There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[F1fan]

The soul isnt a "body" in my belief or philosophy which comes from the Urantia Book revelation.

"The Universal Father is the secret of the reality of personality, the bestowal of personality, and the destiny of personality. The Eternal Son is the absolute personality, the secret of spiritual energy, morontia spirits, and perfected spirits. The Conjoint Actor is the spirit-mind personality, the source of intelligence, reason, and the universal mind. But the Isle of Paradise is nonpersonal and extraspiritual, being the essence of the universal body, the source and center of physical matter, and the absolute master pattern of universal material reality.

Dogma. Non-factual, thus, not relevant.

These qualities of universal reality are manifest in Urantian human experience on the following levels:

1. Body. The material or physical organism of man. The living electrochemical mechanism of animal nature and origin.

2. Mind. The thinking, perceiving, and feeling mechanism of the human organism. The total conscious and unconscious experience. The intelligence associated with the emotional life reaching upward through worship and wisdom to the spirit level.

3. Spirit. The divine spirit that indwells the mind of man—the Thought Adjuster. This immortal spirit is prepersonal— not a personality, though destined to become a part of the personality of the surviving mortal creature.

I remember the Thought Adjuster, and what my criticism has been is that it doesn't work on those who need the most adjustment. My sister and me would debate this idea, and not only do I find it adsurd, there is nothing that suggests there is any such thing given the observations any of us can make. Her argument was that the TA couldn't force itself on people, and my counter to that was "what use is it?" If people are willing to change they will change via their own wits. It's the stubborn and resistant who need the most "adjusting" and the TA is powerless to make an impact.

4. Soul. The soul of man is an experiential acquirement. As a mortal creature chooses to "do the will of the Father in heaven," so the indwelling spirit becomes the father of a new reality in human experience. The mortal and material mind is the mother of this same emerging reality. The substance of this new reality is neither material nor spiritual—it is morontial. This is the emerging and immortal soul which is destined to survive mortal death and begin the Paradise ascension.

Do you think you "do the will of the Father in heaven", and if so, don't have agency and think for yourself? How do you discern your own will from the "will of the Father"?

 

[dybmh]

Not supported.

Sure it is, you objected to including Luke in the RR scale because date of composition on Luke was 80ish years after the supposed events took place. Matthew was also composed within that time frame. And I supported that with links to wikipedia. That's support. I didnt make it up.

No scholar believes that Matthew and Luke were written in a vacuum independent of each other.

So what? That wasn't part of what you said originally. It wasn't included in your reason for excluding Luke. If anything it means they should both be included in evaluating the story. If they weren't in a vaccum independent of each other, then, they're part of the same story/tradition.

Luke copied from Matthew and there is much in Luke that is not in Matthew so it's obvious Matthew came first and then Luke.

Ummmm.... Now you need to provide evidence of that. The direct copying of Luke from Matthew? That's a claim, and I understand that differently. I thought it was Mark. They both copied from Mark. And Mark was def earlier. And Luke and Matthew came out around the same time.

How much time between gospels is a matter of guesswork since no fragments of Matthew, Mark and Luke start appearing until the late 2nd century and whole copies of the gospels don't appear until the 4th century.

Well, that's another claim. And you're saying wikipedia is wrong. Which is fine. But that doesn't mean I didn't support what I said. All it means is your claiming to have more better info, but you haven't presented it. And I'm happy to review what you bring and completely ignore the other exaggerations in the thread. I am totally happy to be better informed on this. But you need to bring the goods.

Which is older Matthew or Luke?

"About 15 years after Mark, in about the year 85 CE, the author known as Matthew composed his work, drawing on a variety of sources, including Mark and from a collection of sayings that scholars later called "Q", for Quelle, meaning source. The Gospel of Luke was written about fifteen years later, between 85 and 95."

The Story Of The Storytellers - An Introduction To The Gospels | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

OK. That agrees with that I brought. So, what's the problem? You even quoted it.

I said: Matthew: Last quarter of the first century (75-100AD-ish)
Your source above says: Matthew 85ADish

I said: Luke: 80-90AD ish
Your source above says: 85-95AD ish

Maybe you're misreading it? It doesn't say 85-95 years later than Matthew. It literally matches what I found and posted from wikipedia. What I see them saying is Luke was written 15ish years later than Matthew. That's it.

Luke will always be used in conjunction with words like "tradition says...." "it is believed...." "is ascribed to...." and other vague phrases because Luke never appears in any secular volumes of history. It's all guesswork. Even his date of death is traditional since it isn't mentioned anywhere. Like most everything in this period modern scholars start saying things without any evidence and other scholars just go with it. Nothing about Luke can be supported, not even his authorship of the gospel. It was Irenaeus who attached MML and J's names to the gospels circa 185 CE

Again, all of these same things can be said about Matthew. And your arguing about what exactly? One item on the RR scale. There's over ten that are exaggerated to come up with 20 out of 22. And this is coming from Carrier who has been caught exaggerating multiple times in this thread. The "Jesus is a myth like Hercules because of the RRscale" argument is dead. And apparently it was never an important argument for the mythicist anyway.

