There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[F1fan]

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

Billions fall into this category? Back it up.

Belief is just unnecessary egotism.

You have beliefs as your posts reveal. Give us your assessment of your unnecessary egotism.

It has no special relation to religion. People believe all kinds of things.

Religion IS belief. It is highly questionable belief.

Compare religious belief to the belief that OJ really did kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Religion doesn't have adequate evidence, yet many beliueve anyway for non-rational reasons. The evidence against OJ is conclusive. That the jury acquitted him illustrates how flawed the human mind can be.

The suspension of disbelief is not a belief.

How do you suspend disbelief? That makes no sense. Disbelief is a consequence of a lack of evidence for some proposition. It's arguably a default.

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.

It's nonsense, more of your usual nonsense. And again you don't bother to explain anything beyond what you can fit on a Bazooka Joe gum cartoon.

How would any modern person end up beliving in Yahweh if not for the history of belief in religious tradition? I ask you, but I lack confidence that you can answer this with any fact or coherency.

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.

Oh the poor religious claimants who sign on and post their religious beliefs on a diverse online forum and get ATTACKED. Everyone is free to offer what they believe and their reasons, and there is no guaratee it won't be subject to scrutiny. That is the nature of debate, it offer ideas and thinking to a community and we can be open to scrutiny that reveals our mistakes. Notice you don;t offer any criticism of mistakes I've made, only gripe that I'm not a believer too.

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

No doubt you misunderstood or misrepresented what I meant. You certainly didn't explain what is true that I don't get. Why is that? If there's some truth I don't get, explain it. Aren't you the one who just accused me of attacking others?

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?

Judging their content is NOT judging them. They may take it personally, but that is their lesson to learn. They are not the ideas they think are true. Egotism is a trap where the religious identify themselves as the ideas they think are true, and then suffer when those ideas are criticized.

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.

And you offer not a single word of what I get wrong. Hahaha. Bluff much? More of your nonsense.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I see literalist beliefs as a developmental stage. In a sense the spiritual lessons are embedded in the symbols of their faith, but they are wholly external to them at that stage. This is no different than the rule/role stage of children who learn proper behaviors through the threat of an external authority, the parent who will chastise them.

The hope of course is that eventually they internalize those lessons and simply become a moral person because morality is its own reward. They are good people, not because they will get in trouble if they aren't, but because being good is its own reward.

This is really what spirituality is like. It is the internalization of the principles and way of living that religions as a system of spirituality hopes to instill in those who follow it. And with any line of development in any area of life, everyone starts by learning the external rules until they are able to internalize them and become them in themselves.

Religion at its best is about teaching the line of spiritual intelligence. At its worst, it's weapon to control others through exploiting their good intentions and naviety.

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.

Not necessarily. The act of prostration before a "higher power" has the effect of symbolically telling us that our egoic identities are not the peak of who and what we are. Frankly, all authentic mystical traditions are about transcending the ego, letting it go, and realizing that higher state of Consciousness.

So a ritual action like that, has a way of training the egoic self not to see itself as the source of its true happiness. The Dalai Lama himself practices prostractions. As a related explanation of how this works, it is through the action of visualization, getting out of the egoic self that one finds that higher Self:

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. John Blofeld quotes Edward Conze on the Vajrayana Buddhist viewpoint: " 'It is the emptiness of everything which allows the identification to take place - the emptiness [which means "transcendental openness" or "nonobstruction"] which is in us coming together with the emptiness which is the deity. By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate' ". At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."​

​

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85​

So as you can see, this is hardly being lazy spiritually. Even if the child (or novice) imagines it is a wholly externalized deity form, at some point, when it becomes internalized, when what is seen as external Awakens something internally, they find within themselves what has been there the whole time. And that, is their own true spiritual nature.

Buying into a Hellenistic/Persian form of Judaism isn't automatically spiritual.

Correct. Same thing with all religions, Buddhism and Hinduism included. Everyone begins as a novice, and in time what is seen as external to themselves initially, becomes awakened within themselves internally. It is that internal awakening that is spiritual. And at a certain point, religion itself becomes transcended, like taking off the training wheels on a bike once you've learned to ride under your own sense of internal balance.

