It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity

[KWED]

How many successful pre-modern societies can you name that weren't overtly violent and militaristic? I'll wait.

Jeez, it's like a foreign language to you, isn't it.

History of the pre-modern world shows violence has always been employed as a means to an end to get what people wanted when they judged they could get away with it. If it is easier to steal than work, some people will always steal. When resources are scarce, some people will always use violence to get what they want. The best form of defence was to be strong, and being strong required using violence to increase your strength.

Do you still deny our default state is similar to other primates, small groups, and that conflict between groups was an inescapable part of our reality btw?

Both cooperation and violence are integral to the human condition as we evolved in environments with limited resources, limited access to mates, etc. that necessitate conflict to optimise survival and reproduction.

Who do you think is in the best position to optimise their chances at survival and reproduction: someone who is purely cooperative and avoids conflict or someone who is reasonably cooperative, yet self-centred and capable of the controlled use of violence to get what they want?

You also completely miss the point, religion is what bound people together in lager and larger groups. This just increased the size of the in group, but didn't make us less hostile towards the out group. You cannot unite without also dividing.

How do you think we got from small family groups to advanced societies though? We just recognised each others common humanity and decide to live in a spirit of mutual trust, tolerance and harmony without any ideological foundations?

If you genuinely believe that all human society has been continually engaged in violent, internal conflict which has only been tempered by religion, then I really don't know what to say to you. I suspect you are under that misapprehension that the conflict between different groups is also the norm within those groups. You are simply wrong, as historical and contemporary evidence shows.

Even the most violent, intolerant, expansionist societies in history spent most of their time peacefully cooperating with each other within that society. It's how empires were built.
If early humans were innately intolerant and violent towards each other by default rather than peaceful and cooperative, early communities could not have formed and we would not be here using technology to argue about it.

 

[KWED]

If Weinberg is Steven Weinberg, then how does he have an authoritative view as a scientist on religion. I will treat it as a subjective opinion.

Well, it is a subjective opinion based on observation, so you are right to treat it as such.
Well done you!

 

[Augustus]

If you genuinely believe that all human society has been continually engaged in violent, internal conflict which has only been tempered by religion, then I really don't know what to say to you. I suspect you are under that misapprehension that the conflict between different groups is also the norm within those groups.

Either you struggle with basic comprehension or are deliberately creating the most obvious strawman.

I said:

Both cooperation and violence are integral to the human condition as we evolved in environments with limited resources, limited access to mates, etc. that necessitate conflict to optimise survival and reproduction.

Who do you think is in the best position to optimise their chances at survival and reproduction: someone who is purely cooperative and avoids conflict or someone who is reasonably cooperative, yet self-centred and capable of the controlled use of violence to get what they want?

Again you avoided the question. Funny that.

Even the most violent, intolerant, expansionist societies in history spent most of their time peacefully cooperating with each other within that society. It's how empires were built.
If early humans were innately intolerant and violent towards each other by default rather than peaceful and cooperative, early communities could not have formed and we would not be here using technology to argue about it.

And the point you keep studiously avoiding to create your strawmen is how did these large societies form in the first place?

My argument is that a shared system of myth and ritual helped create bonds that helped unite diverse and unrelated people into ever larger groups . One of the major ways this was achieved was religion.

Why do you think shared systems of myth and ritual actually made it harder to form groups of people larger than those other primates can maintain?

 

[Sheldon]

The question is, how did humans get from living in small groups like other primates, to the kind of complex societies we live in today?

In a dog eat dog world, you can't simply opt out and live in peace. You needed to be stronger and better at violence if you wanted to survive. So people needed to expand the size of their tribes.

This is where religion came in.

I think perhaps the agricultural and industrial revolutions had more to do with it. Religions might lend cohesion to smaller groups, but religions can be seen to evolve and fragment continuously. That monotheistic religions survived ostensibly intact might have less to do with their cohesive effect, especially in much larger societies, and more to do with the consequences of questioning them out loud for most of that history.