So what are we arguing about? Your own source has backed up what I said?

Are you trying to show me I'm not researching stuff too? If so, that hasn't worked.

 

[dybmh]

Luke copied from Matthew and there is much in Luke that is not in Matthew so it's obvious Matthew came first and then Luke.

This is what your source says:

Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities. The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Matthew wrote for a Jewish community in conflict with the Pharisaic Judaism that dominated Jewish life in the postwar period. Luke wrote for a predominately Gentile audience eager to demonstrate that Christian beliefs in no way conflicted with their ability to serve as a good citizen of the Empire.​

​

So, they're all different. Luke is different than Matthew. It was written for a different audience with a different prupose.

No scholar believes that Matthew and Luke were written in a vacuum independent of each other.

It looks like your own source says they were written by different people for a different audience, for a different purpose, and included significantly diferent content.

And again, there's this certainty to what you're saying, "its obvious that..." but it's not justified.

Like most everything in this period modern scholars start saying things without any evidence and other scholars just go with it.

OK... so how can you certain about this "Luke was obviously copied form Matthew". Why are you so certain about how obvious something is, when you're telling me people just say stuff and scholars just go with it. So, it's wierd. On the one hand you're saying, "none of this is certain, and scholars just say stuff". But you're also saying, "It's obvious that I'm correct about Luke being copied from Matthew."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I have no faith in a godless universe or anything else. One can learn a better way of deciding what's true about the world, although many are unaware that this method exists or how it empowers those who master it. Once one does, however, he relies on it exclusively when deciding what is true about the world. Why wouldn't he?

Its also a kind of opiate to the spiritually lazy.

Agnostic atheism is the only rational position possible regarding the existence of gods. Faith is the opiate, and belief by faith is laziness. It is never a path to knowledge. It requires no contemplation or analysis. Faith, by definition, is unexamined, and so in that sense is among the shallowest of mental activities.

Also, you're confusing spirituality with spirits. The spiritual experience is a psychological like state, like experiences of beauty or humor, and tells us how we feel about what we experience. In this case, the intuition is one of belonging in and connection to the world often associated with experiencing mystery, awe, gratitude. Abrahamic religious doctrine teaches the opposite. Adherents are taught that they are strangers in the world, that matter is base, and that we are spirits trapped in flesh (the words the world, matter, and flesh are generally meant derogatorily). Many adherents live life like they're at a bus stop waiting to be taken away to something better. As @joelr noted, none of this is spirituality.

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

If you weren't religious, you might understand what spirituality can be. It's not talking to imaginary ghosts.

I'll bet that you've had authentic spiritual experiences, but misunderstood them and added gods to the experience. Gardening is a spiritual experience for my wife. She is never more connected to the world than when she is caring for the plants, pollinators, butterflies, and birds. And her attention is focused on the here and now, and her respect is for nature. Imagine if she were thinking about God and heaven all that time instead of being in the here and now. She might as well be indoors.

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

Insecure? Atheists don't have crises of reason equivalent to the crises of faith. We're secure enough not to complain about being attacked when disagreed with, or repeatedly try to make the believer feel unwelcome in the forum. We don't denounce gods any more than we do devils and demons.

If you'd like to see what insecurity looks like, look at the church's doctrine and its Bible's scripture on unbelievers.

 

[dybmh]

I didn't see anything about a green lesbian.

But you didn't see anything that she wasn't a green lesbian from Jupiter. This is YOUR logic, Joel. You said you didn't see anything where she wasn't the queen of heaven. That's super-duper weak. It doesn't mean anything. She's not royal because you didn't see something saying she isn't.

But you don't give birth to God without being royalty.

Sure ya do. The bigger God has an affair with a human concubine. The concubine is not royalty. I thought you knew mythology. This is standard pagan god-stuff. The bigger God wants a romp with a human, so, it does so and produces a baby-God.

She's royal.

No. Not really. Not in a royal house, not with royal responsibilites. Not with royal assets. Never referred to as royal. None of Jesus' siblings are royal.

If she were royal, Jesus would not have been able to refuse her audience. There is nothing but evidence against you on this. She wasn't royal.

In the New Testament, the title has several biblical sources. At the Annunciation, the archangel Gabriel announces that [Jesus] "... will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David. He will rule over the house of Jacob forever and his reign will be without end."(Luke 1:32) The biblical precedent in ancient Israel is that the mother of the king becomes the queen mother.[13] Mary's queenship is a share in Jesus’ kingship.

But none of that happened. He never got that throne. He doesn't rule over Jacob. This is Catholic. So, its not in the gospels that mary is a queen. It's a later Catholic invention. Again, casting the net wider and wider until you catch something.

The Gospels declare Jesus the heir of a king.

Mark 10:47
And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me.

That doesn't say he was a king.

The Gospels also declare Jesus King of the Jews.

No, not really. Jesus says that is what Pilate will cal him. And that's what the plaque said when they posted him on the cross. he wasn't a real king.

Defeating Satan in the desert doesn’t count as battling a great adversary? Even though Satan literally means “the adversary” and there was literally none greater. It doesn't mean Satan is erased forever. But his power over souls IS.

