Jesus was Myth

[Agnostic75]

What switched me from the mythicist camp was to realize why Romans would create their religious character out of a peasant Jew, who's divinity they factually paralleled against the living Emperor the "son of god."

That assumes that deliberate forgery was the motive rather than innocent but inaccurate revelations. Surely many ancient religious writings were the results of innocent but inaccurate revelations.

If the copies of the Gospels that we have today are largely similar to the original Gospels, the Romans obviously had nothing to do with them.

Gmark the oldest, probably written in Syria for a Roman audience.

It isn't up for debate, it is obvious it was explained to non Jews so they would understand Judaism.

By then the movement had already had quite the division away from Judaism.

Wikipedia says:

"Mark wrote primarily for an audience of gentile Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire."

So you are right that Mark wrote for a Roman audience, but so what? If Mark wrote what he actually believed was true, he was not worried about being later embarrassed by critics, certainly no more so than many other ancient religious writers who believed that what they wrote was true.

Your arguments only work regarding deliberate forgeries.

 

[steeltoes]

Carrier is a fringe 'expert'. That is not sufficient reason to discount him, but when someone takes on the appearance of a Carrier groupie you have, not an example of an informed position, but an example of selection bias.

You are the one exercising selection bias here by dismissing Carriers articles out of hand, you haven't addressed a single one of them but instead discount the person. Can you say h-y-p-o-c-r-i-sy?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Goodacre is a clown.

Sorry call him prof if you want, I wont waist my time with nonsense like his.

One of the historicists has accused me of 'sliming the scholars.' It's one of his Big Points for why I'm so wrong about Jesus... that I 'slime the scholars.'

But I've never said anything nearly as ugly as you've posted here.

Why slime the scholars?

 

[Agnostic75]

It's not forgery, it is building divinity so that their character would be appealing for everyone to follow.

If the book of Mark that we have today is mostly like the original, and Mark wrote what he actually believed was true, he was not concerned about appealing to anyone, he was concerned about writing about what he believed was true.

People wrote using mythology and these legends grew in oral tradition before they were ever recorded.

These pieces were all compilations.

Another point and we see it within Judaism, they wrote using mythology to explain parables and metaphors, which LESSONS were viewed as what was really important.

Even then these were never meant to be literal pieces.

You cannot reasonably prove that the Gospels writers did not believe that what they wrote was true. Regarding the book of First Corinthians, are you implying that Paul did not believe that what he wrote was true?

If Mark was writing for a Roman audience, and only wanted to please the Romans, he would not have written anything like what he wrote since in the first century A.D., most Romans who knew about Christianity detested it. Why would Christian writers try to write appealing things that in fact caused many Christians to be persecuted, and killed by the Romans.

 

[Agnostic75]

Carrier's links.

But you have not explained how Carrier, Wikipedia, and Professor Mark Goodacre are wrong about the criterion of embarrassment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are the one exercising selection bias here by dismissing Carriers articles out of hand, ...

Please learn to read. As an early contributor at iidb I've followed Carrier for many years and, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere have I dismissed him out of hand.

 

[steeltoes]

Carriers links

So Carrier's presents bad arguments? Carrier points out that John the Baptist is held with high esteem, that it was an embarrassment for Jesus to have been baptized by him due to the high regard for John, yet it was John the Baptist's head that was presented on a platter at a woman's request when she was granted a wish for anything she would like by Herod.

So, it's not an embarrassment for John, why? because the criteria is never applied to him.

So why the criteria of embarrassment? Can we say a-g-e-n-d-a ?

 

[steeltoes]

Please learn to read. As an early contributor at iidb I've followed Carrier for many years and, to the best of my knowledge, nowhere have I dismissed him out of hand.

See post 265

 

[Agnostic75]

It's not forgery, it is building divinity so that their character would be appealing for everyone to follow.

So they wrote what was appealing, and they were persecuted because of it. They must not have known what would be appealing to the Romans.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See post 265

Carrier is a fringe 'expert'. That is not sufficient reason to discount him, but when someone takes on the appearance of a Carrier groupie you have, not an example of an informed position, but an example of selection bias.

Learn to read.

 

[steeltoes]

Learn to read.

"That is not sufficient reason to discount him" but you discounted him non the less.

 

[Agnostic75]

It's not forgery, it is building divinity so that their character would be appealing for everyone to follow.

So they wrote what was appealing, and they were persecuted because of it. They must not have known what would be appealing to the Romans.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So they wrote what was appealing, and they were persecuted because of it. They must not have known what would be appealing to the Romans.

The majority of Bible scholars believe that First Corinthians 15:3-8 is not an interpolation, and they believe that all of the book of First Corinthians was written during the mid 50s A.D. Regarding that passage, are you implying that Paul did not believe that what he wrote was true, or that the passage is an interpolation? If you are not saying either of those things, how did the passage evolve?

