It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity

[Colt]

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.

The book of Job is a parable adopted into Judaism and hence their scriptures as a worldly-wise protest against their previous beliefs in divine providence.

 

[Colt]

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

Many claims of healing are fake and so are the con-artist televangelist.

 

[joelr]

v

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

and yet it's still just as weak.

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."

Right but what I said was fine.
I do not understand that better credentialed people have commented on his math. If you think there are better credentialed people who have a complaint write to Carrier.

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"

What ridiculous strawman? You didn't read the book because you implied his entire argument is some Bayesian argument. He has a book that seems to be based on that, this isn't it.
I don't care about this argument because for one, no believer considers it valid regardless of their knowledge of this math. It's always hand waved off because it can be.
Also I don't care about the odds of Jesus being a myth based on evidence. I only care about what does the evidence actually suggest and the details of the scripture and comparative scripture and historical mentions. I don't need a number.
This book covers evidence for 596 pages then he goes into a short chapter about how to produce this number. Talking about a probability with people who are believers seems to make them thing he just whipped up some math and did it wrong and therefore has a useless theory.
But since you read the book why not explain what you think about what he said about some actual evidence? The Gospels, Epistles or Acts?

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems connected to investigating the historical Jesus is the early Christian movement was highly forbidden by the powers-to-be; Rome and Judah. These powers-to-be, killed its leader and his highest level staff. After the death of Jesus, the movement was socially hated and highly persecuted through the 1st century, when objective historical records would have been most available.

Neither Roman or the Jews of that time, would benefit by any objective record that could perpetuate their public enemy number one. Common sense says they would have had all records purged or altered to suit their power needs. The historical data would therefore need to be forwarded by the faithful, with these oral accounts not fully compiled until decades after the genocide, to avoid being a target.

As an example of this affect in modern time, the Democrat party in the USA has made an effort to get rid of the statues of people from the past, so they could rewrite history in a way that benefitted their own power objectives and avoid their key historical guilt. The Democrats party of the1860's was the party that wanted to divide the USA and form a new country based on slavery. The Civil War resulted, to keep the Union together and slave free. This was at a time when slavery was finally objectified as being wrong; Emancipation proclamation. That time was the line in the sand that that led to objective systemic racism. Before that, slavery had a long history that dated back to the first civilizations and was accepted as part of things as they had been.

Critical Race theory tries to create a new stating point, several hundred years earlier' 1600's, to reinforce their revisionist history and avoid liability for the slave country pipe dream. Luckily a parent based movement pointed out how CRT were trying to alter the truth of history and teach hate. This type of push back movement was too late, for the early Christians, due to the genocide.

This same type of revisionist purging of hostly, to make treachery look clean, is occurring today for political reasons. It is not occurring at a time when those maintaining power rounded up and killed their enemies for just going against their preferred narratives. Now they only censor you and kick you out of Face Book or Twitter, or use a full court media pressure with ten media outlets all reading the same script. Free speech and information was and still is the enemy of the treacherous. Under such pressures on will not find all the data that was once available.

In modern times, if a child wished to learn about the Civil War, after the Critical race indoctrination and the great statue purging of 2020, the Left may now point out there are no records, and that there are no statues to these so-called heroes. The underlying meaning is these historical people of the past must have all been evil people. They were not victims of historical fate based on the times.

 

[joelr]

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.

I am aware of other scholars work. Everything he claims is sourced. There are no fringe theories except mythicism and there are no examples of confirmation bias. Please link to the review you are using because Carrier might have a response posted already.

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

From Jan N. Bremmer a theologian? Theologians are notorious for sneaking apologetics into history. This is not the only Inanna story. The clay transcriptions that state Inanna died and arose after 3 days was from -
History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History Samuel Noah Kramer

there are 6 known pre-Christian dying/rising demigods

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 there

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

There are many elements to Mystery cults, the secret knowledge is just one of them.

"..entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed 1C. 4:1"
" do not be ignorant of this mystery" R. 11:25
"the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ is in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed R. 16:25"
"speak a message of wisdom among the mature and declare Gods wisdom..a mystery that has been hidden" 1C. 2:6, 7
"listen I will tell you a mystery we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed" 1C. 15:51

"I could not address you people as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk not solid food, for you were not ready for it. Indeed you are still not ready." 1C. 3:1-2

"anyone living on milkm being still an infant, is not aquainted with the teachings about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature" H. 5:13-14

Clearly conceiving their religion in mystery terms.

"Jesus told them The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everythiung is said in parables so {they won't understand}" Mark 4:11-12

Mark is conceiving Christianity in terms of the mystery religions.

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

They are all focused on some type of salvation. This is also from Hellenism.
Hellenistic religion
"This led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure."

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

Yeah, Carrier mentions this in the book that you read.