Read metaphorically, the OT is philosophical and asks questions and induces thought. Taken literal, you miss it all and it's more Zeus worship.

Agreed. But as I've pointed out, it is a matter of maturation. At least it is a system of archetypes that one can engage with which may eventually awaken an interior spirituality. Frankly what we see in most Western Christian religion is still all externalized, or exoteric religion and not internal or esoteric realizations.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith is a gift not an insult.

You mean faith in gods is a gift, don't you? My beliefs are evidence-based, but like all beliefs, they can also be held by faith. You could choose tomorrow to say, "I choose to believe that there are no gods" and your position would be as well (or poorly) supported as the opposite one you hold instead. Would you call that a gift, too?

Theists like to apply the word faith to the thinking of scientists and critical thinkers for two reasons. Some hope it nettles the skeptic to hear his beliefs called faith, but I think much of it comes from the days of trying to get creationism into public school science curricula in the late 20th-century and since. Combined with ID, it was part of an effort to equalize science and religion by trying to make creationism seem scientific and science more faith-based.

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

If you are confident in your Atheism then why aren't you on an atheist specific forum instead of heckling people here?

This is more interesting. And if you feel heckled, that's on you. You don't hear the critical thinkers complaining of that from the faithful. Have you ever wondered why? Why don't I call what you do trolling or heckling me? Because I don't experience it as that. I see you as being here for the purpose of promoting religious belief. I'm here in part to argue against the wisdom of belief by faith and to promote the power of reason and evidence as the only path to knowledge.

And interestingly, I eventually noticed that I'm not actually posting to the faithful, but rather, to other critical thinkers. I have nothing to say that they can hear. I have nothing to offer but reasoned, evidenced argument, and they're not interested. In fact, they complain about it.

I'm here in part to learn about the effects of religion on believers from believers. I have called this activity atheist school in the past. This can explain.

You provoke people then whine about getting a response that you feel is dragging you down.

That describes your behavior now. It's you that is whining about the responses YOU get. Notice your plaintive tone - the things you don't like.

You have belabored that point over and over and over here on this "religious forum"???

That faith is not a path to truth? She's correct. It's not. Why shouldn't she repeat that? Did you want to try to rebut her? And you're still whining. That's fine, by the way. I don't mind. Go ahead and vent if you need to.

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.

Yes, you've said so. You have been taught that atheists are immoral people, and you understand their disagreement with religious ideas as hatred for the people holding them. But that's your cross to bear. You and the people who taught you to disapprove of atheists choose to see it that way.

 

[Colt]

You mean faith in gods is a gift, don't you? My beliefs are evidence-based, but like all beliefs, they can also be held by faith. You could choose tomorrow to say, "I choose to believe that there are no gods" and your position would be as well (or poorly) supported as the opposite one you hold instead. Would you call that a gift, too?

Theists like to apply the word faith to the thinking of scientists and critical thinkers for two reasons. Some hope it nettles the skeptic to hear his beliefs called faith, but I think much of it comes from the days of trying to get creationism into public school science curricula in the late 20th-century and since. Combined with ID, it was part of an effort to equalize science and religion by trying to make creationism seem scientific and science more faith-based.

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

This is more interesting. And if you feel heckled, that's on you. You don't hear the critical thinkers complaining of that from the faithful. Have you ever wondered why? Why don't I call what you do trolling or heckling me? Because I don't experience it as that. I see you as being here for the purpose of promoting religious belief. I'm here in part to argue against the wisdom of belief by faith and to promote the power of reason and evidence as the only path to knowledge.

And interestingly, I eventually noticed that I'm not actually posting to the faithful, but rather, to other critical thinkers. I have nothing to say that they can hear. I have nothing to offer but reasoned, evidenced argument, and they're not interested. In fact, they complain about it.

I'm here in part to learn about the effects of religion on believers from believers. I have called this activity atheist school in the past. This can explain.

