What ONE critical piece of information made you decide to believe or disbelieve Jesus rose?

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't the line about James being the brother of Jesus the Christ acknowledged as authentic?

I am not sure. Okay there does not appear to be too much controversy about that passage. This is the one that is widely acknowledged to be a piece that was largely constructed after the fact. It may have a factual core, but the claims about him being "the Christ" and being resurrected are thought to be fruadulent:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Why? I do not go so far as to say that there was no Jesus. Though some are making a case for that.

 

[joelr]

No one seriously debates these wacky things . There is no such debate at any scholarly level . This is fringe radicals stuff.

First of all why this would be "wacky" makes no sense? The Torah has no afterlife, Satan generally works with God, there is no heaven where everyone goes, none of the concepts that were Persian were part of Judaism until the Persians invaded and the OT was re-worked.
I already gave a link to renoun Professor Fransesca S. explaining this about the 2nd temple period.


That quote on the Persian demon being the influence for Satan is from historian Dr Peter Clark:

Zoroastrianism: An Introduction to an Ancient Faith (Beliefs & Practices)


At 5:10 of this lecture historian Dr Carrier quickly covers the Persian influence during the 2nd temple period:

Resurrection, world ends in fire, Good vs evil, new world God's justice realized and so on.


The leading scholar on the Persian religion Mary Boyce is the source of the quote on Wiki and is on pg 29 of her famous book Zoroastrianism: Their Religion and Practices
"The unique historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5][6][7][8][9] messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[10] Christianity, Islam,[11] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism.[1"
I already posted a link to OT Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou explaining the OT was re-worked during the 2nd temple period and many Persian ideas added.

All this is standard scholarship. Just because they don't tell you history outside of the Church when you attend church doesn't mean it didn't happen.
All of these things are common knowledge in the Biblical historicity field. Theologians just do exactly what you have been doing. Block your ears and say it cannot be true.

You are correct however, there isn't any debate at scholarly levels. No scholar would ever debate that what Mary Boyce said about the Persians being first with those concepts or that Satan isn't modeled after the Persian version or souls going to heaven isn't a Hellenistic concept that was added to the OT when they were exposed to the idea during the Persian and Greek invasion. It's not disputed.

What do real historians say about the gospel myths?
Dr Carrier:

"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier


And the stuff about the other dying/rising savior gods contains original sources and is also standard knowledge.
Petra Pakkanen wrote about the Hellinization of all the religions in that area back in 1996. You bury your head in the sand then act surprised when academia knows stuff you don't?
Your hand waving doesn't debunk or change history. Just demonstrates ignorance.

 

[joelr]

Isn't the line about James being the brother of Jesus the Christ acknowledged as authentic?

At 44:44 Carrier speaks on current consensus on the James passage:

 

[joelr]

Are we discussing historical jesus, or supernatural jesus?

Tacitus is widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.
The Annals is one of the earliest secular historical records to mention Christ, which Tacitus does in connection with Nero's persecution of the Christians.

Either. Right now it seems historical. These have all been debunked by mainstream historians. I'll source Dr Carrier on this:

"They cite Tacitus. But Tacitus gives no source for anything he says on this, and his most likely source was simply the Gospels, or Christians quoting the Gospels (see demonstration in OHJ, Ch. 8.10). He therefore cannot be cited as corroborating evidence. Tacitus therefore carries zero weight as evidence for Jesus. At most his testimony can establish the Gospels were circulating by the early second century when he wrote. But we already knew that. And that’s even if the passage is authentic. Yet Tacitus might never have even mentioned Christ—the evidence that the only brief line making that claim is a fourth-century Christian insertion, is actually very compelling, and has never been formally rebutted"

https://www.richardcarrier.info/arc...1C7b0GdulXNHib_8dWaSPdW4zBzuq81pXSrY_R3Uk-Hfo

The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds.

Anything after the gospels is just people stating the Christians exist and they believe what the gospels say. That's it. Period.

The NT gospels are all copied from Mark. Christian scholarship agrees and actually has come up with the best arguments as to how we know this is true. From bible.org:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

That leaves Mark wich is written in a highly mythic style, has good evidence that he's using Homer, Psalms and the Epistles to create a narrative. So it's fiction.
An example of using Psalms:
Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.


