There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Thrillobyte]

That is funny, woudl you support that claim?

BTW what exactly do you mean by Credible Scholar?

"Scholars explain that the gospels were created as documents of faith, not documents of history. They were not written as accurate historical biographies of the human Jesus who lived and died in the first century of the Common Era (CE). The gospels are more a record of the early church’s beliefs about Jesus than a true historical record of what Jesus actually said and did."

documents of faith, not history

Following Jesus calls us to become troublemakers, revolutionaries, seekers of change, and agents of transformation for justice and peace in the world.

followingjesus.org

"[The gospels] are not, nor were they ever meant to be, a historical documentation of Jesus’s life. They are testimonies of faith composed by communities of faith and written many years after the events they describe.

Apologetics: Were the Gospels Meant to Be Taken as Historical Testimony? - Timothy Paul Jones

How do we know if the testimonies preserved about Jesus in the New Testament Gospels were intended to be taken as historical testimony in the first place?

www.timothypauljones.com

I can cite more. Is that enough to convince you?

 

[PureX]

The historicity of the story matters very, very much to many people. Apparently you haven't noticed.

Only to those who have no idea what the story is about, or for, becase they refuse to acknowledge it's real value.

 

[joelr]

If you show that Romulus had the same level of accuracy and detail than the gospels you would have a point

Most myths contain real people and places. Including Greek myths, The Odyssey was even analyzed and is found to have many historical people and places.

"We found substantial evidence of a “real-life” social structure in The Odyssey. Notably, the characters in each chapter or scene described in the poem’s 24 books corresponded almost precisely to cliques in real-life networks. ....
n contrast, the human characters in The Odyssey made connections in ways comparable to people on Facebook today.

As is often the case in fiction, it seems that Homer was not just telling stories but reflecting events and characters that existed in ancient Greece. It underlines the historical importance of his writings, and also raises the possibility of using the same technique to evaluate other historical works. It is surely only a matter of time, for instance, before someone uses complex networks theory on the Bible."

How we showed Homer’s Odyssey is not pure fiction, with a little help from Facebook

Analyse the great quest of Odysseus with a little 21st-century know how and it’s fascinating what you find out.

theconversation.com

Romulus has similar details in the death and resurrection narrative.
The exact amount to which myth is used is not know, here is no historical record of Mary as the mother of Jesus and the same goes for many of the characters.
The only 2 surviving Inanna myths both feature real life Kings, one who stole the throne from the author.

None of this lends credibility that a Greek myth is true. It's already known that myths combine real places and people.

As for Roswell, yes it can be stablished as fact that a strage flyig object crashed near that City. Weather if it was an alien or not is a narrer of how people interpreted their observations.

Yes but the actual evidence shows it was man-made. The actual evidence from the Gospels shows it was also man-made fiction.

In the sane way we can stablish as historical fact that jesus did stuff that some people interpreted as miracles

You can never establish any of those stories. They change details as each author re-writes them and there is no outside verification. Miracles were very common in these myths. 1st century apologist Justin Martyr said in an apology that the miracles were just like the miracles of an older Greek deity Esculapius. Clear indication Jesus was the Jewish version of this complete and fictional mythology.
Justin was just attempting to pull off "well the devil went back in time and made Greek deities do the same as Jesus to fool all you Christians" apology. Obviously we can now see this is a lame attempt at explaining why the authors copied older myths.
Unless you want to go with the " the devil made it look that way"?
But that doesn't get you far because that also falls far short of having evidence or being likely at all.


"
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? "


So yes. we can establish the stuff jesus did that people interpreted as miracles were actually just stories that were written TO BE MIRICLES because Hellenistic savior demigods are supposed to do them.

 

[joelr]

Then your atheism is also "People like to follow stories and be in groups and believe in things that make them feel good".

No, atheism is a non-belief in fictional beings like Krishna, Jesus and Mithras.

If you think religion is an opiate for the masses, then it's not the religion of Jesus of Nazareth!

No I think that religion is very popular which would definitely make it one of the religions Marx was talking about as being an opiate for the masses. He wasn't like "oh but not Christianity"....in fact I think he was talking about Christianity the most.
There is very little original material in there, you talk about it like it's some revolution and it cannot possibly be what Marx was talking about?

Yes, it was.

 

[joelr]

Ramayana is an epic poem, so by the literary genera of the text, we know that the author was not even trying to report actual history, and the readers knew that they were not reading actual history. But rather a myth.

So for that reason the text is no analogues the gospels.

I don’t know if the Mahabarata has the same issue or not but my position stands

1 if the text was written by well-informed people

and

2 the authors had the intend to report what they thought really happen

Then the text is reliable (not perfect) but realible and should be taken as truth unless god reasons for the opposite are provided.

Quite frankly my position is almost a tautology obviously if the author is well informed and is “trying” to report the truth, then almost by definition the text has to be reliable.

