Would Jesus put up with the very wealthy and very poor?

[oldbadger]

I spend time debating to look for information.

I don't think so. I think that you just read the myther's proposals and suggestions and then try to parrot them with no real depth of study from yourself.

This is a giant waste of time with a dishonest debater.

It's a giant waste of time if you thought this would be a pushover, Joel.
I don't class you as a proper full-on genuine myther....... you just look like the shadow of one to me.

Oh dear! Where have the real mythers gone? Oh for the days when waitasec was on here! Waitasec could deliver hammer blows in a couple of sentences... at least she was a deadly foe and 'yes', one learned something during every single confrontation......but now, pages of parroted waffle........ just shadows.

 

[joelr]

This thread is about the gospels. To wander off to anything about Paul is just some kind of attention deficit, maybe?

well you walked right into this one? The reason I mentioned Paul is:
1) we were discussing how MArk used the Epistles to create his story
2) it was also a direct response to your comment - "Paul did not write down one single anecdote, account, action or anything else about Jesus (apart from the last hours).
Nothing. Zilch. So any scholar's proposals that Mark wrote the whole account based upon Pauline comments is........... junk."

Talk about ADD? Wow.

While we are on the subject of ADD, you asked (twice) for a miracle so you could explain why it was in the gospels. I responded with a detailed post regarding a miraculous claim of resurrection and accounts of older religions having many similar details. No response yet?

Hot air and wind cannot win debates, Joel.

Exactly. Which is why I source everything and back up my claims with scholarship. The hot air responses you come back with have been complete fails. This is why I have been telling you you are in some fantasy world. You can provide evidence for your claims at any time?

You just didn't like it when I threw your examples in the bin including the verses that you wanted to trash. ....... leaving you with masses and masses of verses which you haven't been able to touch.

Except you didn't debunk anything. You just said "junk" without any evidence. Then later admitted you also believe these verses are fiction which backs up my point about Mark being fiction. So in the end you just helped solidify my point. Since we now have concrete verses that we know are made up going the rest of the way and concluding it's all fiction is even easier.
Although you haven't given any evidence, just opinion, so it actually doesn't forward my point much.

You've been asked to present the bad stuff, which I have trashed anyway, and you cannot find anything else. Your long winded waffle has been halted by short, concise and clear posts that anybody who has actually researched and reviewed the gospels for themselves could manage with ease.
Any 9yr old who know the gospels could beat you.

If the 9yr old had good evidence maybe they could. You haven't given evidence one single time. All you have done is agree most of Mark is fiction. You failed to respond to the miracle claim I presented. You failed to make any argument that suggests anything in Mark related to a dying/rising demigod is real. You failed to give any evidence to back up any claim. The only thing you have done is agree with me Mark made stuff up. You have not debunked all of the mythic literary devices used in Mark which give evidence that it's made up. You have not attempted to debunk the fact that Jesus is obviously a Hellenistic copycat savior
Now for some bizzare reason you seem to want to pat yourself on the back as if you made even one single worthy point here?

Again, you are stuck in a strange fantasy world where your mysterious, unsourced conjecture about the gospels is correct and where to present an argument you just say "junk" without explanation, reason or sources and think you are saying something of value.

Now you have to resort to telling lies? Yes I found other aspects of Mark that are also fiction. I presented Ehrman explaining that our version of Mark is a century later than the original and was re-written countless times. It's also completely based on known older myths. It's also written to be fiction. You have not responded to any of that. So here you are falling deeper into delusional territory?

Specific Points:-
You have been forced to admit that:-
You have mentioned Cephas (Peter) who obviously was a real person. No myth.
You have admitted that the Baptist was a real person. No myth.
There was a Great Temple.
There was a corrupt Priesthood.
There was a corrupt and very fraudulent Money bazaar in the Temple. (Anna's Bazaar)

Total red herring. Or strawman. Maybe both? Of course there was a temple? I said from the start that Mark based this myth on towns that were real and some religious figures that were real. What Mark has them do in the story can not be confirmed as real. The dying/rising demigod is the myth. There are real people in Marvel Comics. That doesn't make Spider Man real?
The Prince in Hindu scripture was a real prince. This does not mean Krishna was real.
Everything in Mark is not made up. The story however is a myth. Your attempt to conflate these two facts sounds like more dishonesty.
If you think this is sound logic :
"John the Baptist was a real person so Jesus must have been the son of Yahweh and was a real Demigod who defeated Satan and gets all his followers to the afterlife"

Then you do not understand what logic is.