There are several peer-reviewed papers on Mark's use of the Epistles. A free article here covers many examples of how scholars understand Mark used Paul:
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

When we take out all of the borrowed material there isn't anything left for oral tradition so it looks like it was all made up.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

First of all why this would be "wacky" makes no sense? The Torah has no afterlife, Satan generally works with God, there is no heaven where everyone goes, none of the concepts that were Persian were part of Judaism until the Persians invaded and the OT was re-worked.
I already gave a link to renoun Professor Fransesca S. explaining this about the 2nd temple period.


That quote on the Persian demon being the influence for Satan is from historian Dr Peter Clark:

Zoroastrianism: An Introduction to an Ancient Faith (Beliefs & Practices)


At 5:10 of this lecture historian Dr Carrier quickly covers the Persian influence during the 2nd temple period:

Resurrection, world ends in fire, Good vs evil, new world God's justice realized and so on.


The leading scholar on the Persian religion Mary Boyce is the source of the quote on Wiki and is on pg 29 of her famous book Zoroastrianism: Their Religion and Practices
"The unique historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5][6][7][8][9] messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[10] Christianity, Islam,[11] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism.[1"
I already posted a link to OT Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou explaining the OT was re-worked during the 2nd temple period and many Persian ideas added.

All this is standard scholarship. Just because they don't tell you history outside of the Church when you attend church doesn't mean it didn't happen.
All of these things are common knowledge in the Biblical historicity field. Theologians just do exactly what you have been doing. Block your ears and say it cannot be true.

You are correct however, there isn't any debate at scholarly levels. No scholar would ever debate that what Mary Boyce said about the Persians being first with those concepts or that Satan isn't modeled after the Persian version or souls going to heaven isn't a Hellenistic concept that was added to the OT when they were exposed to the idea during the Persian and Greek invasion. It's not disputed.

What do real historians say about the gospel myths?
Dr Carrier:

"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier


And the stuff about the other dying/rising savior gods contains original sources and is also standard knowledge.
Petra Pakkanen wrote about the Hellinization of all the religions in that area back in 1996. You bury your head in the sand then act surprised when academia knows stuff you don't?
Your hand waving doesn't debunk or change history. Just demonstrates ignorance.

State of Christianity today:

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I am not forgetting about Job. I am understanding it, however, based on how the story goes which is Satan doing his god-ordained job of tempter and adversary (Satan is, afterall, a verb that means "to oppose"), who found a point to test the faith in Job given his life was good.

“God-ordained job”? You mean, like an employee? That makes no sense!
Who does that?! Do you know anyone who would even want, let alone ‘hire’, someone to oppose them?

Do you live according to how the God of the Bible , Jehovah, wants you to? (Probably not, due to reading your posts - no offense.) So, you oppose God’s standards, don’t you? My question:
Are you hired by Jehovah? If you can make your own decisions against God’s will...what would make you think Satan, a more powerful and intelligent life form, can’t?

Jehovah wants all of His intelligent creatures to worship Him because they want to, (with their Free will) not because they’re robots, or ‘employees’ and have to.

Because of this freeness we’ve been given, that’s why the issue of Sovereignty raised in Eden - Genesis 3:1-6 - could arise in the first place. And also why Jehovah allows the instigator of it, Satan, to continue living.... for the time being, anyway....with all of the angels observing Jehovah’s reactions. Once the issues are settled, Satan’s gone!

When your life began, you weren’t born to oppose Jehovah, neither was I , but by the decisions we make, we show Jehovah, Jesus, and all the angels where we stand on that issue of Sovereignty.

I know you don’t accept the so-called NT - the Greek Scriptures, But for the benefit of those reading this who do, at John 8:44 Jesus said the Devil “did not stand fast in the Truth.” The implication is that , at one time, he was “in the Truth”, but he left it.

Ezekiel 28:12-19 briefly describes Satan - tell me, who else could this be, ‘the guardian cherub in Eden’ who then rebelled? - and the reason he turned against Jehovah.

“God-ordained” as opposer...amazing! Who hires opposers?

And don't forget, Satan did nothing in that story without first being given instruction and permission from god.

Although he was permitted to test Job, Satan was not ‘instructed’ in how to do it! The killing of Job’s children & the other tests were Satan’s (Free Will) choices.


I still can’t get over ‘an employee hired to oppose / resist the Employer’! Again I gotta ask, Who does that?

Didn’t you tell me once , that you (I can’t say ‘believe’, because I know you don’t believe it) think the Bible teaches that God has predestined everything? So, thinking that the Bible says that ‘God hired an opposer to test people’....that idea negates the ‘predestined’ idea.

