There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[nPeace]

You might want to read the article you linked to, particularly about sources, it doesn't bode well for your feeble attempt at convincing me of whatever it is you are trying to convince me of. Acknowledging sources is not the same as believing what you are reading, believing is something religious people hang their hat on because they don't know any different, at least not when it comes to religious texts.

I read all. Which one?
Which of the articles do you think agrees with anything you said?

 

[nPeace]

Not even you would find any
meaning in that

Not even that, did you get correct.

 

[lukethethird]

I know practically nothing of Baha's claims, except for his supposed "prophecies". Those are on the same order as the prophecies of Nostradamus. And if one knows why Nostradamus's prophecies fail they also know why Baha's fail.

You can read about his revelations from God in wiki but there is nothing new or original about them, same old contradictory claims as religious zealots that came before him and have come since, quite a dry and boring read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can read about his revelations from God in wiki but there is nothing new or original about them, same old contradictory claims as religious zealots that came before him and have come since, quite a dry and boring read.

I have tried. And when I ask supporters of Baha to explain how he is special all that I get are bad arguments. Some of them know this here and do not even try. They will make the claims but never support them.

 

[dybmh]

You're arguing with the wrong person. You should be taking it up with Rank and Ragland. They were the ones who devised the scale and had their hypothesis been so inaccurate the whole scale would have disappeared long ago. If it survives that musty mean there's some validity to it.

I'm sorry. I think you're being unfair. There's nothing wrong with the scale. My objection is to stretching the meaning of royalty to include Mary. Do you honestly think they intended the first item on the list to be blood relation to a royal family? That doesn't define royalty. And being on a hill 3 times. That's not an indicator of anything. And the kingdom of god in the gospels isn't the type of kingdom that Rank-Raglan intended. Yahweh isn't a king in the way that they intended either.

Again. If the precision needs to be lowered, and these similarities need to be exaggerated, why include them in the argument? If the argument requires these exaggerations. That means it's weak claim.

You know, to go back and forth on some of these points is only fodder for discussion which eventually gets us nowhere. The overarching point is that there were enough similarities between Jesus and other mythical heroes to strongly suspect Jesus' story was derived from a plethora of pagan man gods.

But are there? I came up with 5. You came up with 11. That's not enough to say the story as derived from anywhere. See, there's another exaggerated claim. No evidence? Yes! A myth? Maybe. Dervied from a plethora of pagan myths? There's not enough evidence for that. the first order of business is confirming that 2 authors could not have come up with the same elements of the story independently. And that's very difficult to do. There are archetypes for reasons.

Did the mayans derive their pyramids from the egyptians?

We would need to list these similarities. Look at the original stories. And actually compare. But Carrier has sabatoged any trust I have for "scholars" with "PHDs" to just tell me stuff. He said there are 20 similarities. I know that's false. He admits to fudging the numbers. I can't trust him to tell me what's similar or what's not. He could claim that Hercules had a great Aunt Medusa, and that's similar to Mary Magdalene. And ahem... people like you trust him and pass on these exaggerations as if they're true. But it's a lie.

And, its kind of good, kind of bad. I know that I can't trust anyone who claims these 20, or 19, or any thing approaching 10 on the Rank Raglan scale. It's good because I can weed out propagandists and people who simply blindly follow their guru. And, you even doubled down on the Moses ranking. There's no possible way he's a 20 on the scale. No way. I found 4, 5, 6 non-matches in a few seconds. You recently went through the list, and somehow, you have overlooked that Moses' mom wasn't a virign, Moses wasn't royal, never battled any kings or beasts, etc, etc.

How much do you want to bet? How about $25 to your favorite charity that Moses does not score a 20 on the Rank-Raglan scale?

Add to that the fact that there is no secular historical evidence for Jesus or the apostles and it pretty much becomes an open and shut case for rationalists. My own personal addition to these facts which for me seals the deal is that if God the Father really wanted people to believe in his son and accept him as the savior of mankind, then God would have left behind enough evidence for Jesus to fill a Library of Congress. God, being omnipotent would have had no trouble doing so. The question is why didn't he? We have an incredible contradiction here. God WANTS people to believe in Jesus but God leaves no evidence behind for him. To a rational mind this doesn't make a bit of sense. To hardcore Christian minds it's just business as usual i.e. "God wants to test our faith" "God wants us to believe based on faith without any evidence" "God doesn't want to violate our free will."