So the reasons behind what Jesus really did ......are all present.

Uh, whoops, you forgot to respond to the fact that there is no way to know what parts of Mark are even in the original Mark and that there is no evidence a demigod ever existed. And there is evidence the Israelites copied the Persian/Greek myths to create their own version.
Because you are purposely being cryptic it is unknown if you are arguing for a historical man or a demigod savior?

So you cannot be a true myther, Joel, or you wouldn't admit to any of it, but you do.

And, another fail. Mythicism has a definition. As usual you seem to think all definitions and basically all knowledge is whatever ideas pop into your head, regardless of what scholarship or even the religion itself has to say.
Mythicism is the idea that Jesus was a myth. Historicity is the idea that there was a Rabbi teaching a new school of Judaism (even though Rabbi Hillel was already teaching most of this before Jesus).
Either way the gospel narrative is a myth. Not the "temple". Not John the Baptist. The story of a demigod is myth either way.
In mythicism Jesus is a created character. The evidence favors mythicism. But either way, the Gods and sons of Gods and such are myths. You don't even understand what mythicism is?

 

[joelr]

Already shown in the NIV Bible....... The NIV tells us that verse 1:1 was edited etc.

As I've pointed out we don't know what was edited between the original and the version we have. All of it may be edited.

Joel........ your long winded waffle got washed away as soon as you had to show that the basic story was speculation. All you could do was hide behind the miracles and events of the last days.
As soo as I told you to junk these you hadn't got anything to wave about, hence your aggression.

No aggression. Just stating facts. How many times do I have to say this, Mark is written like fiction, uses older myths, our copy may have been edited many times, there is no evidence for a dying/rising demigod.
I see you are desperately trying to squirm around basic facts. Since the start you haven't demonstrated one single thing. Even that you agree that Mark was making stuff up, you didn't provide evidence.
You are just starting to talk nonsense now?

I do wish Ehrman would come here. Let's be clear about what we know about Bart Ehrman's ideas:-
He writes stuff like:-
One of the points I always argue in this kind of debate is that we simply don’t have early manuscripts to help us know what the originals of the New Testament said. I usually use Mark as an example. Mark’s Gospel was written around 70 CE. We don’t have any copy of any kind of Mark until around 200 CE .........
And on. Ehrman has no idea about when the first gospel was written...... none. He doesn't know when or where the true story was written, and he certainly doesn't know how the Jesus story survived through oral tradition until writ
He goes on..... Given that state of affairs, how can we possibly know what Mark himself wrote? We usually suppose (or at least I do) that we have a pretty good idea for most of the pasages of the book. But can we be *sure*? And in *all* places? My view is: we *can’t*.

Bart Ehrmann cannot be sure....... if he would only investigate the background, the situation, the geography, the politics etc that was going on he might actually be a useful source of info.
It's no good to wave an Ehrman flag around, you need to be able to show a case yourself.

Bart has books exploring the background, the politics and everything else regarding the historicity of the NT. The fact that you would say this shows delusion to a degree that I don't think we should be having a discussion at all?
I often hear theists saying weird stuff about biblical scholarship, "I don't follow atheist scholars", or " they don't know anything"...this is just more of that?
Are you ever going to make a point and back it up?

The Gospel of Mark, sieved of religious stuff.

And we know every other religion and the thousands of dead religions were myth. Clearly this religion is no exception. Terrible argument.

Anecdotes and info from the other gospels.

Did you just say "anecdotes"....... Yet the millions of anecdotes about other demigods and supernatural people are false, but this time they are true LOL!!! Sai Baba has over 1 million followers who swear he performed miracles in the late 1800s. How about those Joe Smith anecdotes..... Terrible argument.

The other gospels? They copied Mark and added their own theological and political agendas?


Christian scholarship demonstrates Matthew is a creative re-interpretation of Mark.
Biblical historians generally agree the others are copied from Mark as well.


"
4. “The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John (OHJ, ch. 10.7)."
Dr Carrier
41 Reasons We're, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed! • Richard Carrier

Josephus's mention of Jesus.