That describes your behavior now. It's you that is whining about the responses YOU get. Notice your plaintive tone - the things you don't like.

That faith is not a path to truth? She's correct. It's not. Why shouldn't she repeat that? Did you want to try to rebut her? And you're still whining. That's fine, by the way. I don't mind. Go ahead and vent if you need to.

Yes, you've said so. You have been taught that atheists are immoral people, and you understand their disagreement with religious ideas as hatred for the people holding them. But that's your cross to bear. You and the people who taught you to disapprove of atheists choose to see it that way.

THE CERTITUDE OF THE DIVINE​

​

102:7.2 God is the one and only self-caused fact in the universe. He is the secret of the order, plan, and purpose of the whole creation of things and beings. The everywhere-changing universe is regulated and stabilized by absolutely unchanging laws, the habits of an unchanging God. The fact of God, the divine law, is changeless; the truth of God, his relation to the universe, is a relative revelation which is ever adaptable to the constantly evolving universe.

102:7.3 Those who would invent a religion without God are like those who would gather fruit without trees, have children without parents. You cannot have effects without causes; only the I AM is causeless. The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law.

102:7.4 True, many apparently religious traits can grow out of nonreligious roots. Man can, intellectually, deny God and yet be morally good, loyal, filial, honest, and even idealistic. Man may graft many purely humanistic branches onto his basic spiritual nature and thus apparently prove his contentions in behalf of a godless religion, but such an experience is devoid of survival values, God-knowingness and God- ascension. In such a mortal experience only social fruits are forthcoming, not spiritual. The graft determines the nature of the fruit, notwithstanding that the living sustenance is drawn from the roots of original divine endowment of both mind and spirit.

102:7.5 The intellectual earmark of religion is certainty; the philosophical characteristic is consistency; the social fruits are love and service.

102:7.6 The God-knowing individual is not one who is blind to the difficulties or unmindful of the obstacles which stand in the way of finding God in the maze of superstition, tradition, and materialistic tendencies of modern times. He has encountered all these deterrents and triumphed over them, surmounted them by living faith, and attained the highlands of spiritual experience in spite of them. But it is true that many who are inwardly sure about God fear to assert such feelings of certainty because of the multiplicity and cleverness of those who assemble objections and magnify difficulties about believing in God. It requires no great depth of intellect to pick flaws, ask questions, or raise objections. But it does require brilliance of mind to answer these questions and solve these difficulties; faith certainty is the greatest technique for dealing with all such superficial contentions.

102:7.7 If science, philosophy, or sociology dares to become dogmatic in contending with the prophets of true religion, then should God-knowing men reply to such unwarranted dogmatism with that more farseeing dogmatism of the certainty of personal spiritual experience, “I know what I have experienced because I am a son of I AM.” If the personal experience of a faither is to be challenged by dogma, then this faith-born son of the experiencible Father may reply with that unchallengeable dogma, the statement of his actual sonship with the Universal Father.

102:7.8 Only an unqualified reality, an absolute, could dare consistently to be dogmatic. Those who assume to be dogmatic must, if consistent, sooner or later be driven into the arms of the Absolute of energy, the Universal of truth, and the Infinite of love.

102:7.9 If the nonreligious approaches to cosmic reality presume to challenge the certainty of faith on the grounds of its unproved status, then the spirit experiencer can likewise resort to the dogmatic challenge of the facts of science and the beliefs of philosophy on the grounds that they are likewise unproved; they are likewise experiences in the consciousness of the scientist or the philosopher.