Those are great, valid, wonderful, true, honest, reasons not to believe. But none of that supports the idea that the gospels are derived from pagan myths. You're going from something completely reasonable to something completely unreasonable.

And that's what's confusing to me. Why is the exaggeration considered OK for you, but not OK for Christians? They trust the bible. You seem to trust Carrier and others. The bible exaggerates. Your sources exaggerates too. Christianity makes big exaggerated claims. Mythisicism makes big exaggerated claims.

 

[joelr]

No proof but it changed the entire world!

Popularity doesn't not mean something is true.
The I Ching, Epic of Gilamesh (used in Genesis), Republic, Iliad and Odyssey, Karma Sutra, Art of War, all changed billions of lives.

Islam will catch up to Christianity by 2060 in terms of members, doesn't mean it's true. It means it's popular and contains some good stories and morals. Christianity is an evangelist movement, they actively try to populate countries and convert people. This accounts for it's spread. None of that makes the supernatural stories true.
Not telling lies and being non-judgmental is good advice. It existed before Judaism and the Bible is a combination of Jewish, Mesopotamian, Egyptian wisdom and the NT is a newer Judaism and Persian, Greek and Roman wisdom. It packages it into one book so it contains a large amount of material. Wisdom is not given by Gods, it's figured out by people.
That is why so many other sources were used in scripture.

 

[leroy]

You just made the Spiderman argument. And only some of those people are known from secular sources. It is not a good argument.

Ok so please ether grant or refute the argument

The fact that the authors of the gospels reported real historical people (whose existence can be verified) strongly suggest that the authors where ether witnesses or had access to good reliable sources.

The implication is that the authors where in a possition to know if jesus was a real physical person or not.

How do you deal with the testable two different birth dates for Jesus?

No idea what are you talking about.

 

[leroy]

Are you talking about your Spiderman argument? You were using a very poor argument for the reliability of the Gospels.

The author of spiderman was not trying to report what actually happebed.

The authors of the gospels (and paul) honestly and sincerely belived that they where reporting was what really happened.

This is why your spiedrman claim fails.

Oh and your pathetic "argument from embarrassment" one too. That is a laugh. It only tells you that the people making that argument cannot be honest about themselves.

People are unlikely to lie, if such lie goes against their purpose.

This is true almost by definition,


My hypothesis is that you dont really understand the criteria of embaeazment (feel free to provecme wrong)

 

[leroy]

I would disagree with that. Many of the testable claims appear to be false. Would you care to name some testable beliefs that you think are true, I can follow with some that are false.

Sound good ... please tell us about the false stuff in the gospels .

 

[Colt]

Popularity doesn't not mean something is true.
The I Ching, Epic of Gilamesh (used in Genesis), Republic, Iliad and Odyssey, Karma Sutra, Art of War, all changed billions of lives.

Islam will catch up to Christianity by 2060 in terms of members, doesn't mean it's true. It means it's popular and contains some good stories and morals. Christianity is an evangelist movement, they actively try to populate countries and convert people. This accounts for it's spread. None of that makes the supernatural stories true.
Not telling lies and being non-judgmental is good advice. It existed before Judaism and the Bible is a combination of Jewish, Mesopotamian, Egyptian wisdom and the NT is a newer Judaism and Persian, Greek and Roman wisdom. It packages it into one book so it contains a large amount of material. Wisdom is not given by Gods, it's figured out by people.
That is why so many other sources were used in scripture.

Islam believes in and accepts the spiritual truths taught by Jesus. They may not believe in or understand his office, but they have a heck of a lot more respect for Jesus then the Atheists!

So, we can add Islam and Christianity together as being loyal to God as they understand God!

 

[Augustus]

If you mean historical scholarship, the opinions have largely changed. Your knowledge needs updating, if you care about truth.

This demonstrates the peer-reviewed work from several historians, why you continue to think it's all Carrier.....is a mystery?