He didn't actually battle satan, and he didn't actually defeat satan. Not the same way as a literal giant, dragon, or beast. The title adversary doesn't matter. what matters is, "Get behind me satan" is not a battle. And satan was not defeated, if so there would be no more satan.

I did, Carrier didn't mention Paul. I'll give back my history PhD.

Fine YOU'RE casting the net wider and wider till you find something like hunting for bible codes. AND Carrier is a proven exaggerator. So, when are you going to start fact checking your souces, Dr. Joel?

What details? Infancy and teenage years? That isn't childhood?

The fact that Jesus was never a king, Mary wasn't royal, Jesus never battled anyone or anything, certainly not defeating Satan who was still operating in the story and after the story. Jesus never had a kingdom. Jesus didn't receive a better body when he was returned from the dead. Stuff like that. Details.

Still 19.

Not actual 19. Metaphorical 19. 19 is a myth.

The part where he was spirited away to Egypt fits. Also he did have a foster parent. Pretty sure Joseph wasn't the biological father.

Nah. You want it to fit, but it doesn't. If you want to claim God was the biological father, then you need to prove the biology of God. good luck with that.

He could be. I would recommend OHJ by Richard Carrier and Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: R. Lataster to get a good argument for mythicism.

Did you fact check these sources Dr. Joel?

That isn't happening at all. What seems to be going on is you prematurely decided Carrier gave too high a score on RR and also assumed he based mythicism on this scale. Why you decided to go by an apologist article, despite having a response that corrected the mistakes. I have no idea.

No. I'm saying it for sure is too high. The RR scale is not a subjective-choose-your-own-ranking system. It would have no value at all if each person got to choose what each attribute meant. That would mean that their neighbor's dog named "Prince" suddenly makes them royal.

And then I questioned why include it? If it's not important, then leave it out, and don't over-react when someone correctly points out that the tally is grossly exaggerated.

And you still have not pointed out anything that makes McGrath an apologist. Maybe it's coming and I haven't read it yet. But this is something you've done before. And now we see it from Carrier. And if you're a PHD and this is the accepted behavior among your group, y'all just shout, "Apologist" at anyone who disgrees, and flaunt the PHD as a pathetic hopeless defense, guess what? It makes y'all look like a bunch of cry-babies who can't defend their ideas.

I didn't like them because they were wrong and as usual the apologist didn't seem to read the book they were taking issues with.

First of all, that's not an apologist. An apologist is someone who defends their preferred interpretation and ignores all opposition. In this context, it's a Christian who ignores any argument in opposition to Christianity.

You're acting like a Carrier-apologist. McGrath, if he didn't read the book, would make him, ignorant, or unprofessional, or making false assertions. All of those are accurate. But this whole "religious-apologist" bucket that everyone gets thrown into by you and your crew is just as meaningless as "ivory-tower-ignorant-arrogant-know-it-all". It doesn't explain the fault.

Now, when I show you that your not fact checking your sources, repeatedly. Then my critique about your actions, Dr. Joel, are true, meaningful, and potentially useful. IF you start checking your sources.

"The scale was not designed to determine historicity."

But you said it is being used to support probability. Right?

"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."

There you go. The RR scale does not contribute to probability of historicity. And there's good reasons given for that to be the case.

And that says nothing about the exaggerations. So, to be clear. The issue is exaggerations. The OP started this thread criticising exaggertaing the evidence for a historical-Jesus to support a conclusion that there existed a Gospel-Jesus. Bu then flipped around and started exaggerating the RRscale and apparently exaggerating its value.

What specifically he gets wrong is all here, or part of it

McGrath on the Rank-Raglan Mythotype • Richard Carrier Blogs

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

www.richardcarrier.info

Nope. The exaggerations are completely left unaddressed. Carrier mentioned one item on the list which was a mild exaggeration, but McGrath actually included it in his tally of 4. So again, Carrer is lying, misrepresenting, presenting false info, again, about what McGrath is actually saying.

I already covered this.

Nah. You haven't justified calling him an apologist. Not even a little. It just seems like this is what you do in your club/friend group.

I did.

Nah. Ya didn't. All you've done is bring more evidence that Carrier cannot be trusted. And a PHD does not replace actual fact checking.

 

[leroy]

Why would I have a favorite myth in terms of historical data?

All myths have real places and people.
The Quran is traced back to an original source. There are historical pilgrimages, SEVEN actual historic battles documented in the Quran, many real religious sites and about 100 real locations, groups, real people and their wives and more.


In the same way the absolute mythic NT, a Hellenistic religious tale combined with Jewish and Persian theology in no way is historical. It isn't written as history, at all.
As I explained it's written as a myth, using fictive literary devices (many impossible sequences of events in triadic ring cycles) and using a myth that was trending ONLY in places where the Greeks invaded, combining their local religion with Hellenism, creating mystery religions. Yes they used baptism, a communal meal, salvation, a savior and so on.

Who were they?


Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic


Mark uses mystery religion terminology many times in his Gospel.