And for a similar reason the source Gospel is not intended to be history, by the standards of historical text of the time.
The Gospels fail to show any substantive content of being actual researched histories. Nowhere in the Gospels do they ever name their sources of information, nor do they read as eye witness testimonies (nor do they identify themselves as such), nor is it mentioned why any sources used would be accurate to rely upon. The authors never discuss any historical method used, nor do they acknowledge how some contents may be less accurate than others, nor do they mention alternate possibilities of the events given the limited information they had from their sources. They never express amazement or any degree of rational skepticism no matter how implausible an event within the story may be — something we would expect from any rational historian (even one living in antiquity). The authors never explain why they changed what their sources said, nor do they even acknowledge that they did such a thing in the first place — despite the fact that Matthew and Luke clearly relied on Mark as a source and then they all redacted Mark’s version as needed to serve their own literary and theological purposes.
Instead, the Gospels appear to be fictional historical biographies, likely written by specially interested Christians whose intent was to edify Jesus, just like many other fictional historical biographies that were made for various heroes and sages in antiquity. In fact, all students of literary Greek (the authors of the Gospels wrote their manuscripts in literary Greek), commonly used this fictional biographical technique as a popular rhetorical device — where they were taught to invent narratives about famous and legendary people, as well as to build a symbolic or moral message within it, and where they were taught to make changes to traditional stories in order to make whatever point they desired within their own stories.
They contain characteristics of myth:
emulation of previous myth
historical improbabilities
magic/miracles
unrealistic human behavior
amazing coincidences
no external corroboration
most myths do contain some real historical places and people that surround a central mythical character

The Barabbas/Jesus story is an allegory for Yom Kippur. One bears the sins of Israel figuratively the other literally.
Barabbas means "Son of the Father".
Mark uses Psalms, Amos and other OT stories to create a narrative
Jesus resurrects a girl in a rewrite of Elisha in 2 Kings. Elisha is sought out, found, they fall fall to his feet, begs for magical help, and a resurrection happens. Same with Jesus.

Like with Homer the archetype of the dense lackeys is played out with Jesus' followers.

The literary devices are too many to name. Mark crafts nested cycles using ring composition in triadic cycles for the sea journey.
There are other cycles and journeys in chiastic arrangement which would never happen in real life.

The narrated miracles also form two matching sequences of five miracles each.
There is an incredibly well crafted chiastic ring structure surrounding the sea narrative
Jesus’ Baptism is taken from the Passover Narrative.
There are over 20 close parallels to the Jesus ben Ananias story as found in Josephus’ writings.



All of this can be expanded upon. I haven't even mentioned the reliance on the Epistles, the Hellenistic theology, meeting the four trends found in Hellenistic religion from P Pakkens work and it's not eye-witness at all but the author is anonymous.

In fact taking the Gospels literal was not the original point or what was done. There was a literalist movement

"
Hailed as 'fascinating', the 'substantial commentary' on the gospels by the fourth-century African-born bishop, Fortunatianus of Aquileia, offers a rare insight into how the earliest Christians read the Bible.

Dr Hugh Houghton, a New Testament scholar at the University of Birmingham, told Christian Today the 100-page manuscript proves ancient Christians were more focused on the spiritual view than literal interpretations of the Bible."

Historians make reference to this often, that the literal reading did not start until some later point in time.


Dr Carrier on the Gospels historicity
"The Gospels generally afforded us no evidence whatever for discerning a historical Jesus. Because of their extensive use of fabrication and literary invention and their placing of other goals far ahead of what we regard as "historical truth", we cannot know if anything in them has any historical basis - except what we can verify externally, which for Jesus is next to nothing. They are simply myths about Jesus and the gospel. They are not seriously researched biographies or historical accounts - and are certainly not eyewitness testimonies or even collected hearsay. Their literary art and structure are simply too sophisticated for that."

 

[Colt]

No, atheism is a non-belief in fictional beings like Krishna, Jesus and Mithras.

No I think that religion is very popular which would definitely make it one of the religions Marx was talking about as being an opiate for the masses. He wasn't like "oh but not Christianity"....in fact I think he was talking about Christianity the most.
There is very little original material in there, you talk about it like it's some revolution and it cannot possibly be what Marx was talking about?

Yes, it was.

Atheists, as promoted by believers in the doctrine of materialism, is a form of faith in a Godless universe. Its also a kind of opiate to the spiritually lazy.

 

[joelr]

No. That's not how it worked back then. The bloodline of David is does not automatically convey royalty. Neither of the Jeroboams, Nadav, Baasha, Omri, Ahab are examples of royals who were not in the tribe of Judah. So the lineage does not make Mary royal.

And mary as mother of god, doesn't convey royalty either. She's just a concubine. You'd need something that describes her as God's bride or a queen.

Myth -wise it's exactly fitting. A God impregnates a virgin. Mother of God seems to be royalty. I cannot find anything that claims Mary is not the Queen of Heaven.

No. He's not a literal king. See, you just flip-flopped between literal to metaphorical? If Mary is *literally* the mother of God. Then Jesus is literally not a king.

Yeah, its a myth. You can be a metaphorical king? You know it's just a story right? It's made up. The question is were the writers following common mythic tropes? Not "was Matthew weighing the fact that some of this royalty might not be literal?" Except it is literal if you read the myth as true.

Those beasty names are not in the gospels. And Jesus does not defeat satan in any sort of battle. If satan were actually defeated, like a dragon or a giant in the other myths, satan would not continue to be problem in the story. There would be no demon possessions in the story after Matthew 4. This is stretching far beyond what was intended in the RR scale.

Jesus defeated the devil in several ways. He destroys him here. And Satan isn't a problem for those who buy the story.....
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Hebrews 2:14

Not in Luke it isn't.

It fits. In Mark there is not even a birth. Matthew invents a nativity and Luke gives a story of teen years. But his childhood is not part of the story.

Someone wrote an entire infancy Gospel as well, if you find all 40 Gospels you can probably find all sorts of add-ons.

No. that is reducing the precision again.

View attachment 78792

Here's what I found on that story you referenced:

​

The servant took the baby away, onto a hilltop, but he could not kill the innocent child. He left Oedipus instead with a shepherd, who brought him across the mountains to the king of Corinth. This king claimed the boy and raised him as his own.​

So, Oedipus was kidnapped, taken, and snatched away. "Sprited away" and given to someone else who raised him. Jesus was not kidnapped, snatched, and taken away, being raised by someone else. Again, the actual details and differences are ignored.