It’s useless to “test” something, if you already know the outcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although he was permitted to test Job, Satan was not ‘instructed’ in how to do it! The killing of Job’s children & the other tests were Satan’s (Free Will) choices.


I still can’t get over ‘an employee hired to oppose / resist the Employer’! Again I gotta ask, Who does that?

Didn’t you tell me once , that you (I can’t say ‘believe’, because I know you don’t believe it) think the Bible teaches that God has predestined everything? So, thinking that the Bible says that ‘God hired an opposer to test people’....that idea negates the ‘predestined’ idea.

It’s useless to “test” something, if you already know the outcome.

The Job story was just another morality tale. It falls apart if you approach it from that of an all knowing and all good God.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

“God-ordained job”? You mean, like an employee? That makes no sense!
Who does that?! Do you know anyone who would even want, let alone ‘hire’, someone to oppose them?

Satan doesn't oppose god in Judaism. The rebellion never happened. Satan (or Ha-Satan/The Adversary) is a fiercely loyal and obedient angel of god. No matter how ugly, dirty, or unpleasant, when Yehweh needs something done Satan will do it without question.

Do you live according to how the God of the Bible , Jehovah, wants you to? (Probably not, due to reading your posts - no offense.)

Why would I be offended? I've broken many of Jehovah's rules and laws with no remorse, guilt, or shame. I am an anti-Christ. I am a Satanist. There's no possible way I can take offense over this. I'm not Christian anymore, so such a statement can no longer sting.

Jehovah wants all of His intelligent creatures to worship Him because they want to, (with their Free will) not because they’re robots, or ‘employees’ and have to.

The angels don't have free will in Judaism.
I contend we don't either.

When your life began, you weren’t born to oppose Jehovah, neither was I , but by the decisions we make, we show Jehovah, Jesus, and all the angels where we stand on that issue of Sovereignty.

Sovereignty can eat my shorts.
No one is born to do something, but we are shaped and molded to be things. God's people shaped and molded a future adversary from their own flock, ensuring an enemy who knows their ways and thinking and theology just as well as they do (this applies most specifically to Southern Baptists, but evangelicals as a whole as well). The Holy Spirit has left. Those understandings and interpretations provided by it have not.

I know you don’t accept the so-called NT - the Greek Scriptures, But for the benefit of those reading this who do, at John 8:44 Jesus said the Devil “did not stand fast in the Truth.” The implication is that , at one time, he was “in the Truth”, but he left it.

I don't accept the OT either.
But, ultimately, this devil in the Gospels is absent from Judaism. You can go ask them.

 

[John1.12]

At 44:44 Carrier speaks on current consensus on the James passage:

Yes carrier = wacky .On a ex Jehovah witness video . = wacky .

 

[John1.12]

At 44:44 Carrier speaks on current consensus on the James passage:

Why not use your own findings from the bible instead of appeals to ( wacky ) authority?

 

[Trailblazer]

But, ultimately, this devil in the Gospels is absent from Judaism. You can go ask them.

The concept of a devil (Satan) is also absent in the Baha'i Faith. Baha’is do not believe that there is an actual being called Satan but rather we believe that Satan as mentioned in the scriptures represents the lower selfish nature in man, the evil ego within us, not an evil personality outside making us do stuff. So for example:

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

I do not believe that Jesus was not talking to a real entity called Satan, because I do not believe there is any such entity. Rather, Jesus was saying to Peter that the things that are not of God but are rather of men (selfish desires) are offensive to Him.

Then Jesus tells His disciples to deny their selfish desires and to follow in His Way because whoever lives for their selfish desires will lose his eternal life, but whoever sacrifices his life for the sake of Jesus and God will gain eternal life.

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

If we live for self and the worldly things we gain the world but we lose our soul in the sense that we lose eternal life. Eternal life refers to a “quality” of life, nearness to God, which according to Jesus comes from believing in Him and following in His Way. One can have eternal life in this earthly life as well as in the spiritual world afterlife.

It is the soul that gets eternal life, not the body, so if one loses their soul they lose eternal life. That does not mean the soul actually dies because the soul is immortal so it cannot never die. Eternal life is a state is the soul that is near to God, so those who are far from God lose their soul, figuratively speaking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

//there were no eyewitnesses to the resurrection// So why did the writers make it up ?