102:7.10 Of God, the most inescapable of all presences, the most real of all facts, the most living of all truths, the most loving of all friends, and the most divine of all values, we have the right to be the most certain of all universe experiences. UB 1985

 

[Colt]

"The highest evidence of the reality and efficacy of religion consists in the fact of human experience; namely, that man, naturally fearful and suspicious, innately endowed with a strong instinct of self-preservation and craving survival after death, is willing fully to trust the deepest interests of his present and future to the keeping and direction of that power and person designated by his faith as God. That is the one central truth of all religion. As to what that power or person requires of man in return for this watchcare and final salvation, no two religions agree; in fact, they all more or less disagree." UB 1955 IMOP

 

[F1fan]

THE CERTITUDE OF THE DIVINE​

​

102:7.2 God is the one and only self-caused fact in the universe. He is the secret of the order, plan, and purpose of the whole creation of things and beings. The everywhere-changing universe is regulated and stabilized by absolutely unchanging laws, the habits of an unchanging God. The fact of God, the divine law, is changeless; the truth of God, his relation to the universe, is a relative revelation which is ever adaptable to the constantly evolving universe.

102:7.3 Those who would invent a religion without God are like those who would gather fruit without trees, have children without parents. You cannot have effects without causes; only the I AM is causeless. The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law.

102:7.4 True, many apparently religious traits can grow out of nonreligious roots. Man can, intellectually, deny God and yet be morally good, loyal, filial, honest, and even idealistic. Man may graft many purely humanistic branches onto his basic spiritual nature and thus apparently prove his contentions in behalf of a godless religion, but such an experience is devoid of survival values, God-knowingness and God- ascension. In such a mortal experience only social fruits are forthcoming, not spiritual. The graft determines the nature of the fruit, notwithstanding that the living sustenance is drawn from the roots of original divine endowment of both mind and spirit.

102:7.5 The intellectual earmark of religion is certainty; the philosophical characteristic is consistency; the social fruits are love and service.

102:7.6 The God-knowing individual is not one who is blind to the difficulties or unmindful of the obstacles which stand in the way of finding God in the maze of superstition, tradition, and materialistic tendencies of modern times. He has encountered all these deterrents and triumphed over them, surmounted them by living faith, and attained the highlands of spiritual experience in spite of them. But it is true that many who are inwardly sure about God fear to assert such feelings of certainty because of the multiplicity and cleverness of those who assemble objections and magnify difficulties about believing in God. It requires no great depth of intellect to pick flaws, ask questions, or raise objections. But it does require brilliance of mind to answer these questions and solve these difficulties; faith certainty is the greatest technique for dealing with all such superficial contentions.

102:7.7 If science, philosophy, or sociology dares to become dogmatic in contending with the prophets of true religion, then should God-knowing men reply to such unwarranted dogmatism with that more farseeing dogmatism of the certainty of personal spiritual experience, “I know what I have experienced because I am a son of I AM.” If the personal experience of a faither is to be challenged by dogma, then this faith-born son of the experiencible Father may reply with that unchallengeable dogma, the statement of his actual sonship with the Universal Father.

102:7.8 Only an unqualified reality, an absolute, could dare consistently to be dogmatic. Those who assume to be dogmatic must, if consistent, sooner or later be driven into the arms of the Absolute of energy, the Universal of truth, and the Infinite of love.

102:7.9 If the nonreligious approaches to cosmic reality presume to challenge the certainty of faith on the grounds of its unproved status, then the spirit experiencer can likewise resort to the dogmatic challenge of the facts of science and the beliefs of philosophy on the grounds that they are likewise unproved; they are likewise experiences in the consciousness of the scientist or the philosopher.

102:7.10 Of God, the most inescapable of all presences, the most real of all facts, the most living of all truths, the most loving of all friends, and the most divine of all values, we have the right to be the most certain of all universe experiences. UB 1985

This is proselytizing.

Where are the facts? Where is the coherent explanation?

 

[leroy]

No, you are making terrible arguments. You are not reasoning rationally. And you made a claim that is false until you support it. Sorry, but once again you only show that all you have are irrational beliefs.

Aja

But once again you are unable to quote my alleged false/unsupported claim…………. You have been doing this for years…….. one would expect you to grow up a little bit

 

[leroy]

Oops, that waw a brain fart on my part. It is fixed now. But, once again, if you were a scholar of the Bible you should have been able to figure out what I meant to say. And the answer was to show that Matthew and Luke were not independent sources. Both of them got most of their story from Mark. They each embellished on their own a bit. And then they also seem to have been copying a still unknown source. And I almost forgot, it looks as if one was copying the other a bit too, but we do not know who. Was Matthew first and did the author of Luke copy from him or vice versa?