In English, to "spirit away" means to remove without anyone's noticing.

The story fits this exactly. Run away without anyone knowing as to avoid a murder following you.

As I showed you above, they are being stretched to the point of the RR scale not being the RR scale anymore. And the details about Oedipus are being ignored. and there's flipping and flopping between literal and metaphor.

I didn't see any such thing above. I'm sure Oedipus is also a myth.

No. All I said was IF, the RR is needed and the RR is being exaggerated, THEN the argument is weak. The RR is being exaggerated, obviously. And there's cherry picking of only 1 gospel. So, the question is, does the mythicist argument require the RR scale or not.

If not, why include it if it is exaggerating and chery picking? That's a question.

It isn't exaggerating is the answer.

Cool. I would very much like to see what elements in the review rendered that judgement.

Here's what I'm focused on:

"And so Carrier’s claim about Jesus getting a nearly perfect score seems to be simply false"

and here's the main point of the review:

"Is the scale useful for determining historicity?

It seems to me, in view of the evidence surveyed above, that the answer to this question is clearly “no.” The scale was not designed to determine historicity. Its folklorist users show little or no interest in the attempt to do what historians do, namely peeling back layers of myth in search of underlying history, if there is any. The Rank-Raglan scale does not seem, contrary to Carrier’s claim, to consistently fit figures who were definitely not historical better than ones who certainly were. And so Carrier’s attempt to use the scale to slant his calculations of probability in the direction of the non-historicity of Jesus are at best unpersuasive, and at worst deliberately misleading."

So, McGrath brought 2 arguments, both are valid. 1) The "nearly perfect score' is false. 2) The RR scale was not intended nor does it accomplish what Carrier wants to use it for, which is increasing the odds of non-historicity / a complete myth. The method for doing this is bringing many counter-examples.

And this leads to my question which is, why is the RR scale used at all? It brings more doubt than certainty.

Here's the link.

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

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

I thought we did this already? McGrath seems to have not read Carriers ...anything? I need to get caught up and read the interviews and responses below.

I have read his main book and RR is one small part, ch4-5 deals with things used for prior probability. Each thing is expanded upon, sometimes for many pages with examples, sources and longer explanations of why it's used. Not included on the list is the rest of the evidence, Gospels, Acts, Epistles, historians, any other extra-biblical writings, comparative religion and other Jewish/Christian scripture.


Prior probability considerations, 3 groups:


RR comes from the chapter on the background of Christianity. There are several elements considered in 3 parts, each with a long detailed discussion-

Background of Christianity


1)Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse


2)When Christianity began Jews had been long expecting a messiah.


3)In the 1st century Palestine was experiencing a rash of messianism


5)Before Christianity some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed


6)The suffering and dying servant of Isaiah 52/Daniel 9 may already have been seen by some Jews as the same person. Connections with a man in Zac 3 and 6 named "Jesus Rising" who is confronted by Satan in God's abode in heaven and there crowned king, holds office of high priest, will build up God's house. The name is Branch/Rising, not literally "Jesus".


7)Pre-Christian book of Daniel, a key messianic text, laid out much of what would happen


8) Messianic sects of Jews were often practicing searching the scriptures for secret messages or pesherism


9) Pesherism back then was using different texts and variants than we have today


10)Early messianic cults who came to believe a certain Jesus was an eschatological Christ and was already a preexistent being


11)The earliest form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion. Four trends given last post


12)Like all mystery religions Christianity had secret documents that initiates were sworn to never reveal


13)Mystery cults spoke of their beliefs in public through myth and allegory, which symbolized a more secret doctrine


14)Christianity began as a charismatic cult where visions, dreams, voices were divine communications


15) Earliest Christians knew some facts from revelation and Paul claimed this was a more reliable source Rom 16.25-26


16) The fundamental features of the gospel story can be read out of Jewish scripture. The Gospel may have been discovered and learned from scripture


17)Paul did not know a living Jesus


18)Earliest Christians proselytized Gentiles but required them to convert to Judaism.Paul was the first to discard this. Paul is never able to cite the authority of a living Jesus


19)PAul and others attest there were many rival sects


20)We have no record of what happened between 64 and 95 CE




Then another chapter of context background information


1)Incarnate sons/daughters of a god who died and rose to become living gods granting salvation to their followers were a common peculiar feature. of Pagan religion when Christianity arose


2)Cynicism, Stoicism and Platonism influenced Christian teachings.


3)Christianity is a syncretism of pagan and Jewish salvation ideology. Influences from Pharisees, R. Hillel, Essenes, Baptists


4)Popular cosmology held the sub-heavens, the firmament, was a region of corruption, change, decay while the heavens were pure, changeless.


Paul uses this Platonic view.


5)Because of this division religious cosmologies required intercessory beings, who bridge the gap between worlds.


6) In this cosmology there were 2 Adams, one perfect celestial version of which the earthly version is just a copy. The first Christians appear to have connected their Jesus to that original celestial Adam. (Revelation of Moses, Philo- On the Creation of the World)


7)The "son of man" was another being forseen in the visions of Enoch to be a preexistent celestial superman whom God will one day put in charge of the universe.


8)A parallel tradition of a perfect celestial priest named Melchizedek.


9)voluntary human sacrifice was seen by pagans and Jews as the most powerful salvation and atonement magic available.