I am pointing out that you seem only to be using Carrier as a basis for your posts where you assume he is being fair and balanced with the evidence, rather than polemical.

You seem to just be taking his word for it rather than caring about "the truth".

The idea that it is a cut and blow dried fabrication and all real scholars accept this, and the only people who disagree are apologists is simply false. Even if you personally believe it to be a forgery (as some but not most scholars do), it is dishonest to present this as accepted historical fact.

This is from one of the scholars Carrier himself cites in support of his position, published in 2016 so you can't say "but Carrier says anything before 2014 is wrong"...


Along somewhat similar lines, Bardet has argued that the passage is unlikely to have been fabricated out of whole cloth in part because its implicit Christology is too archaic and thus too much like Jewish Christianity to have been written by a Christian of the mainstream church after about 150 C.E. (2002, 229–230).

This sort of argument is even more cogent regarding Josephus’s passage about James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200), the authenticity of which is in any case accepted by most contemporary scholars (Feldman 1984, 704–707), than it is regarding the Testimonium. Josephus’s portrait of James, his information about how, why, and when he died, and even about his relationship to Jesus is too different from Christian traditions about James from about 150 C.E. onward, to have been interpolated by a Christian after that date. By the mid‐second century most Christians maintained silence about Jesus’ New Testament brothers altogether. Because of the growth of belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, if Christians from that period mentioned them at all, they used the theologically safe biblical title “brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 9:5); or they qualified the term “brother” with phrases like “said to be”; or they explicitly denied that Jesus had had biological brothers at all by portraying them as stepbrothers or cousins (Whealey 2003, 2–5; 2007, 111–115). This reluctance to openly affirm that Jesus had brothers is incompatible with Christians interpolating a reference to James into Jewish Antiquities 20.200...


By the late twentieth century, the view that the text was partly authentic gained scholarly ground: in part because stylistic studies revealed it to be closer to Josephus’s language than was once assumed, and in part because scholars of the primitive church no longer assume that a Jew of priestly background—like Josephus—could not have written in such a positive way about Jesus or those he attracted. The discovery that a literal Syriac translation of the text containing a phrase parallel to Jerome’s phrase reading “he was believed to be the Christ” reveals that there must once have been a Greek Testimonium with such a reading, and this has played a role in shifting the view that the text is at least partly authentic towards what seems to be a current scholarly consensus, with those scholars maintaining the thesis of complete fabrication becoming a minority, if still a significant one. After four hundred years, the controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum is still alive.

Alice Whealey in A Companion to Josephus


Another one here from 2017:

Recent research on the textual tradition of Latin versions of the Testimonium Flavianum prompts another enquiry into the original text and the transmission of the famous passage. It is suggested here that the Greek/Latin versions highlight a western/eastern early history of the Testimonium and that in turn directs our attention back to the original circumstances of its composition and publication in the city of Rome in the later years of the first century. Restored to its original historical context, the Testimonium emerges as a carefully crafted attack upon the post-Pauline community of Christ-followers in the city....

When Origen came to write his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, he wrote (in commentary on Matthew 13. 54-6 with its reference to the brothers and sisters of Jesus): “...what is extraordinary is that although Josephus did not hold Jesus to be the Christ, he nevertheless witnessed to the righteousness of James.”10

This is clearly a reference to the other famous passage of Antiquities to mention Jesus at 20. 200.11 But if Origen had read the testimonium as we have it, how could he ignore the claims made within it that Origen himself seems to deny to Josephus?12...

All of this explains why, when Josephus came to his second reference to Jesus, the passage in which he mentioned James, he was, naturally enough, even briefer. He had already said all he wanted to say some weeks or months earlier. Feldman rendered it as: “And so he [Ananus the High Priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.”94 But the phrase Feldman has rendered “who was called the Christ” in Greek is legomenou Christou which can of course also be translated by the phrase “the so-called Christ” which is how it is to be read, consonant with the tone of Josephus’ earlier [ἐνομίζετο/ἐπιστεύετο εἶναι] and Jerome’s credebatur.