Paul never met Jesus though, and was rather persecuting of those who believed in Jesus. On the way to Damascus though according to Paul he had some major revelation and he did a completely 180.

Prior to that revelation what the bible accounts about Paul (or Saul), shows him to be very Over-Zealous. I would see him take that same Zealousness and approach Christianity.

Overall I would say that Jesus was historical, but it's Paul who takes it and goes even further with declarations of Jesus as the Christ (this is going off the belief that the epistles were written first, then the gospels).

I suppose that we would have to find the originals to really be able to see what was supposed to actually be versus what is.

 

[steeltoes]

Paul never met Jesus though, and was rather persecuting of those who believed in Jesus. On the way to Damascus though according to Paul he had some major revelation and he did a completely 180.

Prior to that revelation what the bible accounts about Paul (or Saul), shows him to be very Over-Zealous. I would see him take that same Zealousness and approach Christianity.

Overall I would say that Jesus was historical, but it's Paul who takes it and goes even further with declarations of Jesus as the Christ (this is going off the belief that the epistles were written first, then the gospels).

I suppose that we would have to find the originals to really be able to see what was supposed to actually be versus what is.

On the way to Damascus... was not according to Paul but was according to Acts of the Apostles, just so you know.

I wish I could say Jesus was historical, I really do try to see what it is people see but I have a hard time coming to that conclusion with what we have. I certainly am not saying Jesus was mythical just because I can't see what makes him historical, that does not necessarily follow.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

On the way to Damascus... was not according to Paul but was according to Acts of the Apostles, just so you know.

I wish I could say Jesus was historical, I really do try to see what it is people see but I have a hard time coming to that conclusion with what we have. I certainly am not saying Jesus was mythical just because I can't see what makes him historical, that does not necessarily follow.

Isn't the acts of the apostles accredited to Luke? I say according to Paul, because, Paul does mention Luke at one point in one of his epistles and so they may have spoken.

 

[outhouse]

Wikipedia says:

"Mark wrote primarily for an audience of gentile Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire."

So you are right that Mark wrote for a Roman audience, but so what? If Mark wrote what he actually believed was true, he was not worried about being later embarrassed by critics, certainly no more so than many other ancient religious writers who believed that what they wrote was true.

Your arguments only work regarding deliberate forgeries.

What is there to be emberrassed about by critics? Worshipping one god made more sense then worshipping the living Emperor and many other deities. And this Jesus character died for your sins where the Emperor did not. The Emperor did not offer free health care, this movement would expell tose pesky demons for free, only wanting dinner scraps in return

 

[outhouse]

One of the historicists has accused me of 'sliming the scholars.' It's one of his Big Points for why I'm so wrong about Jesus... that I 'slime the scholars.'

But I've never said anything nearly as ugly as you've posted here.

Why slime the scholars?

He follows and promotes the Farrer Hypothesis, which as far as im concerned has no real merit in any of todays scholarships.

I think there are better explanations for Q then to throw it out the window.

This is my personal opinion, and I do discount fringe scholarships

 

[outhouse]

But you have not explained how Carrier, Wikipedia, and Professor Mark Goodacre are wrong about the criterion of embarrassment.

They are using their personal bias to promote their personal view. No harm there.

I just wont follow it.

Mark is easy to deal with since Gmatthew and Gluke do not really pan out as one using the others text for a source. They use different parallels and change legends from one to the next.

Carrier isnt really dealing with aspects that discount the status quo, he is just using someone elses work he likes and is compiling different ideas. I can write out a detailed responce, just didnt feel like waisting my whole morning debating Carrier since imn debating you. That and your offering any detailed repsonse against what modern scholarship sstate anyway.

 

[outhouse]

But you have not explained how Carrier, Wikipedia, and Professor Mark Goodacre are wrong about the criterion of embarrassment.

Here is a link from Goodacre, Ill retract my clown statement for this, but i still think the Farrer hypothesis is a joke.

Mark Goodacre debates Richard Carrier: Did Jesus exist? | Wintery Knight

Goodacre also raises the crucifixion a historical fact about Jesus, which is a virtually undeniable fact about Jesus that is not even denied by people like the radical atheist John Dominic Crossan. Goodacre says that the crucifixion story would be embarrassing to the early Christians. They would not have invented a story of their Messiah-candidate being crucified – it was considered to shameful of a way to die.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Here is a link from Goodacre, Ill retract my clown statement for this, but i still think the Farrer hypothesis is a joke.

Mark Goodacre debates Richard Carrier: Did Jesus exist? | Wintery Knight

Goodacre also raises the crucifixion a historical fact about Jesus, which is a virtually undeniable fact about Jesus that is not even denied by people like the radical atheist John Dominic Crossan. Goodacre says that the crucifixion story would be embarrassing to the early Christians. They would not have invented a story of their Messiah-candidate being crucified – it was considered to shameful of a way to die.

Well Jesus was also resurrected. Even if he had been crucified, coming back to life would have been kinda of an F.U. to the Romans as well as the Jews.