Homer and Mark /Acts have parallels but the historical events in Homer are not able to be verified. We can see Mark was using other literature to craft his story, in part at least.

Again,

Build your case, show that any of the myths that you keep quoting has the same level of detail and accuracy than the gospels.

All myths have real places and people.
The Quran is traced back to an original source. There are historical pilgrimages, SEVEN actual historic battles documented in the Quran, many real religious sites and about 100 real locations, groups, real people and their wives and more.

If that where true, that I would accept the qoran as a valid historical source………….. I have no idea, if this is true or not.

For example if the Quran mentions a location whose existence could not be verified………I would give it the benefit of the doubt, because it had other 100 locations correct

None of this is proof that Gabrielle is real, angels are real and Muhammad had a revelation. Of course there are apologetics, it couldn't be recreated, it has science beyond it's time they could not know. I don't believe any of that is true and it can be demonstrated but their apologists believe it.

(assuming that all the stuff you said about the koran is true)

I would sy that Muhammad had an expeirnce that he interpreted as "real" ............ unless someone has a good reason to doubt it......

As I explained it's written as a myth, using fictive literary devices (many impossible sequences of events in triadic ring cycles) and using a myth that was trending ONLY in places where the Greeks invaded, combining their local religion with Hellenism, creating mystery religions. Yes they used baptism, a communal meal, salvation, a savior and so on.

well the peer review material says otherwise. (that the gosples are Greko Roman Biographies)

 

[dybmh]

That is one huge cop out and back peddle. You now see Carrier was actually NOT basing anything on RR except prior-probability and it's just one small component on a huge list. Some elements were expanded for many pages.

The topic is exaggerations. And McGrath makes a good point that the RR scale does not contribute to probability.

Suddenly it's "oh I can't trust Carrier....." "I need your words"....... Whatever. Can you sell me a bridge as well?

If you could do a root cause analysis, you'd see why typing out Carrier's criteria isn't helpful

Here is why you should care about Carrier.............I DON'T F#$%ING CARE WHO YOU CARE ABOUT. All of your objections are answered BY CARRIER.

Settle Dr. Joel, simmer-down. He doesn't address the exaggerations and neither do you. All you've said is, "the scale can be exaggerated because it's a myth". And, "it's not that important. "

And I've asked this several times, from the beginning. If it's not that important, why include it?

At this point it's up to you to actually read the full argument and make your descision. I spend WAY too much time actually typing up that 3 part list to demonstrate where the RR stands and how prior probability is judged. OF course, I get "I'm not reading that, I don't trust...."

You wouldn't need to do all that typing if you would answer for yourself. And maybe the answer is: "I don't know why it's included if it's not that important."

Yeah it's probably exaggerated because NOTHING so far has actually been exaggerated.

Not an actual king, no actual kingdom, not actually spirited away, no actual battle satan is not actually defeated, mary s not actually royal...

Then don't read it. Think an apologist lousy critique actually makes sense. I don't care? I already told you, he falsely assumed RR was the critera for mythicism and demonstrated many misunderstandings of the argument. As an apologist would do.
You bought into an apologists rant. Oops.

No, I went through the list myself, ranked Jesus a 4-5, i think. I asked the OP to justify the 20 out of 22 score. The best that was presented as a 14. You haven't been able to justify the 19 without going to Paul and the Catholic church. Then I wen and did a search found McGrath's article. It makes perfect sense, there's no apologizing in it anywhere. Carrier is simply inaccurate. Then I read Carrier's response and it is still inaccurate. he misrepresents what McGrath said. And he makes a further exaggeration about Moses.

And then you bring more Carrier, you don't pull out any reasons why McGrath is an apologist. You just post blog-posts, but it doesn't look like you read them, or checked to see if what they said were true. I read the first paragraph of Carrier's blog that you brought. Then I went to check to see if it was true what Carrie said. it was 100% false AGAIN.

Carrier says, based on someone else's quote, it seems, that McGrath's complaint is that any 1 of the 3 criteria individually do not support the theory. But... McGrath says the opposite, ALL 3 COMBINED don't support the theory. Even if they're all true, they don't support it.

And that's where I stopped reading. Why should I continue. It's a waste of time, Dr. Joel. Carrier cannot be trusted.

I see from this "Bringing oodles and oodles of Carrier doesn't help at all." you already know what's up. I'm bringing facts and evidence.

The only evidence you're brining is that Carrier exaggerates and misrepresents. He exaggerated the RR scale. And he misrepesents the opposing point of view and calls them names. In the last blog post I mentioned, it seemed like he copied somone else, who as speaking incorrectly about McGrath. So he, like you, isn't checking his sources. If you are in this club, the PHD-bible-critic club that doesn't check it's sources, just copies off each other. I hope you are starting to see what failed enterpise that is.

I say "enterprise" for a reason. Have you ever heard of the "Peter Principle"? Like "petering out" Like losing effecacy.

Peter principle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Basically it descrbes a condition where all the leaders at the top of a group are completely incompetent. And it appears that what's happened with the PHD-bible-critic-club. If Y'all copy off of each other without checking sources in college and universtity and demonize anyone who finds fault. And diplomas are given to those who do the same thing. Copy each other, don't check sources, and demonize, pretty soon everyone's incompetent and no one ever ever checks sources, and the errors are compounded and compounded and compounded.