If monotheistic religions have such a cohesive effect, why does Christianity have over 45000 denominations globally? Islam hardly does much better. I think how cohesive the religion is depends on many other factors, not least the size of the societies and cultures they exist in, and of course how able the beliefs are to tolerate other religions.

One might say ISIS was cohesive, and point to the size of the state they controlled in a very short time, but the truth might say more about how all pervasive their intolerance for other religions and ideas was, and how they were prepared to violently suppress them.

 

[Augustus]

I think perhaps the agricultural and industrial revolutions had more to do with it. Religions might lend cohesion to smaller groups, but religions can be seen to evolve and fragment continuously. That monotheistic religions survived ostensibly intact might have less to do with their cohesive effect, especially in much larger societies, and more to do with the consequences of questioning them out loud for most of that history.

Both of those came long into the process of human social evolution. Start at the beginning where we lived in small groups like other primates.

How do you effectively unite groups of people with no direct personal relationship or common ancestry to increase the power of your tribe?

You create narratives/myths that give them a fictitious common identity and reinforce these with ritual (i.e. Religion).

Do you agree such things were important in group formation?

If monotheistic religions have such a cohesive effect, why does Christianity have over 45000 denominations globally? Islam hardly does much better. I think how cohesive the religion is depends on many other factors, not least the size of the societies and cultures they exist in, and of course how able the beliefs are to tolerate other religions.

Human group formation is not unlimited in potential. The larger a group gets the more prone to fracture it is. We will always be divided to a significant extent.

In the pre-modern world, what ceated larger blocks of common identity among diverse people than religions?

Even in the modern world I'm not sure anything beats it, although maybe large nation states could be said to. They are equally divisive though of course

 

[clara17]

But surely you acknowledge that "god fearing Christians" have tortured people to death for no good reason.

No. Remove God-fearing and many people labeling themselves Christian have done these things

 

[clara17]

Surely you accept that historically, and even today (to a lesser extent), schools generally push a Christian narrative on young children.

lol, what?
do you mean Christian schools?

 

[clara17]

Proto-orthodox Christianity put a stop to the other Christianity's by the end of the third century, if that is what you mean, leading to the 4th century forming of the Catholic Church as we know it today. Prior to that Catholicism was just one Christianity among many.

"Proto-orthodox Christianity put a stop to the other Christianity's by the end of the third century"
explain that one

 

[lukethethird]

"Proto-orthodox Christianity put a stop to the other Christianity's by the end of the third century"
explain that one

You can read about here: Proto-orthodox Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[clara17]

Proto-orthodox Christianity put a stop to the other Christianity's by the end of the third century, if that is what you mean, leading to the 4th century forming of the Catholic Church as we know it today. Prior to that Catholicism was just one Christianity among many.

I think we're in agreement on this
"what later became known as "orthodoxy" was originally just one out of many early Christian sects (such as the Ebionites, Gnostics, and Marcionists), that however was able to eliminate all major opposition by the end of the 3rd century, and managed to establish itself as orthodoxy at the First Council of Nicaea (325) and subsequent ecumenical councils."

 

[rational experiences]

All humans in life today are babies.

You came from sperm and an ovary human sex.

You have no right to argue about human life. As you own life equally.

We know we need a balanced atmosphere. We know the earth body is reactive.

Basic human non indoctrination.

Anyone can ignore indoctrination.

So we review human life's past indoctrination. Claiming today humans became free thinkers as we healed and evolved.

Right up to the moment life's re irradiated biology in 1901 Russia hit.

New old nuclear men's science memories re emerged. In the consciousness of newly born humans.

Our biblical warning about theists. Just humans with machine science. Artificial. Artificial causes means it is introduced to a natural evolving body.

So Satan was introduced to earth as artificial as a planet is natural to its earths status. No asteroid returning was our natural heavens.

Hence it is not scientific data.

Who as humans posed a theory a long time ago about nothing as a human when everything existed. Scientists.

Totally irrational.

Was known to be humans irrational mentality in consciousness of a human self expressed. To think first only.

The reason two human adult first parents died were biologically removed back as biological to bacteria microbes...nothing in life.

No cell human no bone human no blood human.

Our memories sperm ovary was not ever owning the two adult human bodies. Substances within the body.

