Thrillobyte
Active Member
Well, I mean don't patronize me. Do you agree with what I said about those verses? Does the Bible contradict itself? Did I prove the point?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus
- Thread starter Thrillobyte
- Start date
leroy
Well-Known Member
We are talking about clear and unambiguous experiences, where people saw jesus, talked with him, ate with him, etc.
reported cases of Folie à deux are not like that
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. Well I suppose that if one wanted to be disingenuous one could claim that since Matthew has the birth in 4 BCE or before and Luke has it in 6 CE. That is a ten year difference and would be technically in different millennia, but no, I only argued about the obvious ten year difference. To make it clearer, Matthew has the birth while Herod the Great is still the king. Luke has it after Herod's death in the time of the sone that was given control over Judea and after that son had been deposed by Rome.
No. Haven't you studied your myth at all? Once again these are differences between Luke and Matthew.. One has one line of descent and another claims a different one.
Adam was myth8cal. There never was one person.
Okay so are you admitting that "conjecture is all that you have? You clearly have not understood the points that I have made so there is no way possible for you to support your claims of "conjecture" if that is the case. Also the time of the writing of the Bible is far shorter than you think that it was. Most of it does not date far before the Babylonian Captivity.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I do. It is based upon a false premise.
But let me give you a chance. Try to state the basic premise in your words of the criteria of embarrassment and I will explain, though I doubt if you will allow yourself to understand the explanation, of why that premise is not valid.
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
I ninety percentile sure that there are evidences of drug use in that time, including some that are known to have hallucinogenic properties.
I have heard tales of the things people see on such substances.
People suffering from psychosis have reported vivid hallucinations.
Returning to Occam's... I have never seen any of the miracles ascribed to Jesus done, I have never heard of them happening since.(outside of walking on ice, or using chemical reactions for color change. parlor tricks)
I have listed a few above, and I will finish with where I began:
Extreme stress and trauma can cause one to misinterpret what occurred. It is not uncommon for PTSD to cause hallucinations. Couple these hallucinations with Folie à deux and perhaps you can see how someone compelled to believe what they did not see could sweep up a frenzy of people who also seen all of nothing!
PTSD Hallucinations:
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
Why such condescension?
Yes, all any of us can have regarding this topic is conjecture, so standing up there on your soap box preaching about how you know so much more about the bible than me, gets us nowhere. If you are so disgruntled by the book, put it down.
It is at this point, I am uncertain you have a point, what has been your point could you point to your point, please?
Is your point that you study the bible more than I do? Is your point that it differs from your personal model of what a bible should be?
I have already accepted there are contradictions. If you wish to continue studying the bible, perhaps you should too. Just a suggestion.
You seem more absorbed with this myth than myself. Are we certain it's not your myth?
Allegory ≠ contradiction.
I see one line, this dude begets that dude begets that dude... all the way down. All the people named as Jesus' ancestor, is on that line.
Whether this lineage is accurate, or even believable... Well, that's a whole different ball of wax, and I would call it allegory honestly.
More conjecture because like you, that's all I have:
Jesus was a real man, probably had a lead role in activism or protests against the state. He accumulated enough fame in his circles to join the ranks of many legendary heroes and the likes. Men who have been written about in postmortem and been given attributes that have been more used than a SciFi tropes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You claimed conjecture, which is an accusation that requires evidence. If you cannot support it all that it merits is condescension at the most. Now I did provide a link, it was a copy of an old one and it is apparent that they did not copy all of the contradictions. I should look at them more carefully since one may be able to still recover the ones that do not work. But even what is left there are many self contradictions in the Bible. It is best to just own up to that and move on. My point was that you were wrong in rejecting another claim of many self contradictory claims in the Bible.
[/QUOTE]
No, we are discussing your myth . Your beleifs.
Now I did not claim that was a contradiction, But it is nice to see that you do not seem to believe in the Adam and Eve myth. Yes, Genesis can be said to work as allegory. As history, no. It is a failure. As is Exodus. But they still work as allegories. In fact much of the early Old Testament is allegory at best The worst behaviors of the God of the Bible are in those verses. If viewed as allegory it gets rid of those objections to the Bible.
Okay, so you are not a literalist.
Jesus probably was a real man. There still is some doubt, but I will agree that he was real. He was a preacher. He did have a following. And it appears that we are not that far apart in our beliefs. My use of the link that I provided is aimed at biblical literalists. I know that not all Christians are unreasonable, but from some of your arguments I assumed that you were. I do not see that now. I am not a fundy about the non-existence of Jesus. In fact I find it rather unlikely.