"To Be or to Be Thought to Be": The Testimonium Flavianum (Again) - John Curran
Novum Testamentum, Vol. 59, Fasc. 1 (2017), pp. 71-94



The problem with issues like this is that when you don't have the technical skills to be able to judge the merits of the arguments themselves, it is very easy to simply think "wow this guy has totally debunked X", then you read another source which says exactly the opposite and you think "wow, this also explains the evidence well".

I used to read a lot of early Islamic history, but reached a point where I had a good understanding of the different debates, but couldn't do much more to establish whose argument were better as they required high level linguistic skills in multiple languages or the ability to judge between minor cultural nuances.

I am always very sceptical of polemical and ideologically biased authors in these circumstances, especially those who seem to have very convenient answers to all of the big questions.

 

[Audie]

Not even that, did you get correct.

Obi wan?

Let's see you say it in plain straight
English. If / when you can't, then
my guess is correct

 

[joelr]

Notice how you keep repeating that false statement, as if you think it will win you something.
No one said that... just you repeating the words, like 50 times now.

It's in your post.

Sounds like the kind of thing you accuse Christians of. We don't know how the universe began, but probably Goddidit.

Not really. There is no God that has been demonstrated to start a universe.
Tacitus had sources.

Where have you been living?
There are thousands of examples of this, but I will give just one.
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
Most scientists agree that, as with many other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely derived from a bat-borne virus transmitted to humans in a natural setting.
In July 2022, two papers published in Science described novel epidemiological and genetic evidence that suggested the pandemic likely began at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and did not come from a laboratory.

Yeah there are examples of this in medical RESEARCH?? There isn't much "likely" in the laws of thermodynamics.

Except we have a problem. What you are arguing against is a strawman. You said this -
"No sir. This is important because this is not the first time you make claims as if they are facts, when they are not." - nPeace

When in fact I was not stating facts. In fact my response was -
"
Wow, listen to those facts..........."we don't know"..................."probably from..."
Yeah, that is NOT A CLAIM THAT SOUNDS AT ALL like a fact."

meaning I did not make claims as if they are facts when they are not. Because I said "likely" and "probably from".

So again, you have twisted what is actually being said into some strawman you can respond to.

That's public knowledge.
When scientists don't know, they make suggestions of what is likely.

Science also deals with empirical evidence, facts, equations and things that can be demonstrated to be true.

...and in case you are not aware, it's against the rules of this forum to call any member a liar, or accuse them of lying.
The next time, I will report it.

So you want to change the context of arguments, then when called out you make threats. Good form. Not.
Also, guess who used the implication of "liar" first???
Post #1297, nPeace - "
No sir. This is important because this is not the first time you make claims as if they are facts, when they are not.
If you really mean what you say, then say what you mean. The double tongue only tends to deceive, and at the same time, promotes the claim."

Please follow the discussion, and consider the context of what is said.
Isolating statement and focusing on that, as a basis of your argument is meaningless.
If I said, whale evolution is regarded as the best evidence for the theory of evolution, would you think I believed it, or was using it as a basis for a belief?
if you ignore the context, certainly you would, but that would show you didn't care what I was actually saying, but cared only about looking for something you could try to argue against... wouldn't it.

You are talking around the point, explain what you are trying to say please.

Well according to what's staring you in the face, this is just a whole lot of flap.

That's funny, last time I posted several different historical consensus opinions, with evidence, all you could do was remark about how it was too many sources or some junk. You had no argument whatsoever. Yet now some imaginary revelation is staring me in the face, yet you can't seem to say one word about it?

The most detailed records of Jesus' existence - the four Gospels and other New Testament writings, are borne out by later non-Christian sources which corroborate portions of those New Testament records, and none of this is evidence?

The Gospels,

All Gospels are re-writes of Mark, as demonstrated by the Synoptic Problem. Bible.org uses Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction to outline 8 arguments (some multi-part) as to how we know the Markan Priority is the solution (Mark is the source Gospel).

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as...

bible.org

PhD Mark Goodacre has firmly locked this down with his studies on the issue:

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

This Synoptic Problem Web Site is the home page for Q sceptics. It expounds the Farrer Theory, which maintains Markan Priority but dispenses with Q. Its author, Mark Goodacre is Lecturer in New Testament at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

markgoodacre.org

His evidence is vast and unrefutable.