I can think of a few possible reasons, but it seems obvious - to me, at least - that they did.

The original version of Mark didn't even include the resurrection. It was only later that it got added to the Gospels, and then the more that time passed, the larger and more elaborate it became.

This sort of "snowball" is not how true, reliable accounts work, IMO.

 

[John1.12]

I can think of a few possible reasons, but it seems obvious - to me, at least - that they did.

The original version of Mark didn't even include the resurrection. It was only later that it got added to the Gospels, and then the more that time passed, the larger and more elaborate it became.

This sort of "snowball" is not how true, reliable accounts work, IMO.

Have you ever just read the bible assuming it is true ?

 

[John1.12]

I can think of a few possible reasons, but it seems obvious - to me, at least - that they did.

The original version of Mark didn't even include the resurrection. It was only later that it got added to the Gospels, and then the more that time passed, the larger and more elaborate it became.

This sort of "snowball" is not how true, reliable accounts work, IMO.

Having a reason, surely would give some credence to these theories? I've never heard a sensible reason. I've never heard a reason at all . Which is odd .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you ever just read the bible assuming it is true ?

Ha! No. Why would I do that?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I can think of a few possible reasons, but it seems obvious - to me, at least - that they did.

The original version of Mark didn't even include the resurrection. It was only later that it got added to the Gospels, and then the more that time passed, the larger and more elaborate it became.

This sort of "snowball" is not how true, reliable accounts work, IMO.

Especially when it says something as ridiculously dangerous as

"In my name they shall cast out devils, speak with new tongues, they shall take up poisonous serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.” Mark 16:18

This, to me, is an obvious con job written solely to make attractive but impossible promises to initiates that they will have these fantastical supernatural powers

ONLY IF THEY ACCEPT JESUS!

This was the beginning of my faith in Jesus cracking like an eggshell. I saw for the first time just exactly what a ruse Christianity was.

 

[nPeace]

Either. Right now it seems historical. These have all been debunked by mainstream historians. I'll source Dr Carrier on this:

"They cite Tacitus. But Tacitus gives no source for anything he says on this, and his most likely source was simply the Gospels, or Christians quoting the Gospels (see demonstration in OHJ, Ch. 8.10). He therefore cannot be cited as corroborating evidence. Tacitus therefore carries zero weight as evidence for Jesus. At most his testimony can establish the Gospels were circulating by the early second century when he wrote. But we already knew that. And that’s even if the passage is authentic. Yet Tacitus might never have even mentioned Christ—the evidence that the only brief line making that claim is a fourth-century Christian insertion, is actually very compelling, and has never been formally rebutted"

https://www.richardcarrier.info/arc...1C7b0GdulXNHib_8dWaSPdW4zBzuq81pXSrY_R3Uk-Hfo

Whenever I go to a page with a title like that, I instantly close it, as it clearly broadcasts its inability to present facts.

Anything after the gospels is just people stating the Christians exist and they believe what the gospels say. That's it. Period.

The NT gospels are all copied from Mark. Christian scholarship agrees and actually has come up with the best arguments as to how we know this is true. From bible.org:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

That leaves Mark wich is written in a highly mythic style, has good evidence that he's using Homer, Psalms and the Epistles to create a narrative. So it's fiction.
An example of using Psalms:
Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.


There are several peer-reviewed papers on Mark's use of the Epistles. A free article here covers many examples of how scholars understand Mark used Paul:
Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier

When we take out all of the borrowed material there isn't anything left for oral tradition so it looks like it was all made up.

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It falls apart if you approach it from that of an all knowing and all good God.

That is similar to what I said at the bottom of the post: if a person believes in predestination, i.e., God is all knowing, then he/she can’t believe that ‘God is testing people’.... it would be needless. There’s no need to test for what is already known (supposedly).

Actually, both concepts are flawed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is similar to what I said at the bottom of the post: if a person believes in predestination, i.e., God is all knowing, then he/she can’t believe that ‘God is testing people’.... it would be needless. There’s no need to test for what is already known (supposedly).

Actually, both concepts are flawed.

Yes, there are quite a few flaws with the God of the fundamentalists.

 

[joelr]

Yes carrier = wacky .On a ex Jehovah witness video . = wacky .

Wow, what a rebuttal. Call the scholar wacky? Most of his information there is just consensus in the historicity field.

You know he's wacky because they told you in church? Or is that a revelation? Do revelations include sources?