Ok agree.

Then what?

The ´point is that we have more sources (not just mark) ……… so the argument form independent sources still stands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aja

But once again you are unable to quote my alleged false/unsupported claim…………. You have been doing this for years…….. one would expect you to grow up a little bit

No, I have not bothered to. Once again, if you want to make demands you need to change your ways. And how can you possibly forget that you have been acting this way for years?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok agree.

Then what?

The ´point is that we have more sources (not just mark) ……… so the argument form independent sources still stands.

No, not really. You forgot about the "pasteurization" process that occurred. As one poster pointed out at one time there were on the order of 40 different gospels. If they did not tow the official line closely enough they were rejected. That in effect makes them one source.

 

[dybmh]

Faith without evidence, right?

Yes! That is pure faith. I'm not saying it's proper in all circumstances. But, I think it is a correct conclusion, given that God should be able to bring a new revelation, and chooses not to. From this, "Pure, blind, faith, in God is what is needed or desired at this time"

 

[leroy]

"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?

ok originally I thought you were using the term “documents of faith” in a different way.



But is still a fact that the gospels are documents intended to report what Jesus did and said , any disagreement ?

 

[leroy]

No, not really. You forgot about the "pasteurization" process that occurred. As one poster pointed out at one time there were on the order of 40 different gospels. If they did not tow the official line closely enough they were rejected. That in effect makes them one source.

The “pasteurization “ processes removed sources (not added)……… so we have the 4 gospels + perhaps other independent sources that were removed by this process.

If anything we have even more independent sources

 

[Subduction Zone]

The “pasteurization “ processes removed sources (not added)……… so we have the 4 gospels + perhaps other independent sources that were removed by this process.

If anything we have even more independent sources

Yes, by removing sources that do not agree with the party line there is now only one "source". And that is the party line. This should not be so hard to understand. But if you want to play the four sources game, then you have to use your sources properly. You need to do a parallel comparison. When that is done a large number of contradictions arise.

 

[leroy]

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.


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

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.

You keem bouncing from one myth to an other………. Pick your favorite, and build your case, the gospels have specific details about both relevant and secondary local leaders (and secondary people) and specific details about large and small places, even specific towns, ports, valleys etc.

Do you have abythong analogous with the Ramayana, or the Mahabharata, or homer, or any other of the myths that you keep mentioning?

These places where mentioned in the odisey By Homer

Troy . ...

IsmarusLotus Eaters

Cyclops

Island of Aeolus

Laestrygonians

Aeaea

The Sirens

Etc



If you show that most of these places where real cities or towns, specific details were given on each place (like a port or a lake or something like that), and homer accuretly mentioned the name of the say the governor of each city, then you would have a point.

The odesy would have be analogous to the gospels, and I would have to accept them as valid historical sources in order to be consistent.



So build your case, I don’t know anythong about homer, nor any of the myths that you mentioned, so perhaps that do have the same level of historical accuracy and detail than the gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keem bouncing from one myth to an other………. Pick your favorite, and build your case, the gospels have specific details about both relevant and secondary local leaders (and secondary people) and specific details about large and small places, even specific towns, ports, valleys etc.

Do you have abythong analogous with the Ramayana, or the Mahabharata, or homer, or any other of the myths that you keep mentioning?

These places where mentioned in the odisey By Homer

Troy . ...

IsmarusLotus Eaters

Cyclops

Island of Aeolus

Laestrygonians

Aeaea

The Sirens

Etc



If you show that most of these places where real cities or towns, specific details were given on each place (like a port or a lake or something like that), and homer accuretly mentioned the name of the say the governor of each city, then you would have a point.

The odesy would have be analogous to the gospels, and I would have to accept them as valid historical sources in order to be consistent.



So build your case, I don’t know anythong about homer, nor any of the myths that you mentioned, so perhaps that do have the same level of historical accuracy and detail than the gospels.