Reasoned as seen the human ovary conceived. Changes development. No longer an ovary sperm no longer sperm. Babies form only. Babies birth. Survival.

Depending on heavens status for life span. Dependent on healthy genetics also. They grow. So a human baby is our adult humans creator.

Says consciousness just a human. The baby is our creator. Human.

Sex.

Now when you get mind irradiated chemical brain status changes. You hear voices abstract to your own speaking self.

Reason....the human biology you inherited living owning is now damaged. So you begin to hear deceased humans. The owners of pre spoken voice. Human. DNA owners also.

Humans life evolution begins to tell us we are being destroyed. By the voice.

If you are badly hurt you get to hear multiple loud voiced human recordings. As they died in irradiating causes. Historic.

Is what I learnt. Just a human who ignored indoctrination and said I can think as a self about humanity. My family. I challenged science. Just human with machine beliefs. Thinking on behalf of a machine that cannot hurt me.

The operator of the machine however does. A human choosing.

Is exactly what human men did before. Theme life sacrificed man human notified was only after the event of witnessing human biology attacked sacrificed again. As unnatural death and phenomena.

As you cannot document any status until it occurs.

Hence it does not pre exist the life living today. Jesus. It was a scientific determined attack on biology. Happened in the moment it occurred.

As evolution cooling states by science knowledge all humans should be the highest human body type. Healthy.

From 0 science as humans placed counting to the year 2000. Two holy cooling evolutions should have occurred. Christ accumulative heavens replaced.

Instead year 33 AD a lot of humans died sacrificed was the notification.

Year 1000AD another attacked irradiation of life occurred. Evidence biology attacked was kept as the shroud. Shroud kept as scientists lie.

Hence instead of two cooling evolutions we gained atmospheric irradiation. Satanic. Why Satan was given 1000 evaluation also. Mi nus ..sun

From 33AD to 1000AD cooling. Removed by burning asteroid in earths gases. Gained around 1000 AD.

Why it was a similar stigmata event to 33AD as the shroud of Turin proved.

From 1000 to 1901 Russia event the same outcome heavens cooling removed. Not the same attack.

Reason the sun now smaller. Space was larger.

Nuclear power plants no longer allow for evolution in our heavens. They have kept heavens non evolving. Why ice melted. As instant cold cooled ice froze kept heavens gases previously burning cold. Was instant change.

Why the ice has melted as the cold gas mass is no longer supportive of ice remaining as ice. If ice goes so does the four seasons. Balances.

Gases increased burning by mass. Causes. Known. Predicted. Warned as pre known science causes.

There was never an argument. As science was humans chosen evil.

So consciousness reverted to a time shifting thesis stating we are now travelling back in time. As our heavens conscious advice in human life states it is overheating. Possessed minds of the science thinker told the advice.

Back before earths heavens in dinosaur reptile lizard themes was hot gas heavens. Skin like a tree and cold blooded. Humans don't de evolve or time shift. We die mutated.

Our lifes conscious biological warning.

Advised as human science by design artificially changed our natural evolution in space. Our heavens spirit body. Gods O as earth rock body owned it as the cold clear gas. The teaching.

Did not allow for any science practice. Earth was surviving only.

The sun nuclear owned earths sacrifice.

Father's advice 1000 year 1000 year cooling advice natural evolution. Satan science said 2000 End. Life sacrificed.

Two burning earth hits.

Sciences maths mother abomination said 2000 was two satanic attacks. End. Known. By causes science machine.

Meaning we have virtually already heavenly shifted back in time to a Jesus earth outcome. As a caused end.

To the timed place men said is a space zero 0 warning used advice.

The heavens body spirit changes. Removed. Gods ownership. As science of man said science now owned it and not natural space.

Except it won't be Jesus. As Jesus happened. It ended also.

Not a healing evolution on earth. You knew zero was a man of science chosen idea to teach that human science changed life on earth by mass heavens body removal. It wasn't a scientific calculus.

Men however have used it as a data notification how to re cause it. Heavens mass removed by burning.