Literary context


1) Fabricating stories was the norm


2)euhemerization - taking a cosmic God and placing him at a specific point in history, trending


3)hero narratives, 20 ways Jesus matches these


4)Ascension to Godhood tale common in pagan religions


5)Romulus narrative and Jesus share 20 parallels

6)RR hero type. covered here.

In Which James McGrath Reveals That He Is a Fundamentalist Who Has Never Read Any Contemporary Scholarship in His Field​

In Which James McGrath Reveals That He Is a Fundamentalist Who Has Never Read Any Contemporary Scholarship in His Field • Richard Carrier Blogs

The title of this article is a joke. Sort of. But maybe not as much as you think. As I’ll show. Because James McGrath has added another entry to his bizarrely uninformed critique of On the Historicity of Jesus, and this time is the most dishonest of the bunch. For to get the result he wants, he...

www.richardcarrier.info

McGrath on OHJ: A Failure of Logic and Accuracy​

McGrath on OHJ: A Failure of Logic and Accuracy • Richard Carrier Blogs

In preparation for my upcoming defense of On the Historicity of Jesus at the SBL regional meeting, I’ve set aside time to publicly summarize my take on James McGrath’s critique of (parts of) the book for Bible & Interpretation: “Did Jesus Die in Outer Space? Evaluating a Key Claim in Richard...

www.richardcarrier.info

James McGrath Gets Everything Wrong (Again)​

James McGrath Gets Everything Wrong (Again) • Richard Carrier Blogs

Just this month Bible scholar James McGrath, whose incompetence and dishonesty I have documented several times now (example, example, example, example), posted a really foolish attempt to critique Bayesian history on his blog. Titled Jesus Mythicism: Two Truths and a Lie, McGrath aims to expose...

www.richardcarrier.info

Lataster v. McGrath: Jesus Must Be Real…Because, Reasons​

Lataster v. McGrath: Jesus Must Be Real...Because, Reasons • Richard Carrier Blogs

With my move back to California and so much else going on I haven’t had time to closely read several books I want to review here, including Raphael Lataster’s peer reviewed defense of historicity agnosticism regarding Jesus, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (Brill 2019). With my preceding...

www.richardcarrier.info

McGrath on Proving History​

McGrath on Proving History • Richard Carrier Blogs

James McGrath has reviewed my book Proving History. We’ve argued before (e.g. over claims Bart Ehrman made), so there is backstory. But his review is unexpectedly kind and praising at points, and he likes the overall project of explaining the underlying logic of history as fundamentally Bayesian...

www.richardcarrier.info

That Useless McGrath Interview​

That Useless McGrath Interview • Richard Carrier Blogs

I’ve had a lot of queries about what I think of the recent MythVision interview of Christian apologist James McGrath (12 August 2022). I’m kind of over him, to be honest, because he’s had ample chance to honestly engage with the peer-reviewed literature on this, and repeatedly refuses. He never...

www.richardcarrier.info

McGrath on the Amazing Infallible Ehrman​

McGrath on the Amazing Infallible Ehrman • Richard Carrier Blogs

James McGrath responded to my reply to Ehrman’s intemperate and badly worded assault on the theory that Jesus was mythical (McGrath: Responding to Richard Carrier’s Response to Bart Ehrman), and as such represents exactly what is wrong with defenders of historicity: carelessness, post hoc...

www.richardcarrier.info

 

[joelr]

It's cherry picking if Luke is ignored. The entire gospel should be consulted. That's the entire story. Maybe excluding John as an later outlier. But there needs to be reasons for excluding the others and ONLY using Matthew.

Luke is also later and he gave one small section on Jesus at 12. It is not exaggerating in any way to say the childhood of Jesus is a mystery.

If it's not that important, then that's the answer. Internet super-fans of the Jesus-myth-theory should emphasize other things. And Carrier probably shouldn't include it in his arguments / books unless it just filler material. And then when challenged on it, he should admit, "Yeah, that's really not that important, and its not a strong indicator anyway." Instead of "Burn in Hell you APPPPPOLOGISSSSSST".

Maybe you should talk to internet super-fans then.

Maybe you should read the article you linked to several posts ago where Carrier explains he doesn't use RR data to demonstrate non-historicity It's used it to establish a prior probability. Which is not sufficient to demonstrate non-historicity.

And I wonder how closely those actually parallel. I wonder how many differences there are. What's the oldest source of the story you can provide for review?

It's from Plutarch and his sources are given and are pre-Christian.

1)Hero is a son of God
2)Death accompanied by prodigies
3)land covered in darkness
4)hero's corpse goes missing
5)Hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had
6)His resurrection body has a bright and shining appearance
7)After his resurrection he meets with his followers on a road from the city
8)A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending
9)An inspired message of resurrection or translation to heaven. is delivered to a witness
10)There is a great commission (instruction to future followers)
11)Hero physically ascends to heaven in his new divine body
12)He is taken up into a cloud
13)There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witness)
14)Witnesses are frightened by his appearance or disappearance
15)Some witnesses flee
16)Claims are made of "dubious alternative accounts"
17)All of this occurs outside of a nearby city
18)His followers are initially in sorrow over his death
19)But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing
20)The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a God)

Not a king in anyway. Wanna-be-a-king is the proper description. West-side story and romeo and juliet is an archetype. There are many stories like it, because there were many actual "star-crossed lovers" and many actual family/tribal feuds. The Odyssey is an archetype, because there were many actual "heroic" journeys and many actual "rite-of-passage". Finding the common archetype in a story doesn't mean the story is fake.

No, it means it's a common archetype.

Well, you kind of have it right there: "He is also the King who can do something about it. But He exercises His power in a different way than the worldly system."

