteries of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost nor do we speak openly about the Mysteries in front of the catechumens’, says Cyril

Or other assumptions that Christianity was simply another "Mystery religion" and that they were all "salvation religions"

It was only in the 1970s and 1980s that Richard Gordon, Ramsay MacMullen and Walter Burkert started to undermine Cumont’s ideas. Against Cumont, Gordon showed that the Mithras cult was not a Persian creation and stressed its Roman character;22 MacMullen argued that the ‘Oriental religions’ were much less important than Cumont had claimed;23 Burkert pointed out that the ‘Oriental religions’ were cults rather than religions, that they were anyway not that Oriental and, moreover, that they did not all promise otherworldly salvation.24

Initiation into the mysteries of the ancient world - JN Bremner

This is a problem with Carrier his book is like a giant gish gallop that requires a massive amount of effort to identify all of the dubious ways he uses evidence.

In general, I'm sure you would agree people should be very sceptical of the following:

Someone with clear ideological and financial incentives to promote an idea is out of step with scholarly consensus in multiple fields he is not a renowned scholar in because he uses highly unorthodox interpretations of evidence in exactly the way required for him to 'prove' his thesis (and benefit financially and ideologically).

Agreed?

Why do you trust Carrier so thoroughly then?

Also Marks Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Raglan mythotype scale. Higher than King Arthur. This is a myth.

King Mithridates scores 22, Muhammad 17 and Tsar Nicholas 14 and they were obviously real people.

This is also a completely invented category that was created out of the study of a body of literature that has been significantly influenced by Christian mythology and is to do with the study of their myths, not their existence.

It is a highly questionable category for analysis of the literal existence of anybody, let alone Jesus given the influence of Christianity on Western myth.

Mark also uses ring structure, triadic inversions, chiasmus, he plays with events in a way done only in fiction.

It's not only done in "fiction" because "fiction" in the modern sense didn't really exist. There was no clear boundary between history and "fiction" where we had "objective scholarly historians" and "fiction writer" until modernity.

Saying certain rhetorical techniques are only used in "fiction" therefore Jesus didn't exist is as inane as saying Henry V didn't exist and there was no Battle of Agincourt because Shakespeare used chiasmus in his works and was taking poetic licence in his plays rather than writing objective history.

When you read the book instead of taking negative reviews serious you might figure a few things out? This is all wrong.
The cosmic seed things isn't counted as a plus for mythicism. There are examples of it in Jewish literature.

The examples he gives are extremely spurious. Quote what you think is his most persuasive example if you like and we'll deal with it.

It is the perfect example of his method though.

Carrier takes some evidence, puts a new spin on it completely out of step with experts in the field, does some very fanciful interpretation of language that go against anyone else's but just so happen to support his ideological and financial self-interest then insists we must take his ideas seriously.

 

[DNB]

Rest assured, SF, that Christ will have mercy on you if you truly repent.

 

[Ashoka]

Rest assured, SF, that Christ will have mercy on you if you truly repent.

You have the same energy as the fundie from the old Oh My Gods comic strip.

 

[DNB]

You have the same energy as the fundie from the old Oh My Gods comic strip.

Sorry, I didn't quite get the connotation? Is my apparent resemblance to the fundie in the comic a good or bad thing?
Also, my reply to Saint Frankenstein that you quoted , may have been a mistake on my part. I thought that his signature was his reply to me, because there was no other response anywhere. Thus, my attitude may not be what it appears?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sorry, I didn't quite get the connotation? Is my apparent resemblance to the fundie in the comic a good or bad thing?
Also, my reply to Saint Frankenstein that you quoted , may have been a mistake on my part. I thought that his signature was his reply to me, because there was no other response anywhere. Thus, my attitude may not be what it appears?

The facepalm was my response.

 

[DNB]

The facepalm was my response.

Gotcha, ...now I have to look up face palm...?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Gotcha, ...now I have to look up face palm...?

It's this:

 

[DNB]

It's this:

Yes, after you explained what it was, I had to look up the connotation. ...I knew that someone was not going to appreciate my comment, for sure.

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, after you explained what it was, I had to look up the connotation. ...I knew that someone was not going to appreciate my comment, for sure.

You prefer the Apostles' Creed?

 

[DNB]

You prefer the Apostles' Creed?

According to my interpretation of it, I have no contentions, except for the fact that it was not written by any of the 13 apostles (including Mathias and Paul, not Judas Iscariot).
It's pseudepigraphal for one, and unauthoritative. The latter point is just like all the ecumenical councils - man-made, fallible, erroneous and heretical. The trinity is blasphemy.

 

[lukethethird]

According to my interpretation of it, I have no contentions, except for the fact that it was not written by any of the 13 apostles (including Mathias and Paul, not Judas Iscariot).
It's pseudepigraphal for one, and unauthoritative. The latter point is just like all the ecumenical councils - man-made, fallible, erroneous and heretical. The trinity is blasphemy.

What were you expecting, something authentic to come out of Christianity?

 

[DNB]

What were you expecting, something authentic to come out of Christianity?

Orthodox Christianity i.e. the teachings of Christ, are veritable truths and cannot be falsified. But, the path is wide that leads to heresy and blasphemy.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

I’m a theist and this is silly and oft repeated. It’s rich to suggest atheism exists because people want to avoid responsibility while demanding God save you from the consequences of your actions. It’s rich to say God will reward loyalty when the book of Job exists.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus Heals a Blind Man
46 Then they came to the town of Jericho. When Jesus left there with his followers, a large crowd was with them. A blind man named Bartimaeus (meaning “son of Timaeus”) was sitting by the road. He was always begging for money. 47 He heard that Jesus from Nazareth was walking by. So he began shouting, “Jesus, Son of David, please help me!”

48 Many people criticized the blind man and told him to be quiet. But he shouted more and more, “Son of David, please help me!”

49 Jesus stopped and said, “Tell him to come here.”

So they called the blind man and said, “You can be happy now. Stand up! Jesus is calling you.” 50 The blind man stood up quickly. He left his coat there and went to Jesus.

51 Jesus asked the man, “What do you want me to do for you?”

He answered, “Teacher, I want to see again.”

52 Jesus said, “Go. You are healed because you believed.” Immediately the man was able to see again. He followed Jesus down the road.

I see, Jesus didn't exist but there were double chamber vases to trick people into thinking water had been turned into wine in case future generations concocted such a miracle. What trick did they use to heal blind men or any of the other miracles performed by Jesus? Raise someone from the dead?

You have never been around televangelists if you can’t think that their healings are fake.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Your opinions have been duly noted.
However, the fact remains that a society's default state is peace, tolerance and cooperation, not violence intolerance and disruption. If you are in any doubt, just take a walk around your local village or town or area and watch all the people not oppressing and killing each other from dawn 'til dusk and through the night.
Even somewhere like Syria or Mali or Myanmar you will see more people helping each other or avoiding conflict than killing each other. Why do you think refugee camps are so much bigger than barracks?

I’m reminded of reading about racist laws in the US and what struck me is that it’s not because the country was racist that things like slavery and bans on interracial marriage but because the country was NOT.