And all of those parts of those stories are taken to be mythical. If you want to do the same with the Jesus stories I am all for it.

 

[leroy]

Yes, by removing sources that do not agree with the party line there is now only one "source". And that is the party line. This should not be so hard to understand. But if you want to play the four sources game, then you have to use your sources properly. You need to do a parallel comparison. When that is done a large number of contradictions arise.

I do understand, what I don’t understand is why you are making such a big of a deal. If an apocryphal gospel contradicts the canonical gospels, one should use the criteria that historians commonly used to determine who is correct and who is wrong. the same would apply with any 2 documents from ancient history,


And no, if two sources are independent they are still independent even after the “pasteurization”……… you might say that they have the same bias, that doesn’t make them “non independent”

You need to do a parallel comparison. When that is done a large number of contradictions arise.

That would only confirm the independency of the sources.

 

[leroy]

And all of those parts of those stories are taken to be mythical. If you want to do the same with the Jesus stories I am all for it.

1 Why do you regard those stories as mythical and you regard Josephus as “historical”………

2 why would you classify the gosples as “mythical” and not as history

 

[dybmh]

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.

You can have the virigin birth, but you can't have the royalty at the same time. You're claiming a literal impregantion, while in the same line-item flipping to metaphorical royalty.

I can't find any thing that claims she isn't? Seriously. That's the weakest claim I've ever heard. I can't find anything that says she's not a green lesbian from Jupiter. I can't find anything that says she's not a 6'8 center for the LA Lakers. I can't find anything that says she isn't a bugblatter beast from traal.

No. I can't find anything that says she isn't God's bottom-***** in a harem.

She's not royalty.

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.

You're going about this backwards. Was the RR scale designed looking for metaphorical kings, and royals, and law making? Or were they looking for real kings, and real royals, and real law making?

It makes no sense at all for the RR scale to be based on metaphors, because, then the scale is so subjective, it doesn't measure anything. Anyone becomes a myth.

My daughter was born with a chicken-wing. A real chicken-wing? No, its a metaphor, but it was a strange birth. And my wife is the queen of the house, and she was a metaporical virgin until we had the first major diaper-blowout on a moving airplane, and couldn't get up to change her. We were both metphorical vigins. My daughter is positively slaying the beast of her homework. Made laws for me, not go into her room when she's not home. She's got followers and disciples, metaphorically, as a summer camp councilor.

So, you need to start with the RR scale. Apply it as intended. it cannot possibly be intended to be a metaphorical subjective scale. Then, once the score is tallied, THEN conclude it's a myth like the others. You're doing it the worng way. First you're assuming its a myth, then because of that assumption, you're changing the RR scale into a metaphorical subjective RR scale forcing the conclusion you began with. That's the opposite of academics.

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

If he actually defeated Satan, then there woul be no more satan. Just like all the other myths with actual battles, and actual defeats.

And now you are including Paul. So, again, the net gets cast wider and wider and wider until you find what you want. Doing that is like looking for bible codes. Finding a bible code means nothing because the net is being cast wider and wider till something is found.

All that's happening is Paul's Jesus IS NOT Gospel Jesus IS NOT Historical Jesus. No problem. The only time it's a problem is if the same person who critisizes Gospel Jesus being equivocated with Historical Jesus is equivoctating Gospel Jesus with Paul's Jesus.

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.

The RR scale says NO details from his childhood. Ignoring the details of his childhood without a good reason is cherry picking.

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

And that would mean that Jesus is losing points on RR scale as time goes on.

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

It doesn't say no one noticed in teh gospels. Just like it didn't say Mary wasn't a queen of heaven. See how that works? Once the precision is lowered, and the standards are decreased to that level, nothing is meaningful.

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

But your "this" doesn't fit the RR scale.

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

Also a myth. That doesn't man they're myths for the same reasons, nor that the argument for their myth status is as strong or that they;re the same kind of myths. Jesus could be a myth like Johnny Appleseed, who was a real person wandering around, doing stuff, and stories were conjured about him.

It isn't exaggerating is the answer.