Acts is the biggest work of fiction ever, scholars Thomas Brodie, Dennis McDonald, Burton Mack and other journal papers are summed up here and demonstrate the source material Acts uses -

The Book of Acts as Historical Fiction

Previously, I wrote a series of posts that mentioned several elements from Richard Carrier’s historical/literary analysis of the Gospels in the New Testament (showing that they are not histor…

lagevondissen.wordpress.com

and of course the peer-reviewed Mystery of Acts, Unraveling it's Story by Richard Purvoe has given excellent evidence

The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story: Richard I. Pervo: 9781598150124: Amazon.com: Books

The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story [Richard I. Pervo] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story

www.amazon.com

This is Pervo's amazing, clear, and unsullied conclusion to his long and magnificent scholarship on Acts. Pervo's conclusion is stunning because it is won by impeccable scholarship and thorough consideration of the traditional views of Luke as historian. It changes the picture of Christian beginnings, and should change the minds of New Testament scholars. --Burton Mack, Professor of Religion and Early Christianity, emeritus Claremont Graduate University

Pervo writes with verve and has a commanding knowledge of the literature on Acts, and his assessment of the theological intent of Acts is informative. --The Bible Today
This is the most important book I have read in five years. Bravo Pervo! Summarizing the discoveries made during the writing of his magisterial commentary on Acts, this little book makes it wonderfully clear that there is little if anything of historical value in the book of Acts, apart from what it can tell us about the community that wrote it. In one fell swoop, the only basis of support for the traditional model of Christian origins has been eliminated.


The 7 authentic Epistles know of no earthly Jesus, family, ministry, disciples, miracles. In fact Mark uses the Epistles to create stories for Jesus.
In the Epistles Jesus tells Paul to tell future Christians he is the body and blood.....in Mark it becomes an actual supper, with people and real bread.
Mark scores 19 out of21 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale, re-uses the Kings narrative, Psalms, Romulus and other works of fiction to create a Jesus story.


All other historians are late and do not verify a Jesus. They verify people believed the stories in the 2nd century.

Like the Hindu text , the Quran and Mormon text this is evidence of a religion with fictive beings.

 

[Audie]

The author of spiderman was not trying to report what actually happebed.

The authors of the gospels (and paul) honestly and sincerely belived that they where reporting was what really happened.

This is why your spiedrman claim fails.




People are unlikely to lie, if such lie goes against their purpose.

This is true almost by definition,


My hypothesis is that you dont really understand the criteria of embaeazment (feel free to provecme wrong)

And you " know" this sincere belief stuff

Paul really believed that absurd snake story.

Droll

 

[joelr]

Even the critics' most loved scholar, professor Bart Ehrman says the collection of snippets from non-Christian sources - Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome; Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews; Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan - may not impart much information about the life of Jesus, “but it is useful for realizing that Jesus was known by historians who had reason to look into the matter. No one thought he was made up.” Yet the critic would fight tooth and nail, to deny such. Triple Lol.

Seems the critics have convenient times for evidence.

Bart Ehrman believes there was a human Rabbi later mythicized as a savior demigod. He has a book on it, How Jesus Became God.


Mythicism or historicity, either way both say the Gospel narratives are Hellenistic/Persian/Jewish fiction. So does the evidence.

I don't wear glasses. Not sure if you do, but that doesn't say the the best historian.
It says... one regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.

Wow that's so different. Not your best point. Sorry, not your greatest point.

Moreover, the bold clearly does not say nPeace thinks Tacitus is the best historian.
Maybe it has nothing to do with vision. Thinking ability? Honesty? The ability to listen to, and follow a discussion?
I don't know. You tell me.

Wow, so everything in everyone's post must begin with "joelr thinks......."


Mr complain about lies is now all about ad-hom, look at you go. Rules? Not for you.

Made up human? No. Not according to the records on hand.

What records? The Gospels full of myth and improbable supernatural legends based on Hellenism, Persian myth and Judaism?
Of the far later historical mentions that refer to people who buy into the stories?

Maybe more borrowed than made up. But still made up.