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
Conjecture is defined as an assumption or conclusion that
And remember, arguing through angst or condescension often falls under the category of the Ad Hominin logical fallacy. We must be mindful, can't take the world too 'literal'ly.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I know that. But as you used it it was also an accusation. It is a foolish accusation to make if you cannot support it because one adopts the burden of proof in doing so. It is better to ask what evidence one has for one's claims.Conjecture is defined as an assumption or conclusion thatrequireslacks evidence.
And remember, arguing through angst or condescension often falls under the category of the Ad Hominin logical fallacy. We must be mindful, can't take the world too 'literal'ly.
And no, most people simply do not understand an Ad Hominem fallacy. Now let's say that I know a character name Mike. I know him very well so I relay on the opinion the he is a poopy head. This in itself is not an Ad Hominem fallacy. He may be a poopy head, he may not be, whether I can support that or not is another matter. if on the other hand I said "Mike is wrong because he is a poopy head" that looks like it is an Ad Hominem fallacy since being right or wrong apparently has nothing to do with whether or not he is a poopy head. Most of the times when I see an accusation of an ad hominem fallacy it is not. Merely insulting a person is not an example of it. It is an unsupported insult along with the claim that a person is wrong due to that unsupported insult.
Back to the unsupported claim of "conjecture". That is bordering on an ad hom because though you did not say it, there does appear to be an indication that that is the way that you were leaning. So your unsupported claim was close to, but not quite an Ad Hominem Fallacy of its own.
And "conjecture" is a word that sets me off because I have seen creationists use it falsely far too many times. They not only do not understand the evidence for evolution . The refuse to even learn what is and what is not evidence because they appear to be afraid to be shown to be wrong. In other words one can ask if a person has evidence or if it is just conjecture, but once one accuses another of conjecture that person has the burden of proof. Not the person that possibly used conjecture.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Yes , for the 10th time.
The basic premise of the criteria of embarrassment is that someone is unlikely to lie, or make something up, if this lie goes against ones purpose.
1 if your purpose is to sale an item, you are unlikely to lie and tell people that the item is broken when in reality, the item is not broken……….. why would you make that up
2 if your purpose is to pay less taxes, you are unlikely to lie and report more income than your actual income.
3 if your purpose is to convince the jury that you are innocent, you are unlikely to lie, and tell people that the gun is yours, when in reality you don’t own any gun
4 if your purpose is to convince first century Jews that Jesus is the messiah, you are unlikely to lie and invent things about Jesus that go against the messianic expectations of that time.
yea sure,
@It Aint Necessarily
What about my own supernatural powers of predicting the future, ? does that count as a miracle?
My prediction is that @Subduction Zone will not explain anything, he will not even try to refute my argument, he will not admit his mistake, he will rather find an excuse for not addressing this comment.
Audie
Veteran Member
How can you say he was a real man
when that's not the name of any historical
person.
The one who seems to get tagged thus,
nobody knows where or when he was born or died,
where he went, whether he married, or what he actually did or said,
Lots of highly enriched / non credible stories attached to
said person are not actally about a nyone since they did not happen
leroy
Well-Known Member
yes but 2 persons cant have the exact same *vivid* hallucinations. such examples have never been reported
So
1 Yes one can have vivid/realistic hallucinations
2 one can have shared (non vivid) hallucinations………. If we both see a distant shadow we might have the same illusion and conclude that the shadow looks moreless like a demon.
But you CANT have both a vivid and a shared hallucination ………. Or atleast they haven’t been reported to occur……
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, I have to stop you right there since you have not formed a proper premise. Let's treat this as your premise. If an embellishment aids a cause then many authors will have no problem incorporating it. "Super Jesus" is a story that would not attract many believers. A good yarn makes for more believers. So whether true or not embellishments are not an "embarrassment" if they aid the cause. It looks as if you already lost the argument.
Now you are using a false equivalence. Not perfect is not "broken". And having supposed problems with an item can help in its sale. Let's say that I am selling a new Rolls Royce for only $20,000. The first thing that anyone is going to ask is "what is wrong with it". Now let's say that it is stolen, but just like the Jesus story not being true, I do not want to let on that that is the fact. So I am apt to lie to make an excuse for why it is so cheap. And let's say that I know it is stolen, but because a person stole from me I felt justified in stealing from him. I might be searching for justification for my wrong deed so much that I might be willing to believe my own lies.
So another failed argument.
True, but you did not think of all possibilities. Let's say that your money was accrued by illegal means. You would still owe taxes on it. To keep the IRS off your back you slightly over report so that they do not investigate you.