When are you going to start checking your sources, Dr. Joel. You can break this cycle of incompetence.

What a waste of time. You are not looking for facts or truth, you are looking to win an argument without care for actually understanding anything and skimming text.

Not true. I just have found your sources are not chosen for accuracy. And it's amazing that you haven't adjusted your methods after having been shown this over and over and over again.

I'll never get this time back but here we go.......

McGrath says this and quotes Carrier in the middle:

"Carrier helpfully recognizes that identifying the genre of the work will not answer questions of historicity, “For in fact, a great deal of ancient biography, even of real people, was constructed of myth and fiction.”[4] His treatment of myth, and how to determine whether a work is largely or entirely myth, is less satisfactory. Carrier writes,[5]


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."

Right, what's wrong with that. You haven't explained anything. What McGrath said above is true.

 

[dybmh]

Carrier then points out Godfrey commented on it:

"Neil Godfrey has already exposed how incompetently McGrath ignores what I actually wrote in the sections McGrath is talking about. My favorite example: 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.

Um, dude, this is not talking about McGrath's critique of the useage of the RR scale. And like I pointed out in the posts you replied to, this is FALSE. McGrath doesn't say this at all. And I quoted what McGrath *actually* said. But it's not in the article about the RRscale. McGrath says all three criteria IN TOTAL don't support the argument. So it's not that he didn't read Carrier's book, or understand. It's that Caririe's claim that "all three combined" are not significant. Thats what McGrath said.

But here you are mismatching what's being quoted and the topic, and losing track of the debate. You're frustrated, I understand. Your sources are failing you.

But that doesn't mean Gospel Jesus is true. All it means is that your PHD club can't be trusted for accuracy.

As Godfrey sums it up:
Ignoring Carrier’s point that “no one of these criteria is sufficient to identify a narrative as mythical but the presence of all three is conclusive” McGrath proceeds to “protest” that “no one of these criteria is sufficient to identify a narrative as mythical”.

But thats not what McGrath *actually* said. It's the opposite of what he said.

Carrier finishes with - "I find this to be disrespectful and insulting. McGrath is pretending I didn’t say exactly what he is saying, and pretending that therefore he has a legitimate critique of what I said. McGrath therefore has no actual rebuttal to what I said."

Which is ironic, because Carrier is claiming McGrath said something McGrath didn't actually say.

But since you still aren't checking your sources for accuracy, you'd never know what McGrath actually said. Instead, You heard McGrath criticised someone in your club, and immediately you lashed out with the name-calling ( it's basically bigotry ). And you still haven't been able to find the fault in what McGrath said. Your quote from McGrath's critic of Carrier's RRscale is 100% true. It isn't appropriate for contributing to the probability of Jesus as a myth. Certianly not if the tally is exaggerated.

And then you brought a misquote of McGrath talking about a totally different issue, not the RRscale. And here' Carrier complaining about misquoting, while at the same time misquoting. That's the perfect example of what's happening in this thread.

You have FAITH in Carrier, you don't check to see if it's true, and complain that I don't care about what's true. But I'm the one checking sources and you're not. Whatever you were taught to earn the PHD doesn't seem to be very useful for turth-seeking.

But they may have overlooked something because there is an edit:

[Edit: Possibly McGrath didn’t realize the logic of his argument entailed this. See comment. Some mistook Godfrey’s description as a direct quote, despite the fact that it is literally verbatim, which should have clued them in. Godfrey and I are describing the logic of McGrath’s argument, and pointing out the fact that it ignores the actual argument is disrespectful and insulting. Not a lie. Only in subsequent sections do I catalog McGrath’s lies.]

No it doesn't entail that!

McGrath's claim:

Criteria 1 ---> myth is false, because of a valid counter example
Criteria 2 ---> myth is false, because of a valid counter example
Criteria 3 ---> myth is false, because of a valid counter example

Then, these three can be re-written as true statements.

Criteria 1 ---> NOT myth is true
Criteria 2 ---> NOT myth is true
Criteria 3 ---> NOT myth is true

Now the three can be joined in a true logical conjunction

(Criterian 1 ---> NOT myth) AND (Criteria 2 ---> NOT myth) AND ( Criteria 3 ---> NOT myth ) is true.

Then using the truth tables for logical implication/entailment ( the arrows ) and for conjunctions ( the ands ), this simplifies to:

( Criteria 1 AND Criteria 2 AND Criteria 3 ) ---> NOT myth.

McGrath is saying even if all three criteria are met, it still doesn't entail a myth.

He covers lies further down:

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

Well, I'd have to fact check each one of these. And since he over-reacts, and seems to fail at logic, I don't see why I should.

1) Carrier's use of the RR scale is blundered by you

No. It is inaccurate. If the items on the scale are subjective the scale is meaningless. Therefore they MUST have intended for the items to be literal. Literal royalty. Literal king. Literal kingdom. Literal battle. Literally defeating the beast.