"Other savior gods within this context experienced “passions” that did not involve a death. For instance, Mithras underwent some great suffering and struggle (we don’t have many details), through which he acquired his power over death that he then shares with initiates in his cult, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a death. Mentions of resurrection as a teaching in Mithraism appear to have been about the future fate of his followers (in accordance with the Persian Zoroastrian notion of a general resurrection later borrowed by the Jews). So all those internet memes listing Mithras as a dying-and-rising god? Not true. "

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?

You haven't presented one single piece of evidence that demonstrates that. There are no "unorthodox interpretations"? You are likely using an apologetics review.
He uses other historians work for the most part. There are only a few details that are his own and are related to mythicism. The consensus that the gospels are myth is complete among historians. Ehrman, Pagels, Thompson, Goodacre, Purvoe, Crossan

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.

Clearly the life of these people were mythicized. Mark also mythicized Jesus. He may have been a real Rabbi but the gospels are definitely a mythical story based on prophecies about them getting their own savior demigod.
Mark writes in a highly mythic style and uses older fiction verbatim at times. He's taking the Epistles for one and using it to craft an earthly narrative. The last supper in Paul was a message from a ghost Jesus and Mark made it into a supper with actual bread.
The influence of the religion has zero impact on it being true? You don't think the life story of Muhammad was mythicized?

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.

Mark reading as fiction is not even a big part of the evidence. I use it because I think it's relevant. But you seem to forget that before Mark is Paul who only knew of a ghost Jesus. 20,000 words and not one mention of anything in the Gospels. Jesus was killed by the "archeons of the age". Everything in Mark can be accounted for from fiction so there wasn't an oral tradition. These Greek writers were highly trained in religious fiction.
Again, maybe there was a Rabbi teaching what Hilell was teaching. The demigod stuff is fiction.Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia

All of the things people associate with Jesus are being taught by Hillel several decades before.

But Philo mentioning a first born son of God who was an angel with the same meaning name as Jesus shows there may have already been this myth.

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.

The only thing Carrier differs on is mythicism. Ehrman and others argue for historicity which means Jesus was a human Rabbi. No one says the Gospels narrative is any more true than the Greek stories of Gods. Not in history anyways.

How you describe Carrier is not correct. In what example does Carrier "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"???
That is bizarre? I don't see that anywhere, especially since he sources everything and uses other scholars work?
If he mentions Acts as fiction he mentions Purvoe/Mystery of Acts.
If he mentions earlier messianic world saviors who are virgin born, Mary Boyce.
Again, after hearing all this, I do not believe you have read this book.[/QUOTE]

 

[joelr]

One of the problems connected to investigating the historical Jesus is the early Christian movement was highly forbidden by the powers-to-be; Rome and Judah. These powers-to-be, killed its leader and his highest level staff. After the death of Jesus, the movement was socially hated and highly persecuted through the 1st century, when objective historical records would have been most available.

Neither Roman or the Jews of that time, would benefit by any objective record that could perpetuate their public enemy number one. Common sense says they would have had all records purged or altered to suit their power needs. The historical data would therefore need to be forwarded by the faithful, with these oral accounts not fully compiled until decades after the genocide, to avoid being a target.

Rome didn't care that much about them.
There were many different sects, at least 1/2 Gnostic in the 2nd century. They were not persecuted as much as some people seem to believe. Nero did in 64 AD because they were blamed for a fire. But that was it until 3AD.
They were not socially hated and highly persecuted.

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire occurred sporadically over a period of over two centuries. For most of the first three hundred years of Christian history, Christians were able to live in peace, practice their professions, and rise to positions of responsibility.[204] Sporadic persecution took place as the result of local pagan populations putting pressure on the imperial authorities to take action against the Christians in their midst, who were thought to bring misfortune by their refusal to honour the gods.[205]

Only for approximately ten out of the first three hundred years of the church's history were Christians executed due to orders from a Roman emperor.[204] The first persecution of Christians organised by the Roman government took place under the emperor Nero in 64 AD after the Great Fire of Rome.[206] There was no empire-wide persecution of Christians until the reign of Decius in the third century.[web 20] The Edict of Serdica was issued in 311 by the Roman emperor Galerius, officially ending the Diocletianic persecution of Christianity in the East. With the passage in 313 AD of the Edict of Milan, in which the Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius legalised the Christian religion, persecution of Christians by the Roman state ceased.[
Christianity in the 1st century - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

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.

"significantly influenced by Christian mythology"

Oedipus 21
Moses 20
Dionysis 19
Romulus 18
Perseus 17
Hercules 17
Zeus 15
Osiris 14
Pelops 13
Asclepius 12
Joseph son of Jacob 12


nope.


The apologist article you used forgot to mention those. Gee do you think that might be a bias source with a particular outcome related to beliefs, finances, emotions and such?