He's a King, BUT, not like the other kings. Not a worldly king. The RR scale is talking about a literal king. Jesus is not a literal king. The RR scale is about literally being born into royalty. Jesus is not literally born into royalty. The RR scale is talking about literally being kidnapped, snatched, and raised by another. Jesus was not literally spritied away. The RR scale is talking about a literal battle with a giant, beast, dragon, or king. Jesus does not literally battle any of these.

So, one could say, Gospel Jesus is not literally an almost perfect score on the RR scale. It's actually sub-10 out of 22. And if one is including the epistles, then the claim is not about the gospels. It's about a later myth, a myth written about what's in the gospels. And these later adaptations to actual people and actual events happens. That's one of the valid points McGrath makes.

The RR scale, about mythology, often supernatural beings, only means people born into royalty????
Well I don't know where you got that but I guess it's moot because you cannot be born into a bigger royalty than being the son of God.

 

[joelr]

Thank you. I remember watching one of the videos you posted about it. I can't remember the speaker's name, sadly. But I remember 9 points of comparison. And, like I said before to another poster, my objections depend on what is said and how it is said. I do remember thinking while I was watching the video, that at approx the same time in history, though, on the other side of the globe in china similar ideas were being developed. It's just human nature. That doesn't mean ideas were being derived one from another. It's just people being people.

Then you can go to this video:

and at :45 you can see you are completely wrong.


:45 how to spot trends in religions, at that time China, India, Iran did not have these religious concepts, the Mediterranean region did have saviors and similar mythology.

Yes, they're all different, but the dying/rising quest for eternal life is THE important aspect of the story and it's found across the globe from the levant.

The dying/rising demigods is a specific group and trend in the quest for eternal life. Asia and early Greek as well as Sumeria did not have an afterlife. Gods did favors (rain) but you didn't go to Heaven. In India you reincarnated.

Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence.

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier Blogs

Easter this year lands most fittingly on April Fool’s Day. Because indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is akin to the greatest prank in history. Not because anyone actually faked it (though the evidence we have left, remains fully consistent with their having done so: see Robert Price’s chapter...

www.richardcarrier.info

Nezha - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So, the differences are ignored. AND. the similarites in distant cultures are ignored. So.... They can both be myths, but one is not derived from the other. And thats the same with th pagan myths of the Greeks and Romans. Maybe they were derived... maybe they were original.

Hellenistic religion | Ancient Greek Gods, Rituals & Beliefs | Britannica

Hellenistic religion, any of the various systems of beliefs and practices of eastern Mediterranean peoples from 300 bc to ad 300. The period of Hellenistic influence, when taken as a whole, constitutes one of the most creative periods in the history of religions. It was a time of spiritual

www.britannica.com

It's established the Mystery religions are a product of Greek thought.
This shows all the Christian concepts come from Hellenism, a trend sweeping through all religions from 300 BC - 100Ad. This is why the "mystery religions" also had dying/rising sons/daughters of their one true God. Like Judaism they started out using Mesopotamian myths and then adopted Greek and Persian myths as well.

-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his 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.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.

-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme

-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.

-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)

-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century

- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)

-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)

- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries


David Litwa's new book is on this as well. So is Lataster's.
Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion, also writes about this.

 

[joelr]

I often hear people say that if it wasn’t real, people would have said so, but the Bible shows people saying so.

There is some apologetics where they try to weasel out of this but the passage is pretty clear and snuck by. There is a huge blackout of information and writing from late 1st to early 2nd century where all information that would have pointed to this stuff has been erased. So we only get one side.

 

[joelr]

Inanna can change your gender in a heartbeat but Yahweh is confused when Adam can’t reproduce with other animals.

Yeah, Inanna can do it all!

To run, to escape, to quiet and to pacify are yours, Inana. To rove around, to rush, to rise up, to fall down and to ...... a companion are yours, Inana. To open up roads and paths, a place of peace for the journey, a companion for the weak, are yours, Inana. To keep paths and ways in good order, to shatter earth and to make it firm are yours, Inana. To destroy, to build up, to tear out and to settle are yours, Inana. To turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man are yours, Inana. Desirability and arousal, goods and property are yours, Inana. Gain, profit, great wealth and greater wealth are yours, Inana. Gaining wealth and having success in wealth, financial loss and reduced wealth are yours, Inana. Observation (1 ms. has instead: Everything), choice, offering, inspection and approval are yours, Inana. Assigning virility, dignity, guardian angels, protective deities and cult centres are yours, Inana.
6 lines fragmentary

132-154...... mercy and pity are yours, Inana. ...... are yours, Inana. To cause the ...... heart to tremble, ...... illnesses are yours, Inana. To have a wife, ......, to love ...... are yours, Inana. To rejoice, to control (?), ...... are yours, Inana. Neglect and care, raising and bowing down are yours, Inana. To build a house, to create a woman's chamber, to possess implements, to kiss a child's lips are yours, Inana. To run, to race, to desire and to succeed are yours, Inana. To interchange the brute and the strong and the weak and the powerless is yours, Inana. To interchange the heights and valleys and the ...... and the plains (?) is yours, Inana. To give the crown, the throne and the royal sceptre is yours, Inana.
12 lines missing

 

[joelr]

Atheists, as promoted by believers in the doctrine of materialism, is a form of faith in a Godless universe.

Materialism is somewhat false. But we are talking the Newtonian classical reality. The underlying probabilistic quantum field seems to be the true reality. Consciousness may be a quantum phenomenon. And that is it. It's still an unconscious nature. Experiencing probabilities.

Idealism is strongly argued against in the 20th century by modern philosophers.