Otherwise I'm a myth cause I'm the king of our convo, and I defeated Carrier's beastly exaggerations.

2)wrong subject

No, the subject is exaggerations.

3)Hence the part where it's corrected

He didn't fact check before publishing the blog post. he needed someone else to point it out, and even then, he's logic is botched and bungled. If the implication is false for each of the criteria, that means it is a conjunction NOT a disjunction.

4)McGrath is definitely an apologist. You can finish that article or read any of the others.

No, you clearly don't even know what that word means.

The only cult here is the anti-Carrier wu that turns out to be all ad-hom and nonsense.

He's caught exaggerating, and you called the critic an apologist without knowing a single thing about him. And even in the link you brought above, he's called a fundementalist, but that has nothing to do with anything.

When are you going to start checking the accuracy of your sources?

 

[dybmh]

No childhood of Jesus.

A story from the age of 12 correcting the other scholars IS a story from his childhood.

Speaking of checking for accuracy, I didn't miss the EDIT right in plain view right below the last line in the article. Because I read it.

You posted it, you should have mentioned that the first part was false the needed a correction. And still... the edit is wrong too.

As I posted above: McGrath's claim is a logical conjunction, not a disjunction. He's saying EVEN if all three are true, it's still not a myth. That's how entailment works:

McGrath's claim:

Criteria 1 ---> myth is false, because of a valid counter example
Criteria 2 ---> myth is false, because of a valid counter example
Criteria 3 ---> myth is false, because of a valid counter example

Then, these three can be re-written as true statements.

Criteria 1 ---> NOT myth is true
Criteria 2 ---> NOT myth is true
Criteria 3 ---> NOT myth is true

Now the three can be joined in a true logical conjunction

(Criterian 1 ---> NOT myth) AND (Criteria 2 ---> NOT myth) AND ( Criteria 3 ---> NOT myth ) is true.

Then using the truth tables for logical implication/entailment ( the arrows ) and for conjunctions ( the ands ), this simplifies to:

( Criteria 1 AND Criteria 2 AND Criteria 3 ) ---> NOT myth.

McGrath is saying even if all three criteria are met, it still doesn't entail a myth.

It's accurate.

Not really. It's a myth that Jesus is a myth.

Exactly, like calling Carrier a liar and untrustworthy instead of fact checking.

He is.

I see what you are doing. You know you've lost to Carriers' research so you now play up this "can't trust him" and want me to now go check Plutarch out of the Yale library.

First, please be honest. Did you read the myth yourself? Which version? Who translated it? When was it dated?
Second, did you keep track of the differences?

These are simple questions.

As if I've never seen these games before. The book is peer-reviewed. Oh wait, maybe it's a conspiracy? What if the Library is in on it too? We can trust NO ONE. I'll send you smoke signals of my research. Look for that.

It looks like the academic review is 50/50:

Two academic reviews of On the Historicity of Jesus now exist: one positive by Raphael Lataster published in the Journal of Religious History (38.4, 2014, pp. 614-16); and one negative

On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review • Richard Carrier Blogs

Two academic reviews of On the Historicity of Jesus now exist: one positive by Raphael Lataster published in the Journal of Religious History (38.4, 2014, pp. 614-16); and one negative by Daniel Gullotta published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (15.2-3, 2017, pp. 310-46)...

www.richardcarrier.info

Wow, that's funny since the RR hero type is based on a set of traits that are commonly found in hero myth narratives. As Alan Segal describes in In Quest of the Hero (Princeton University Press). It also describes the RR list as the fable of the "divine king".

Do you own that book? Please snap a quick photo of the page ( or a screenshot ) with that quotation so I can read the context. What relation does Segal have to Rank and Raglan?

And none of this comments on whether the "king" is a literal king or not. Just because the king is divine, that doesn't mean it was a fake king. a wanna-be king that never made it to the throne and nevere actually had a kingdom, but his followers decided to pretend there was a spiritual throne and a spiritual kingdom, and some day some day, that actual jkingdom will be realized.

Which completely would include metaphorical kings and supernatural battles. And Jesus.

Nah, not till I read it will I believe that's what was intended. And honestly, even if Segal has decided that the RR can be stretched to fit those things, it doesn't change the simple fact that my daughter is now a myth, and I'm a myth, and Obama is a myth, and everythin is now a myth if the scale is exaggerated.

It simply cannot be subjective and be meaningful.

We are talking about beings like Theseus, Dionysus, Romulus, Persus, Hercules, Zeus, Osiris, Asclepius, Jason, Bellerophon.......many who were metaphorical kings and battles demons in an underworld (but they came back).

Pick one. Any of them and let's discuss it. Please choose one where there is a full version of the myth that we both can read and refer to. I don't mind buying a book, if it's digital, and not too spendy, if that's what's needed. Just pick one.

Although harping on the same point for 3 posts is a bit much? It's not even a good point.

Then let's drop it. If it doesn't matter, then that's the actual answer Dr. Joel. It could be exaggerated and it doesn't matter. It could be literal and it doesn't matter. Jesus could be a zero on the RR scale and it doesn't matter.