It's an answer, just not a true or correct answer. For 50% or more of the items on the RR scale, it is exaggerated. It's just you start with the conclusion, the story is a myth, then exaggerate the plot elements to force that conclusion. You admit it, but then flip and deny it.

Basically, by your standards, it's a myth that Jesus is a myth. It's a manufactured argument just like many manufactured arguments where precision is reduced forcing a pre-desired outcome. If the gospel writters had a pre-desired outcome, and they manufactured a story to fit that outcome, and that's a myth. Then the "Jesus is a myth" myth is exactly the same thing.

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.

You said you could point out how McGrath was an apologist based on what McGrath wrote. And we had this same problem in another thread. You decided that a perfectly normal journalist wa an apologist for ZERO reasons except they printed something you didn't like.

No. It has nothing to do with not reading Carrier's book. In fact, McGrath, from what I can tell doesn't talk about anything except the RR scale itself and how it doesn't advance the argument because it's exaggerated. And when it's exaggerated anyone can be a myth.

If Carrier, or you, can defend the bullet point items and show they are not exaggerated, then that resolves the issue. But you can't, and Carrier can't because Jesus was never a king, Mary as never royalty, Jesus wasn't "spirited away", no beast, giant, or dragon was defeated. None of those things actually happened. They all ARE being exaggerated, and the answer that you're giving me is, "I don't care if it's exaggerated, because it's a myth."

No. The scale should be applied as intended, and then you make a conclusion.

 

[dybmh]

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.

But I can't trust any of this coming from carrier any more than you can trust a Christian telling you Jesus is The Truth. Carrier exaggerates, this is probably exaggerated. Besides, I want YOUR opinion, YOUR words. Why should I care about Carrier? He can't be trusted.

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

I didnt read all of these. You're preaching Carrierism at me. You said you would look at McGrath's write-up and show me from McGrath's words that he was an apologist. I already know Carrier's going to name call and exaggerate. Bringing oodles and oodles of Carrier doesn't help at all.

Now. Take a look at this very first link. Question: Did you go and read what McGrath *actually* said? we are back to the same debate points from last time we talked. These people cannot be trusted. They misquote. They don't care about accuracy.

Right of the bat, the very first thing in this link you brought from Carrier IS NOT TRUE. Not even close. It's the opposite of the truth. Look:

This is what Carrier claims McGrath is saying. it's right at the top.

McGrath complains that when I define three criteria that are markers of myth writing, I’m making a big mistake because no one of them is sufficient to entail a text is a myth…completely ignoring that I say exactly that, in the text he claims to be reading.​

​

But, that's NOT what McGrath says. he says NONE of the three, even combined supports the argument. Here's what McGrath actually says.

​

Since similarity between real events and other real events is not at all unlikely, and on the contrary well-documented, the first alleged characteristic of myth simply doesn’t work. The third point is equally problematic, not only because it is unclear what “external corroboration” entails (external to one literary work and confirmed in another, or external to the entire tradition in question?), but also because a great many figures in the Judaism of this time, such as John the Baptist and Hillel, might be deemed unhistorical by this criterion. The second also fails to do justice to the presence of the allegedly miraculous in a range of sources about verifiably historical people and events.​

​

See that? McGrath says, Point one doesn't work. Point three doesn't work either. AND Point two doesn't work. All three are a bust. All three. Carrier completely misrepresents what McGrath said. And this tells me, YOU didn't do what you said you were going to do. And either Carrier didn't actually read McGrath's comments, or Carrier didn't understand it, or Carrier just flat out lied about it. Either way, the dude can't be trusted for accuracy, like, AT ALL.

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

I skipped all of these. why should I read someone's blog of errors and misrepresetnations. Now he has 3 strikes against him. Actually 4. 1) The RR scale is exaggerated for Jesus. 2) The RR scale is exaggerated for Moses 3) The claim about McGrath is false. 4) The accusation of APPPPOLOGISSSST, is false too.

Why do people like this person? He's preaching a gospel, and demonizing the critics, and ex-Christians love that stuff. It's the that old-time religion.