Why science had been forbidden as the scientific return advice future causes was already forecasted by men not heeding the old human science testimonials. They knew nuclear science was forbidden.

Predictive science stated it would be burning as returns. Predicted from 0 zero earths future.

When it occurs the brain mind chemistry human is altered and phenomena is witnessed at the same time.

Baha'i event proving notified data true. He argued against re emerging temple pyramid sciences. By wisdom personal.

Personal wisdom is owned chosen human belief behaviours. It is not that the man inherited a higher spirituality. He already owned and was living his spirituality.

What was ignored. Natural life is first spiritual itself.

Notified change was inherited by incoming star fall it then becomes the new teachers warning. As in the past around the era burnt brain men of science chose to try to rebuild the pyramid temple science again.

Rome actually had previously and were taught their lesson in Nero era.

Holy wars were fought to stop it being rebuilt. As the results life attacked by science causes was known. You cannot suddenly claim the earth conditions of science safe. When the evidence said it was mans owned chosen evils.

Yet you should understand that as the scientist still existed living he believed he overcame his own past life sacrificed death. As it is his consciousness who believes it by human memory of the past of his self.

His own DNA memories. Hence the code of maths looked for the rebirth of humanities destroyers in person. As he bodily returns. And is a male group in Multiple nations. Same type of thinker. Self possessed.

That advice is historic and was known by humans of the past. All reasoned choices. By just human men practicing human sciences by choice a human.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

However, I doubt it will have any effect on Christianity.
Or, do you think it will?

No, why would their nonsense arguments have any effect? It's all been heard before. I actually used to believe such things during an anti-Christian phase, but dropped it when I realized they didn't make much sense.

 

[lukethethird]

No, why would their nonsense arguments have any effect? It's all been heard before. I actually used to believe such things during an anti-Christian phase, but dropped it when I realized they didn't make much sense.

I don't know what you are referring to but yes, a lot of the Christ myth theories are not good at all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't know what you are referring to but yes, a lot of the Christ myth theories are not good at all.

I'm referring to the "Christ myth" theory in general.

 

[Lazy Old Devil]

No, why would their nonsense arguments have any effect? It's all been heard before. I actually used to believe such things during an anti-Christian phase, but dropped it when I realized they didn't make much sense.

How come you keep changing your religion, Saint Frankenstein? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm sure it wasn't listed as 'Christian' the other day. In fact, I've noticed you sometimes post in the Left Hand Path DIR, which doesn't seem very compatible with you being a Christian - you even made a post in the Satanism section that said "hail Satan" less than two weeks ago!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How come you keep changing your religion, Saint Frankenstein? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm sure it wasn't listed as 'Christian' the other day. In fact, I've noticed you sometimes post in the Left Hand Path DIR, which doesn't seem very compatible with you being a Christian - you even made a post in the Satanism section that said "hail Satan" less than two weeks ago!

I have inner conflicts, and struggles. A lot of people with Borderline PD have problems with identity or values. I'm trying to heal from a lot of things.

I certainly didn't say "hail Satan", though. Lol.

I'm not in the LHP DIR anymore.

 

[lukethethird]

I'm referring to the "Christ myth" theory in general.

There are a number of Christ myth theories and there are a number of historical Jesus theories.

 

[joelr]

Your theory is an attempt to remove Jesus from history. I don't agree with it.

It's not my theory. Some historians do believe in historicity. The debate in Jesus historicity is historicity vs mythicism. Historicity means there was a man Rabbi who the gospel fiction was based on. Mythicism is that there wasn't even a man.
No historian thinks the gospel stories are anything but myth. The latest peer-reviewed work on the historicity of Jesus gives 3 to 1 in favor of mythicism. It's 700 pg and covers all known evidence.
But Bart Ehrman still leans towards historicity.

What average church members who don't know the actual historical information believe will be just what ever people told them. Probably in church and on apologists sites. All that has been debunked as psuedo-history. There are billions of Hindu and billions in Islam who believe something that is just mythology. It is no different with Christianity.

 

[joelr]

I found it almost unreadable, although him being a terrible writer obviously doesn't refute his ideas.