And then you got far off into lala land. Your arguments as usual failed. This time as about a 14 year old level. That is a slight improvement. But as to #4, it is obvious to any observant Jew that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies. That is why it became necessary to generate a whole series of new ones, most of them not even prophecies, after the fact. The lie in this case was "Well he may not have fulfilled this or that prophecy but look at all of these prophecies that he did fulfill". Now your average Jew back then could not read. Literacy was very low in those days and they would have to take people at their word that they were not quote mining. But guess what? Now we can go to those sources and see that they are lying by quoting out of context. People that want other people to believe will tell lies. They will even justify telling those lies in their own minds because it accomplishes their goals.
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
I think I see the misunderstanding; Most of the times I used 'conjecture', it was to expose my own lack of evidence for a claim.
i.e.
Here's Mark C's Conjecture, cause I'm weird:
"I meant all of the claims within the following sentences or paragraph is not backed by evidence, and I'm basically talking out of my arse. It's just personal opinions of my own, take them or leave them." - Mark Compton
i.e.
Here's Mark C's Conjecture, cause I'm weird:
"I meant all of the claims within the following sentences or paragraph is not backed by evidence, and I'm basically talking out of my arse. It's just personal opinions of my own, take them or leave them." - Mark Compton
joelr
Well-Known Member
That's one thing?
Because of the one thing?
So here you understand Jesus is a Jewish version of a Hellenistic deity.
It's also exactly what one would expect if a deity was made up wholecloth. Other Gods were euhemerized as well in this period so it wouldn't be unusual.
Also if based on a human we would expect Paul to know SOME detail about his earthly life, minisitry, family, crucifixion. He knows nothing except he had visions of Jesus who died and rose (doesn't say where) and blames the Acherons of the age on his death. This can mean people or it can mean spiritual forces in context.
Paul knows nothing in 20,000 words?
joelr
Well-Known Member
I was a very serious Christian. The evidence I found when being sincere was the same evidence other sincere Christians received. Confirmation and cognitive bias.
No proof. Nothing objective. Interestingly, when I dated a Hindu and later a Muslim they also received the exact same proofs in their heart about their God. Not only their God but that they had the exact correct version of truth.
How do you think cults work? Yes you believe in a deity, there is scripture explaining you are in a relationship, loved, you internalize these words and begin to "feel" strong feelings. If you don't think people also felt this "proof" with Inanna you are blazingly wrong.
The poems written by Edheduanna about Inanna are full of intense emotion and feeling.
These beliefs tap into infancy memories of seeing out parents as Gods. They can do anything and are seemingly limitless and they love us and provide food and needs. There are probably other psychological aspects as well.
Nothing here in the way of proof that there is anything happening except things in your mind.
Yes my Hindu friend had a personal relationship with Lord Krishna, she felt his communications in her "heart". He always helped her through hard times.
You don't believe in Krishna. You believe a different deity who provides the same results. What methodology do you use to determine which feelings are actually from a deity vs self generated feelings based on things you are told, you read and so on? Since they all appear to be similar.
Allah also gives followers the "I know it's true because Allah writes it on my heart", feelings.
So this type evidence is subjective cognitive bias. A bunch of self created Wu. By what reliable evidence do you know this is true?
Audie
Veteran Member
The "prophets "
Mohammed and Joseph Smith knew
nothing in a whole lot more than 20 k words.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Being a God is not on any hero list.
You cannot spoof the RR list because it was devised to show a hero was a Greek deity hero. Modern fiction obviously draws from this genre freely.
Not a RR category?
Christianity has a trinity, as does one of the Hinduism sects. Not a RR hero trait?
So do all humans.
Miracles or superpowers are not on the list.
So does The Sentry but that isn't a RR hero mythotype.
That might count as a mysterious death, maybe.
It certainly isn't a Rank Ragalin hero. In the modern age many works of fiction contain one or two Jesus traits. It happens
NO, you don't have any point. You just showed Dragonball scores a "one" on the RR hero type list.
It scores 100% on another list, the list YOU JUST MADE UP.
Carrier explains that he's using Ragalin's own advice and methodology when scoring Jesus and is in fact not being overly vague.
David Marshall's Bizarre & Dishonest Defense of the Historicity of Jesus • Richard Carrier Blogs
Liars disgust me. And David Marshall flat out lied about my work on public radio. He should be ashamed. But Christian apologists rarely are. They lie with impunity. The ten commandments be damned. Today I’ll briefly discuss that show, then detail what’s wrong with Marshall’s awful book defending...
www.richardcarrier.info
and from a different blogger:
2. The real meaning of the 22 events
Firstly, the number twenty-two is not final:
The fact that the life of a hero of tradition can be divided up into a series of well-marked features and incidents—I have taken twenty-two, but it would be easy to take more . . . .