So the materialism is false argument does not get one to Gods. IF a God was real then there would be some indivisible substance at the God level, right? In which case materialism is true.
But in Quantum mechanics you cannot have that. The the uncertainty principle demonstrates this is true. It's unconscious forces at work.

Its also a kind of opiate to the spiritually lazy.

Belief in Christianity isn't spirituality. Just because you believe in a spirit dimension and people have souls (totally redundant and pointless) and an afterlife for people who find mythic stories worthy of literal belief and hell for those who don't. Nothing to do with spirituallity.
Being good because a cosmic warden is watching isn't spiritual. Avoiding "sin" for fear of hell isn't spiritual.
No more than if I was afraid to cheat on my wife because Zeus would strike me with lightning.

Spirituality is about exploring levels of thinking, philosophy, morality, ...Prostration to a powerful deity on your knees is worshipping a King.
If anything is lazy in spirituality, that is. Buying into a Hellenistic/Persian form of Judaism isn't automatically spiritual.
Read metaphorically, the OT is philosophical and asks questions and induces thought. Taken literal, you miss it all and it's more Zeus worship.

 

[Colt]

Materialism is somewhat false. But we are talking the Newtonian classical reality. The underlying probabilistic quantum field seems to be the true reality. Consciousness may be a quantum phenomenon. And that is it. It's still an unconscious nature. Experiencing probabilities.

Idealism is strongly argued against in the 20th century by modern philosophers.

So the materialism is false argument does not get one to Gods. IF a God was real then there would be some indivisible substance at the God level, right? In which case materialism is true.
But in Quantum mechanics you cannot have that. The the uncertainty principle demonstrates this is true. It's unconscious forces at work.




Belief in Christianity isn't spirituality. Just because you believe in a spirit dimension and people have souls (totally redundant and pointless) and an afterlife for people who find mythic stories worthy of literal belief and hell for those who don't. Nothing to do with spirituallity.
Being good because a cosmic warden is watching isn't spiritual. Avoiding "sin" for fear of hell isn't spiritual.
No more than if I was afraid to cheat on my wife because Zeus would strike me with lightning.

Spirituality is about exploring levels of thinking, philosophy, morality, ...Prostration to a powerful deity on your knees is worshipping a King.
If anything is lazy in spirituality, that is. Buying into a Hellenistic/Persian form of Judaism isn't automatically spiritual.
Read metaphorically, the OT is philosophical and asks questions and induces thought. Taken literal, you miss it all and it's more Zeus worship.

You have articulated exactly what materialism is, the "belief" that the material is all that there is and consciousness merely a phenomenon.

If you were ever spirit born then you would understand what spirituality is.

The amount of effort that you dedicate to denouncing God is an indication that you aren't very secure in your doctrines of doubt?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheists, as promoted by believers in the doctrine of materialism

What is the "doctrine of materialism?"

, is a form of faith in a Godless universe.

If faith is so wonderful, why is it that religious people such as yourself are always trying to use it as an insult against atheists, in some attempt to drag us down to your level? It's bizarre. And quite telling.

This atheist has no use for faith. Faith is not a pathway to truth, as anything can be believed on faith. It's useless to me.

Its also a kind of opiate to the spiritually lazy.

I would say that those who blindly and faithfully follow ancient texts as though they were written by gods are the intellectually lazy ones in this equation.

 

[Colt]

Atheists, as promoted by believers in the doctrine of materialism

What is the "doctrine of materialism?"

, is a form of faith in a Godless universe.

If faith is so wonderful, why is it that religious people such as yourself are always trying to use it as an insult against atheists, in some attempt to drag us down to your level? It's bizarre. And quite telling.

This atheist has no use for faith. Faith is not a pathway to truth, as anything can be believed on faith. It's useless to me.

Its also a kind of opiate to the spiritually lazy.

I would say that those who blindly and faithfully follow ancient texts as though they were written by gods are the intellectually lazy ones in this equation.



*The "belief" that the material is all that there is and consciousness merely a phenomenon.

*Faith is a gift not an insult. If you are confident in your Atheism then why aren't you on an atheist specific forum instead of heckling people here? You provoke people then whine about getting a response that you feel is dragging you down.

*You have belabored that point over and over and over here on this "religious forum"??? Maybe find a hobby?

*You would have a point if that was true! Faith proceeds the search for truth in ancient texts.

*I think RF is a place for you to vent your hatred for people of faith.

BTW, just skip my posts and don't respond.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

These were NOT people that pretended to know the mind or history of God

That's not credible. Their descendants living today are still telling us what God thinks and wants for man. That's what the Bible is for.

the old testament scripture were neither written as nor intended to be used as a historical teaching tool

Also not credible. You seem to see the evolution of religion to be from a more rational perspective to the one we see today, as if they originally understood myth as non-historical, but later became more childlike in their thinking. Fundamentalists want to preserve that original understanding, belief in which has become untenable in modernity and marginalizes its believers. According to the Gospels, Jesus taught that the Flood was a historical fact:

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:38-39)

The OT was explicitly written NOT to teach, but to flummox and beguile. To generate a state of awe and wonder and humility within the minds and hearts of the recipients of the stories.

OT myths were written to explain the world as man found it under the belief that it was created by the tri-omni deity those stories define. Without such a belief, we are not surprised to find ourselves living difficult lives, but if we assume that this god exists, why aren't we in paradise plucking apples from trees rather than toiling the fields, why doesn't the lion lie with the lamb, and why aren't we all happy and live forever. It's a serious question that needs an answer if we're to believe that this god exists. And that answer is the only one possible: Man is being punished. For what? What angers good gods and justifies such a punishment? Sin. Disobedience.