Demigod in the story? Which story? Certainly not the Biblical account. No.

So when a Supreme God impregnates a mortal woman, the divine baby is a demigod. Sound familiar?


dem·i·god


the offspring of a god and a mortal,

Irrelevant, and has nothing to do with me, or this thread.
Oh, I see. You create imaginary arguments to argue against.

Tacitus is real. People use him to suggest Jesus was real. Argument = real.

Your posts on this thread says otherwise. ...and I believe that's why you haven't answered my question.

Odd, you cannot seem to explain which and how? If I ever see a question I haven't answered I may answer it. I would love to see a hard question from an apologist, that would be something new. Knock yourself out. I like hard questions, I'll learn something new. Which happens when you don't assume you have the truth based on faith, anecdotes and make believe evidence.

Carrier as in singular?

I'm talking about scholars, and you are telling me about one. Lol

In these posts right now so far I have mentioned 7 scholars. To which you will hand wave off and pretend like you, answersinGenesis and church leaders know more than scholars who spend their life specializing in one aspect of the Bible, learning all original source languages, understanding all extra-biblical evidence, reading hundreds/thousands of peer-reviewed journals and books and more.

As if I've forgotten you raise long debunked points, I post the scholarship that suggests it's not true and you run away. Later you say I posted too many sources. Or you attack the historicity and archaeology field.

Hmm. Seems you are just blurting out stuff, with no clear basis for doing so.
Something is not a lie, if you attach a probability to it.
For example, the judge would question both your credibility, and education, if you, in court said, "Thats a lie Donald Trump! You probably stole the money!"

No actually the judge would want to know what the evidence said. He would assess the source and credibility of the evidence and if he found out I believed Trump stole money on "faith", confirmation bias and anecdotal legends written by non-eyewitnesses many decades later mirroring common trends of stories about political figures stealing money, he would decide the accusation was a bunch of fiction.


Case dismissed.

Yes, I know, one tends to get all emotional when they don't want to accept something they don't want to believe, and spent years arguing against.

I'll believe anything that is true and has evidence to warrant belief. I'm not emotional because Islam, Christianity and other religions don't have any evidence or even reason to believe as true. I would like to believe true things. Not things that I want to be true.

You know nothing about me, so your slander is meaningless... especially as the discussion is not about me.

That isn't slander. If someone was in Mormonism and they did the same, ignored any evidence against it, and said they had the true updates to Christianity and only accepted information that supported their beliefs would you not say they do not care about what is actually true?

How can you possibly think that, when faith follows knowledge. Faith cannot exist without knowledge, so you either don't know what you are saying, or you are just blurting out your feeling... which in either case, is basically the same thing.

Of course I know what I'm saying. Use Islam. Many people learn knowledge about Islam and then have faith. Same with Mormons.


The knowledge is flawed. No different with Christianity. You go to an evangelical church, they are trained in manipulation and emotional connection.

Bible & Dead Sea Scholar DR Kipp Davis

2:17

The problem is, apologetics has always started from the conclusion. Give a defense for the reason and the hope you have within you, so you are already starting with an answer and backing the truck up and loading it up with whatever you can find to satisfy that answer…the right questions and answers that conform to the answer.


I hope everybody can appreciate how flawed that approach is, As soon as you take that approach to history, literature, ancient text, science, you have already prejudiced yourself. Even unintelligently you are going to overlook things that don’t conform to the answer you already adopted.


6:45 When it comes to studying the history of the religion, you will NEVER find someone who started as a non-believer, went through this rigorous process of answering questions about the text and the history and came out the other side saying “maybe the text has this right”…..that has never happened.


The opposite happens often. Kipp Davis was an evangelical Christian.

Always. Do you?

You have arguments? When are you making them?

You did.

I see no question. Clearly there is no question or you would have written it right here.

 

[joelr]

You can read about it here.