Further,
The fact, however, that our heroes sometimes go beyond this pattern does not indicate that they are historical, since they may merely get into another pattern. The Twelve Labours of Heracles, for example, are outside my pattern, but they are clearly ritual and not historical. . . .
No surprise, then, that Carrier identifies a couple more in On the Historicity of Jesus. In Raglan’s earlier discussion of the Trojan War he cites Professor Hocart who lists “twenty-six features that characterize the ceremonies attendant on the installation of kings in all parts of the world. . . .” Raglan opts to focus on only two of these. And this segues to our next point.
Secondly, the twenty-two points are found to cluster around three themes:
- the hero’s birth
- the hero’s accession to the throne
- the hero’s death
That is, they correspond to “the three principle rites de passage“:
- Birth
- Initiation
- Death
Lord Raglan’s thesis is that these myths are the product of rituals. They originated as explanations (or even as dramatizations) of ritual ceremonies. That explains why in such stories the reign of the hero (after fighting demons or giants and marrying the princess and finally becoming the king) is as a rule uneventful. The stuff of history (building cities or monuments, expanding the kingdom, etc) is missing. The most eventful moment in some such stories is the king’s inauguration of laws. Historically we know no one person was responsible for introducing complete sets of laws out of nowhere; we are confident that such stories are etiological tales.
Royal weddings in certain ancient civilizations (e.g. Egypt) and even later were understood to be between a brother and sister (at least nominally) and restricted to a few interconnected families. This accounts for point 3 — that the hero’s father is often a near relative of his mother. In some cultures the king would approach his bride in the guise of or as a representative of a god. This may account for the frequent reference to unusual circumstances surrounding the conception of the hero. I am taking these points directly from Raglan book without checking such details against more recent knowledge. So if details like a king and bride being in some sense closely related or kings approaching their bride in some sort of divine role have since been discovered to have no basis whatever then I will have to retract this point.
As for the Jesus story we surely have something important to consider here. Rather than Christianity’s rituals such as baptism, the laying on of hands and the eucharist being established in order to remember historical events would it not be more typical (and scholars like Burton Mack have effectively said as much) if the gospel narrative grew out of the rituals?
Two gospel narratives begin with baptism and end with Lord’s Supper or Passover. Even the Gospel of John begins with the Baptist and accounts of baptism. Events following the Last Supper describe the meaning and value of that ritual. And the two gospels that extend the story prior to baptism by adding nativity scenes skip straight to Jesus’ adulthood. (Luke’s account of Jesus as a boy in the temple happens at the age of his entering his Bar Mitzvah and then skips to his adulthood.) Ritual at the beginning and again at the end.
Once we think of each of the 22 points in terms of their origins as dramatizations of rituals then we can apply them meaningfully to our narratives. We can make judgments based upon the principles or theory of the reason for the points. So though Jesus was not literally reared by foster parents in a far country he certainly was reared by parents who were not his original progenitors and he was indeed raised far from his heavenly home. At the same time his return to Jerusalem and being hailed as king is as significant as his prophesied return from heaven to rule. They both tell the same story — the former transvalues physical kingship by means of the glorification on the cross. These are not manufactured interpretations to make them fit the Raglan list. They are clear from the narrative itself.
The Rank-Raglan Hero-Type (and Jesus)
His mother is a virgin and he's reputed to be the son of a god; he loses favor and is driven from his kingdom to a sorrowful death—sound familiar? In The Hero, Lord Raglan contends that the heroic figures from myth and legend are invested with a common pattern that satisfies the human desire for ide
vridar.org
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
First and foremost, they tend to rely on unfalsifiable foundations.
In faith or religion, you will rarely find that which you search for if you seek anything except subjective contentment. Faith is a personal thing, if you ask me, making objectivity unlikely.
joelr
Well-Known Member
So as I pointed out, your list failed. Meanwhile, Jesus, clearly fits the Greek and Persian theology. The trends in Hellenistic religion described in my post from Britannica describes Christianity exactly. The Persian myths add a few missing details. Both nations occupied Judea in the centuries before Christianity was formed.
That is not a coincidence.
Later a 2nd century apologist literally said Jesus was just like the Greek deities, but blamed it on Satan.
Your response is to make a list having nothing to do with anything. Yes resurrection is embedded in out culture thanks to Christianity.
Well, when the NT was being written Greek and Persian mythic theology was embedded in the culture as well.
These historical trends explain Christianity exactly, even baptism and a communal meal. How many times was savior or salvation mentioned in Hellenistic trends. Even I was shocked at how much the church took these concepts over and taught them as if they are all original.
Sorry, it did not start with the religion you were led to believe.