If you ant to talk about a myth, pick one from the list you brought and let's talk about it. Just please be sure to pick one where a full version of the myth exists. OK?

 

[YoursTrue]

That is funny, woudl you support that claim?

BTW what exactly do you mean by Credible Scholar?

Aside from so-called credible scholars or not, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Build your case, show that any of the myths that you keep quoting has the same level of detail and accuracy than the gospels.

What "accuracy"? The Gospels are fairly accurate when it comes to place names and some famous people. That is just equating it to Spiderman. Meanwhile you continue to ignore the terrible errors in it. If you do not understand why the claim that Luke had to go to Bethlehem to be counted then that alone disqualifies you from being a rational judge.

Here is a clue, what was the stated (and actual) purpose of the census?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aside from so-called credible scholars or not, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed.

There is some evidence that Jesus existed. What do you count as evidence and why?

 

[YoursTrue]

Again,

Build your case, show that any of the myths that you keep quoting has the same level of detail and accuracy than the gospels.



If that where true, that I would accept the qoran as a valid historical source………….. I have no idea, if this is true or not.

For example if the Quran mentions a location whose existence could not be verified………I would give it the benefit of the doubt, because it had other 100 locations correct




(assuming that all the stuff you said about the koran is true)

I would sy that Muhammad had an expeirnce that he interpreted as "real" ............ unless someone has a good reason to doubt it......

well the peer review material says otherwise. (that the gosples are Greko Roman Biographies)

We have different ways of sizing things up. If I see no evidence that something is not true, then maybe I have to accept it IF it makes sense to me. That is, i believe, partially what can be called faith. Now if I were on a jury and it seems reasonable to me that the evidence presented points to the defendant as guilty but there are no eyewitnesses that I can believe, it becomes a bit of a problem. Since I do now, however, believe in God as outlined in the holy scriptures, I am convinced that I can put my faith in that. But remember that according to Jesus, the road is narrow and -- few would find it. Therefore, the rest is up to each one of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have different ways of sizing things up. If I see no evidence that something is not true, then maybe I have to accept it IF it makes sense to me. That is, i believe, partially what can be called faith. Now if I were on a jury and it seems reasonable to me that the evidence presented points to the defendant as guilty but there are no eyewitnesses that I can believe, it becomes a bit of a problem. Since I do now, however, believe in God as outlined in the holy scriptures, I am convinced that I can put my faith in that. But remember that according to Jesus, the road is narrow and -- few would find it. Therefore, the rest is up to each one of us.

The problem is that you simply deny quite a bit of evidence. You unfortunately use the ostrich defense where you try to hide your head from the evidence. It is still there.

Why not have a rational discussion of what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Thrillobyte]

Sure it is, you objected to including Luke in the RR scale because date of composition on Luke was 80ish years after the supposed events took place. Matthew was also composed within that time frame. And I supported that with links to wikipedia. That's support. I didnt make it up.



So what? That wasn't part of what you said originally. It wasn't included in your reason for excluding Luke. If anything it means they should both be included in evaluating the story. If they weren't in a vaccum independent of each other, then, they're part of the same story/tradition.



Ummmm.... Now you need to provide evidence of that. The direct copying of Luke from Matthew? That's a claim, and I understand that differently. I thought it was Mark. They both copied from Mark. And Mark was def earlier. And Luke and Matthew came out around the same time.



Well, that's another claim. And you're saying wikipedia is wrong. Which is fine. But that doesn't mean I didn't support what I said. All it means is your claiming to have more better info, but you haven't presented it. And I'm happy to review what you bring and completely ignore the other exaggerations in the thread. I am totally happy to be better informed on this. But you need to bring the goods.



OK. That agrees with that I brought. So, what's the problem? You even quoted it.

I said: Matthew: Last quarter of the first century (75-100AD-ish)
Your source above says: Matthew 85ADish

I said: Luke: 80-90AD ish
Your source above says: 85-95AD ish

Maybe you're misreading it? It doesn't say 85-95 years later than Matthew. It literally matches what I found and posted from wikipedia. What I see them saying is Luke was written 15ish years later than Matthew. That's it.


View attachment 78884



Again, all of these same things can be said about Matthew. And your arguing about what exactly? One item on the RR scale. There's over ten that are exaggerated to come up with 20 out of 22. And this is coming from Carrier who has been caught exaggerating multiple times in this thread. The "Jesus is a myth like Hercules because of the RRscale" argument is dead. And apparently it was never an important argument for the mythicist anyway.

So what are we arguing about? Your own source has backed up what I said?

Are you trying to show me I'm not researching stuff too? If so, that hasn't worked.

Dude, you are going off the rail. All I'm saying is that Luke was written after Matthew and Luke copied verbatim in many cases extensive parts of Matthew as well as Mark. However, Luke has stories that don't appear in Matthew. So it's obvious who was drawing from whom and who was exaggerating whom. None of this has anything to do with RR. A myth is a myth is a myth. All four gospels display various RR characteristics of the mythotype so it doesn't matter in which order they came. All of the gospels tell the same mythological story of Jesus.