Rankled by Wrangling over Rank-Raglan Rankings: Jesus and the Mythic Hero Archetype | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

What you'll read is that Jesus ranks an optimistic 4 on the scale. With extreme optimism it's a 9. That's a huge difference from 20, and Carrier adjusted the Rank-Raglan scale reducing its precision to permit the exaggerated 20 similarities. Carrier responds ( link below ) with name calling. That's pretty much it. He admits to changing the scale, but doesn't say much about why or how he did it. Only something like "prove that that the scale's wrong, you Christian apologist!" Changing it isn't the problem really. It's changing it, but at the same time leaning on the reputation of the original list.

McGrath on the Rank-Raglan Mythotype • Richard Carrier Blogs

Yesterday I addressed McGrath’s confused critique of portions of On the Historicity of Jesus (in McGrath on OHJ: A Failure of Logic and Accuracy). He has also published a second entry in what promises to be a series about OHJ, this one titled “Rankled by Wrangling over Rank-Raglan Rankings...

www.richardcarrier.info

It would be true to say, "According to Carrier's self-developed list of mythical qualities, Carrier has determined that Jesus is a myth like Hercules and many others." OK. Carrier made up his own ranking system. That's true. It has much less impact than claiming "Jesus scores 20 points out of 22 on the Rank-Raglan scale." because saying that implies some sort of non-biased accounting. And this ignores the more serious problem, claiming Jesus scores 20 out of 22 is a lie. And it's an easily discoverable lie.

The most serious problem, beyond the original exaggeration, beyond the easily discoverable lie, is doubling down on the lie. If you scroll down into the comments on Carrier's blog post, you'll see he claims that Moses is a Rank-Raglan myth. Ummm, wot? I counted 5 points on the scale, and I was being optmistic with my counting. If the argument for mythicism REQUIRES reducing precision, lying about the metrics, and then doubling down and personally attacking critics of the theory...

Carrier gives Jesus a 14 in Mark and a 20 in Matthew. Overall I can see 19.
I know less about Moses, just that he's also a literary character most likely .

Doesn't that indicate the argument for mythicism is weak???? Why not just skip the lie, skip the exaggerated metric? If the argument can't survive without it, that means something.

No, the RR scale is just establishing prior-probability along with other elements, the amount of fabrication of religious stories, the hero narrative, the Romulus narrative and a few others.

Lastly, now that it's known Carrier is a liar. Why should anyone take him seriously? Everything he says is suspect. It needs independent known-good reliable sources for verification. And if that's the case, why should anyone spend any time reading Carrier's opinion's, if they have another known-good reliable source? I suppose if they don't have any other source, but, then Carrier is still an unreliable liar.

So an apologist PhD doesn't agree? That doesn't make him a liar? I see 19 being possible, but I'm not an expert.

If YOU consider yourself a rational person, do you still consider Carrier reliable? If so why? You just made an argument against Christians who deny evidence put in front of their face. I put the evidence in front your face before about this scale. Now I just did it again with PHD support. What are you going to do? Are you going to deny it? Ignore it?

Please reply.

You did jack. There are plenty of PhD apologists and fundamentalists who think every story in scripture is literally true.
Shall I reference a historical PhD Kipp Davis explaining why we cannot trust apologists?
Do not bother telling me apologists don't agree with Carrier. Carrier is correct McGrath has not even read ch 5, he says - "I will focus on his use of the “Rank-Raglan Scale” as a tool which he claims will allow one to evaluate the probability of Jesus’ historicity."

No, it's one of several tools that determine prior-probability. I agree it sounds like he also didn't read ch 6.

If I thought Carrier was lying I would message him and ask him if he would explain the lie

 

[joelr]

LOL. As if that actually exists. EXACTLY like the lives of half dozen earlier mythical man gods? Yeah right. An ordinary rational person would be ignoring that statement. It's too exaggerated. Come back to earth Mr. Thrillobyte. Come put your feet on the ground and come out of the clouds...

LOL. As if that actually exists. EXACTLY like the lives of half dozen earlier mythical man gods? Yeah right. An ordinary rational person would be ignoring that statement. It's too exaggerated. Come back to earth Mr. Thrillobyte. Come put your feet on the ground and come out of the clouds...