Look at the spectrum of myths. We have the Tower of Babel myth to explain why God gave us all different, mutually unintelligible languages - not a problem needing explaining in a naturalistic world, but it does need an answer in a world allegedly made and run by a tri-omni god.

How about the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah? There is evidence of a meteorological event destroying a village: Fire and brimstone: Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps destroyed by 'cosmic fireball,' evidence shows . If something like that were witnessed, what would we expect would follow to account for it in a tri-omni god's universe? A myth about sinners being punished.

How about the flood? What observation is it trying to account for, and how does it do it? My guess is marine fossils - seashells on the highest mountain tops. That finding needs explaining. What are the possibilities for such people? Only one: Since a good god flooded the earth, which would have eliminated mankind and the terrestrial beasts, man must have deserved yet another punishment, and as always, for being disobedient. God was unhappy with his creation, which needed killing if that's what happened. What else could it be?

These stories were believed literally and created to explain why a good, all-powerful, all-knowing god allows us to live like this. We must deserve it.

This is basic human nature. It's revisionism to come along now and claim that those people knew that the stories weren't historical.

Much later, when Christianity became a governing religion it assembled it's own set of scriptures intended to teach humanity how to think and behave according to it's own assumed authority, and presented those stories as historical facts to people that couldn't know any different.

Also not credible. Here you go again depicting the ancients as wiser than medieval Christians. The ancient Hebrews, who had no idea where the rain came from, taught these stories as historical fact and literal truth as fundamentalists everywhere still do, and you can be sure that there wasn't a lot of wiggle room in the range of beliefs permitted (orthodoxy) before the stones came out.

that era is long over with.

You read these threads. That era will not be ending any time soon. Fundamentalism and literalism are alive and well in the 21st century, albeit waning in popularity and cultural hegemony.

Two things appear to be anathema to many of the faithful. They will battle to the death defending against them: That there is error in the Bible and that Christian holidays have pagan influences. They need it all to be correct and to be original to this religion. The biblical creation myth is like every other creation myth from history - some pre-scientific culture's best guesses as to how the world was assembled, by whom, and maybe for what purpose. All of them. And they all guessed incorrectly. All of them. Not just the Mesopotamians. Not just the Vikings. not just the Navaho. And not just the Hebrews. ALL of them.

But where all of the others are recognized as such, according to the Abrahamics, this one creation myth was NOT an error, not a wrong guess. Its authors knew that these things didn't happen, and the people never believed it, either. They were allegories, right? They were symbols, stories pregnant with mythic value that convey eternal wisdom, right?

Wrong. They were not metaphors or allegories. Those are specific literary forms with features not found in these stories. They were incorrect guesses now corrected by science. But for whatever reason, believers are loathe to write or utter those words. Contrast that with the academic world. Thales said that everything was made of water, the only substance he knew of that could be solid, liquid, and vapor. He was wrong, that was not a metaphor or an allegory, and the scientific and academic communities have no difficulty saying that Thales was wrong about the role of water. So what? His speculations, which represent an intellectual leap toward empiricism, were noteworthy then and still are today.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is the "doctrine of materialism?"

If faith is so wonderful, why is it that religious people such as yourself are always trying to use it as an insult against atheists, in some attempt to drag us down to your level? It's bizarre. And quite telling.

This atheist has no use for faith. Faith is not a pathway to truth, as anything can be believed on faith. It's useless to me.

I would say that those who blindly and faithfully follow ancient texts as though they were written by gods are the intellectually lazy ones in this equation.



*The "belief" that the material is all that there is and consciousness merely a phenomenon.

Is that what I believe?

*Faith is a gift not an insult. If you are confident in your Atheism then why aren't you on an atheist specific forum instead of heckling people here? You provoke people then whine about getting a response that you feel is dragging you down.

Except for the part where you tried to use it as an insult. And now you're claiming that I'm heckling you for challenging your assertions in a debate forum? Gimme a break. If you can't handle your beliefs being challenged, this may not be the place for you.

Faith is unjustified belief. I fail to see how that is a gift of any sort.

I'm not "confident in my atheism." Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). I don't believe in god(s), because I haven't seen convincing evidence that any gods exist. My mind could be changed by .... good evidence that god(s) exist! I've already changed my mind once, from theist to atheist. I'm open to evidence.

*You have belabored that point over and over and over here on this "religious forum"??? Maybe find a hobby?

Which point? Why is it that you have nothing to say about it, except an attempt to insult me?

*You would have a point if that was true! Faith proceeds the search for truth in ancient texts.

That's called confirmation bias.

*I think RF is a place for you to vent your hatred for people of faith.

Feel free to point out which things you think I've said that are hateful. Empty accusations don't count.

BTW, just skip my posts and don't respond.

I'll do what I like in a debate forum, thanks.

 

[Thrillobyte]

This shows all the Christian concepts come from Hellenism, a trend sweeping through all religions from 300 BC - 100Ad.

This also shows that Christianity was and is a purely man-made religion. God had nothing whatsoever to do with its establishment. God didn't send a divine son into the world to die for the sins of mankind. The entire Christian theology was borrowed from dozens of other sources and then like a cancer simply grew and metastasized into what we now have. This would explain why prayer never gets answered and why we see no supernatural forces moving in Christianity, or any religion for that manner. They're all human institutions created for a specific purpose--in Christianity's case for ensconcing otherwise worthless bishops and cardinals in positions of power, money and privilege.

 

[F1fan]

1. religious folk are ALL our fellows.

I am not in the category of religious folk, you are, but nice try to deflect and mislead my point.