 

[dybmh]

Dude, you are going off the rail. All I'm saying is that Luke was written after Matthew and Luke copied verbatim in many cases extensive parts of Matthew as well as Mark. However, Luke has stories that don't appear in Matthew. So it's obvious who was drawing from whom and who was exaggerating whom. None of this has anything to do with RR. A myth is a myth is a myth. All four gospels display various RR characteristics of the mythotype so it doesn't matter in which order they came. All of the gospels tell the same mythological story of Jesus.

1) I'm not going off any rail
2) I supported what I said, you said I didn't. Since I did, there's going to be some words typed to resolve that.
3) My dates match your dates, so, a tiny little, "sorry" or acknowledgement of that would be good
4) You're criticising me for not supporting something simple like a set of dates, but you're not supporting this Luke was obviously copied claim, and that's actually pretty tough to prove
5) Your own source says they're basically distinct
6) we can totally drop the RR fiasco. It's meaningless anyway, since the criteria are being evaluated subjectively. The only reason I mentioned it is because YOU said Luke was 80 years off from the supposed events. So this shouldn't be something we're arguing about.

Now, that thats settled. Maybe please let's focus on Luke and Matthew?

Why are you attaching certainty to this "Luke must have come after Matthew claim" without bringing sources to support it? It's not obvious. You haven't brought examples from Matthew and Luke to compare. That's step 1. Assuming they're good solid matches, the next step is to show that Matthew wasn't borrowing from Luke and Luke wasn't borrowing from Mark. That needs to be solid too. If either is weak, then the claim is not certain. And there's maybe a discussion that can be had about how certain it is.

But you need to bring something more than, "It is and it's obvious cause I said so", especially immediately after you were asking for me to support something simple that your own source confirmed.

Its's this same flippy-flop, criticise others, but it's OK for me nonsense.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Luke was obviously copied claim

I never said Luke was copied. I said Luke COPIED Matthew. And per my link I showed that Luke came as much as 15 years after Matthew. That's a long time in 1st Century years. And it's certainly not "the same time as Matthew".

 

[dybmh]

I never said Luke was copied. I said Luke COPIED Matthew. And per my link I showed that Luke came as much as 15 years after Matthew. That's a long time in 1st Century years. And it's certainly not "the same time as Matthew".

Oh gee whiz. I know what you meant, and if you read my reply in total, you would know that.

The dates of composition are pretty close, and well within the margin of error. Have you considered how the composition of these texts could posible be dated so precisely?

If you read your own source, it doesn't make sense to consider these dates and this 15 year number to be locked in. They said Matthew was 85AD, and Luke was 85-95AD. See that? They don't know precisely when these were composed. Do you actually think 85AD was the year Matthew was composed? How do you think they came up with that kind of specificity. It could be Matthew was much earlier. And Luke was much later. So going by the date like it's precise doesn't make sense.

Anyway, you claimed Luke was copied verbatim from Matthew. Please bring some examples. Let's see how solid these matches are, and let's see if they're also in Mark. OK? That really should be the first step.

 

[lukethethird]

Oh gee whiz. I know what you meant, and if you read my reply in total, you would know that.

The dates of composition are pretty close, and well within the margin of error. Have you considered how the composition of these texts could posible be dated so precisely?

If you read your own source, it doesn't make sense to consider these dates and this 15 year number to be locked in. They said Matthew was 85AD, and Luke was 85-95AD. See that? They don't know precisely when these were composed. Do you actually think 85AD was the year Matthew was composed? How do you think they came up with that kind of specificity. It could be Matthew was much earlier. And Luke was much later. So going by the date like it's precise doesn't make sense.

Anyway, you claimed Luke was copied verbatim from Matthew. Please bring some examples. Let's see how solid these matches are, and let's see if they're also in Mark. OK? That really should be the first step.

There are parallel gospel sites online wherein the gospel verses are laid out in columns so that you can see how the gospels match up with each other. You can also read up about the synoptic problem.

Table of Gospel Parallels

 

[lukethethird]

MATTHEW​ sons, may sit, one on your right hand, and one on your left hand, in your Kingdom." 20:22 But Jesus answered, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to him, "We are able." 20:23 He said to them, "You will indeed drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for whom it has been prepared by my Father." 20:24 When the ten heard it, they were indignant with the two brothers. 20:25 But Jesus summoned them, and said, "You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 20:26 It shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. 20:27 Whoever desires to be first among you shall be your bondservant, 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

MARK​ sit, one at your right hand, and one at your left hand, in your glory." 10:38 But Jesus said to them, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" 10:39 They said to him, "We are able." Jesus said to them, "You shall indeed drink the cup that I drink, and you shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; 10:40 but to sit at my right hand and at my left hand is not mine to give, but for whom it has been prepared." 10:41 When the ten heard it, they began to be indignant towards James and John. 10:42 Jesus summoned them, and said to them, "You know that they who are recognized as rulers over the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 10:43 But it shall not be so among you, but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant. 10:44 Whoever of you wants to become first among you, shall be bondservant of all. 10:45 For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."