Can't say anything about apologists, but I've certainly seen scientists challenge his knowledge of Bayes' Theorem and his knowledge of probability theory (I personally don't have the knowledge to judge, but they are certainly backing up what they say and have better pedigrees to know what they are talking about than carrier does).

But ultimately I think the book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers. To enter an argument against the overwhelming scholarly consensus with “but I have math on my side, math that has been proven, proven!” seems transparent to me, more so when the quality of the math provided in no way matches the bombast.

I suspect this book was always designed to preach to the choir, and will not make much impact in scholarly circles. I hope it doesn’t become a blueprint for other similar scholarship, despite agreeing with many of its conclusions.

archive.ph

Further examples:

Final Word on Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier: Proving history or idiocy?

Carrier’s Historiography: Why we may have reason to doubt it’s utilitity (Part II)

A further critique of his methodology: THE REVEREND BAYES VS. JESUS CHRIST

Ultimately, his argument is dependent on him assigning subjective probabilities that coincide with his own opinions while subjectively choosing what subjective probabilities to include (while being emotionally and financially invested in disproving Jesus).

It's just a rehashing of traditional mythicism, this time with (bad) maths to say he subjectively assigns a 0-33% chance of Jesus existing.

Even if you like the book and find the arguments persuasive, I can't see how it's a game changer unless folk are impressed with his smoke and mirrors. It's just the standard preaching to the choir.

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. It's actually 100% different from the other bad non-peer-reviewed works on mythicism. Once someone says that they did not read the book and found a critique that also didn't read the book. He specifically talks about the older mythicist theories as complete crank that don't use sources and were written by people without a PhD, couldn't read all the original material in the original language and so on. The history debunks the religion by itself and Carrier explains why the mythicist theory is more likely.
He explains the basic premise in the beginning of a debate with a theist -

In the book he carefully goes over the Epistles (Paul only sees a ghost Jesus giving revelations) and the suspicious absence of any earthly Jesus or knowledge of it in 20,000 words. Mark the first gospel is using the letters to create earthly stories, verbatim OT lines and other fiction. There were also several examples of other saviors (even one of Jesus in Ascension of Isaih) who actually never came to Earth. They went through their passion, death, resurrection in the upper firmament. Later earthly stories were created about these demigods. Mark written 50 years later using highly mythic literary styles and borrowing from other sources looks like entire fiction.
So like many other dying/rising saviors the first stories about Jesus may have been the same as older saviors from the same area and time who were celestial beings. In Paul Jesus died fighting the "archons of the age", it doesn't say where.
I don't know why you have an interest in putting the book down when you know nothing about it?

 

[lukethethird]

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. It's actually 100% different from the other bad non-peer-reviewed works on mythicism. Once someone says that they did not read the book and found a critique that also didn't read the book. He specifically talks about the older mythicist theories as complete crank that don't use sources and were written by people without a PhD, couldn't read all the original material in the original language and so on. The history debunks the religion by itself and Carrier explains why the mythicist theory is more likely.
He explains the basic premise in the beginning of a debate with a theist -
In the book he carefully goes over the Epistles (Paul only sees a ghost Jesus giving revelations) and the suspicious absence of any earthly Jesus or knowledge of it in 20,000 words. Mark the first gospel is using the letters to create earthly stories, verbatim OT lines and other fiction. There were also several examples of other saviors (even one of Jesus in Ascension of Isaih) who actually never came to Earth. They went through their passion, death, resurrection in the upper firmament. Later earthly stories were created about these demigods. Mark written 50 years later using highly mythic literary styles and borrowing from other sources looks like entire fiction.
So like many other dying/rising saviors the first stories about Jesus may have been the same as older saviors from the same area and time who were celestial beings. In Paul Jesus died fighting the "archons of the age", it doesn't say where.
I don't know why you have an interest in putting the book down when you know nothing about it?

Carrier thought that Jesus existed because the Christ myth theories were so bad. I think it was his students or colleagues that kept asking him if he read The Jesus Puzzle, Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? by Earl Doherty. When he finally read it he did a 180. You can read a review of Earl's book by Carrier on line, the book is a good read if you can get a hold of a copy.