2. I am not religious.

Are you one of the "I'm spiritual not religious" religious category? Or are you now an atheist?

3. The only thing anyone actually believes when they claim to believe something is that they are right about it. That's just ego talking. Same as when you automatically object to their saying so.

So just like turtles, it is egos all the way down? So why mention it? You might as well mention we all have faces. Another attempt to deflect from religious believers that believe in false things, namely how Christians will believe the Gospels are literal history. You really aren't comfortable with accountability for religious belief.

4. Almost no one actually believes that. Suspending disbelief is not the same as believing.

Really, do you have the stats of how many Christians believe the Gospels are hisory or not? Almost no one, you say? Should we create a poll asking Christians?

5. I'm setting you straight, instead.

I think you sincerely believe your irrational nonsense.

We humans have other much bigger problems to worry about than a few of us mixing fantasy with history and religion.

More of your "Ignore the man behind the curtain" nonsense. Can you acknowledge that some of the "bigger problems" is religious extremism, from Islamic extremism in the Middle East, to Christian extremism in the USA that is curtailing reproductive rights? The basis of these problems is humans thinking their religious beliefs are absolutely true, and all validated by aa God existing exactly how they believe it. Gods are better explained as fantasy than real actors in human affairs. No God appears to help guide humanity, all we have are claimed middlemen to the many versions of Gods.

The fact that you ask (with no intention of accepting any answer you'd get) only exemplifies that why don't get it.

Hahaha, as if I am obligated to accept answers from people when they are poorly reasoned. More "you just don't get it" condemnation, which only shows your desperation. Cry into your pillow.

It's still missing for you ... that ideological importance. Undiscovered. Denied, in fact, prior to recognition. It's amazing how we humans can perceive something right out of existence like that.

Blame competent thinking skill. I blame religious folk (yes, you are one) for their inability to back up their claims with evidence and coherent explanations.

Plausability has nothing to do with anything. It's a STORY intended to convey an important ideal. It's the ideal that needs to be plausible, not the story that's conveying it.

Sorry, but since we are being asked to judge religious concepts, and they lack evidence, it would be at least SOMETHING if the claim were consistent with reality. Religious claims are NOT. That means implausible. the whole Jesus myth is implausible, and absurd. Frankly, it is a stupid story to believe literally. It's obvious that believers never think twice about it.

Of course there is. It's called the Big Bang.

Natural causes.

Embellishment and legends are always common. Every event of history has it's share of them. From our own personal moments past to the most momentous cataclisms in human history. All our stories are embellished and made legend. It's why we remember them.

Notice how rational historians and scientists have rejected all the ancient superstitions. Only religions old on to it desperately.

No, they would be pursuing honesty, not truth, because they would know that they can't know what is the truth. You keep confusing truth with factual accuracy. But facts are relative. Truth is universal.

Truth isn't difficult if you are honest. The hard truths require a lot of courage given the massive social pressure to adopt irrational religious ideas. Most people are trapped. Societies have adapted one way of another to science and reasoning, but it seems many just function in a sort of ignorance and denial. Holding religious beliefs won't be a liability in most areas of modern life. Creationists will still get their flu shots, and not be aware of the irony.

Facts are only true relative to some other facts.

False. Facts are true. Don't fall into Conway's "alternative facts" nonsense, that she was able to get away with due to the learned irrationality of the right, both religious and political. Alternative facts are falsehoods treated as fact. Creationism created it, and right wing politics got infected.

While being false relative to yet other facts. None of this adds up to any truth. This string of facts lead to this conclusion, that string of facts leads to that conclusion. And that's all well and good so long as we don't fall for our own conclusions.

Are you sure you're not a secret republican and creationist?

Only to those who have no idea what the story is about, or for, becase they refuse to acknowledge it's real value.

That is any type of Christian. I will give critical thinkers vastly more credibility to discern what the Bible means over any type of believer. Why? Thinking skill, avoiding unwarranted assumptions, and following facts.

 

[PureX]

Are you one of the "I'm spiritual not religious" religious category? Or are you now an atheist?

I'm a logical agnostic. Same as billions of other humans that you apparently don't want to recognize.

So just like turtles, it is egos all the way down? So why mention it? You might as well mention we all have faces. Another attempt to deflect from religious believers that believe in false things, namely how Christians will believe the Gospels are literal history. You really aren't comfortable with accountability for religious belief.

Belief is just unnecessary egotism. It has no special relation to religion. People believe all kinds of things.

Really, do you have the stats of how many Christians believe the Gospels are history or not? Almost no one, you say? Should we create a poll asking Christians?

The suspension of disbelief is not a belief. But you aren't going to recognize this any more than you are going to recognize that history has nothing to do with what people believe about God.

I am obligated to accept answers from people when they are poorly reasoned.

Since when you you obligated to accept anyone else's beliefs? Or do you just like to pretend that you are so you can attack their beliefs and feel superior about your own beliefs.

More "you just don't get it" condemnation, which only shows your desperation.

YOU'RE the one that said you didn't get it. I just agreed with you.

Sorry, but since we are being asked to judge religious concepts, and they lack evidence, it would be at least SOMETHING if the claim were consistent with reality. Religious claims are NOT.

When someone says "I believe ... about God" how is this asking you to judge them? Did you ever even bother to ask them it they wanted their beliefs to be judged by you?

That means implausible. the whole Jesus myth is implausible, and absurd. Frankly, it is a stupid story to believe literally. It's obvious that believers never think twice about it.

As has been well established, you have no grasp whatever of the ideals the story actually conveys to people, so you're left condemning the story for being a story. Which is quite silly, as it was never anything else.