Don't worry Mr Thrillobyte, sometimes people like to get all internet tough. Jesus is similar to many Greek deities. You can read about this in David Litwas latest

Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God​

Or we can listen to a 2nd century apologist admitting it's completely true (but the devil did it)


Chapter 69. The devil, since he emulates the truth, has invented fables about Bacchus, Hercules, and Æsculapius





Justin: Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? But since I have not quoted to you such Scripture as tells that Christ will do these things, I must necessarily remind you of one such: from which you can understand, how that to those destitute of a knowledge of God, I mean the Gentiles, who, 'having eyes, saw not, and having a heart, understood not,' worshipping the images of wood, [how even to them] Scripture prophesied that they would renounce these [vanities], and hope in this Christ. It is thus written:


Rejoice, thirsty wilderness: let the wilderness be glad, and blossom as the lily: the deserts of the Jordan shall both blossom and be glad: and the glory of Lebanon was given to it, and the honour of Carmel. And my people shall see the exaltation of the Lord, and the glory of God. Be strong, you careless hands and enfeebled knees. Be comforted, you faint in soul: be strong, fear not. Behold, our God gives, and will give, retributive judgment. He shall come and save us. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear. Then the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be distinct: for water has broken forth in the wilderness, and a valley in the thirsty land; and the parched ground shall become pools, and a spring of water shall [rise up] in the thirsty land. Isaiah 35:1-7


The spring of living water which gushed forth from God in the land destitute of the knowledge of God, namely the land of the Gentiles, was this Christ, who also appeared in your nation, and healed those who were maimed, and deaf, and lame in body from their birth, causing them to leap, to hear, and to see, by His word. And having raised the dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled the men who lived at that time to recognise Him. But though they saw such works, they asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician, and a deceiver of the people. Yet He wrought such works, and persuaded those who were [destined to] believe in Him; for even if any one be labouring under a defect of body, yet be an observer of the doctrines delivered by Him, He shall raise him up at His second advent perfectly sound, after He has made him immortal, and incorruptible, and free from grief.


Chapter 70. So also the mysteries of Mithras are distorted from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah

ustin: And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words? ........
And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so please ether grant or refute the argument

The fact that the authors of the gospels reported real historical people (whose existence can be verified) strongly suggest that the authors where ether witnesses or had access to good reliable sources.

The implication is that the authors where in a possition to know if jesus was a real physical person or not.

No, that is an assumption on your part. I do not know of any book in the New Testament where the writer of it knew Jesus. There might be an obscure work, but it does not appear to be that way if one studies the Bible. The fact that you are Spidermanning the Bible is still a refutation.

No idea what are you talking about.

Oh, that is how you tell us that you have never studied the Bible without openly stating that you have never studied the Bible. The birth date in Luke is roughly ten years after the birth date in Matthew.

 

[Colt]

IMOP and FWIW from the Urantia revelation:

PREVIOUS WRITTEN RECORDS​

121:8.1 As far as possible, consistent with our mandate, we have endeavored to utilize and to some extent co-ordinate the existing records having to do with the life of Jesus on Urantia. Although we have enjoyed access to the lost record of the Apostle Andrew and have benefited from the collaboration of a vast host of celestial beings who were on earth during the times of Michael's bestowal (notably his now Personalized Adjuster), it has been our purpose also to make use of the so-called Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

121:8.2 These New Testament records had their origin in the following circumstances:


121:8.3 1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew, briefest, and most simple record of Jesus' life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter's death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter's memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew's and Matthew's notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.

121:8.4 2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master's life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus' life that much which he did was that "it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet." Matthew's Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.

121:8.5 The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew's personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.

121:8.6 Matthew's original record was edited and added to in A.D. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in A.D. 416.
121:8.7 Isador escaped from Jerusalem in A.D. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew's notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark's narrative.

121:8.8 3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master's life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the "grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as "the friend of publicans and sinners." He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul's death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the "Acts of the Apostles."
121:8.9 As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus' life as Paul had related it to him. Luke's Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus' life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark's Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador's narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.

121:8.10 4. The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus' work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as "First John" was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.

121:8.11 All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul's theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Urantia for almost two thousand years." Urantia Book 1955

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obi wan?

Let's see you say it in plain straight
English. If / when you can't, then
my guess is correct

No, a Yodaism that was.