Massive scholarship on why the TF is fake and the James passage was a Christian interpolation. Many new papers demonstrating this fact. Even Wiki now knows this-
"The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, "

Carrier has a blog post summarizing the work done on Josephus and Jesus.


"Among the things we have confirmed now is that all surviving manuscripts of the Antiquities derive from the last manuscript of it produced at the Christian library of Caesarea between 220 and 320 A.D.
, the same manuscript used and quoted by Eusebius, the first Christian in history to notice either passage being in the Antiquities of Josephus. That means we have no access to any earlier version of the text (we do not know what the text looked like prior to 230 A.D.), and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius (no other manuscript in any other library ever on earth produced any copies that survive to today). That must be taken into account.

The latest research collectively establishes that both references to Jesus were probably added to the manuscripts of Josephus at the Library of Caesarea after their first custodian, Origen—who had no knowledge of either passage—but by the time of their last custodian, Eusebius—who is the first to find them there. The long passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) was almost certainly added deliberately; the later passage about James probably had the phrase “the one called Christ” (just three words in Greek) added to it accidentally, and was not originally about the Christian James, but someone else.

Besides those observations, six things in all have changed since opinions were last declared on this subject:

• Reliance on the Arabic version of the Testimonium must be discarded.
• Attempts to invent a pared-down version of what Josephus wrote are untenable.
• The Testimonium derives from the New Testament.
• The Testimonium doesn’t match Josephan narrative practice or context.
• The Testimonium matches Eusebian more than Josephan style.
• Previous opinions on the James passage were unaware of new findings, and therefore require revision.

Six traditional arguments against the authenticity of any part of this still stand and carry weight. None have been refuted. They can only be answered with balancing arguments in favor (such as citing the Arabic fragment, which as just noted is now invalid). I discuss them in more detail in my book (Ch. 8.9 of OHJ). But in short:

• The TF doesn’t fit the context of JA 18.62 and 65 (e.g. it does not describe “a disaster befalling the Jews” nor explain the rising tensions between Jews and Romans leading to war).
• The TF is implausible from a Pharisaic Jew (e.g. calling Jesus the messiah; saying he fulfilled prophecy).
• The TF is improbably brief (just contrast it with the religious controversy immediately following in the JA, covered in eight times more length, yet on a far more trivial incident).
• The TF is improbably obscure (contrast how Josephus writes about other sects, teachings, and actions, and how he always explains obscure terms like “Christ” or “Christian”).
• The TF was unknown to Origen (despite his explicit search of Josephus for Jesus material in his answer to Celsus) and all other Christian authors before the 4th century.
• Rewriting the TF to ‘solve’ these problems is always baseless speculation, not empirical argument.

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier

v

Mention of Jesus by Christian enemies.

Please list something specific. All mentions of Jesus are from the 2nd century and are referencing things people believed from the Gospels. Everything.

Plus the political, numismatic, geographical, archeological, historical backgrounds to early 1st century Palestine.

Exactly. The Israelites came under the rule of the Persians then the Greeks. During this time they were greatly impacted by the religions of their oppressors and Christianity is a syncretic blend of their religions. Even souls going to heaven is a Hellenistic creation.

Get studying!

I take it this is a memo to yourself? Your lack of ability to give one single source suggests this isn't something you are interested in. Funny the person who can not provide even one decent source wants others to go study. LOL. It's always the people who need the biggest reality check who are super opinionated about what others should do?

So junk it!!!!! And then what? What's after that?

There could well have been some meal taken together that was memorable. The Passover meal was taken away for consumption although some researchers tell us that refectories were there in the Temple for those who chose to take the meal there.

I'm not bothered about Carrier's waffle about the copying of Paul's mentions in to the gospels! YOu can junk all that and there is still the original story left behind. I've already told you that Paul did not write and single sentence about anything that Jesus did or said in the whole campaign, (except for the last 36 hours). So anything that Carrier moans about can be trashed out, leaving the rest for scrutiny.

Carrier demonstrated places in Mark where he very likely took what Paul says and crafted it into an earthly story. The last supper example is a good example. You didn't debunk any of that.You didn't provide any reason to doubt that Mark was using Paul? Not in any example? You just wrote "junk" without a reason and some other commentary that isn't related to the issue of Mark using Paul?
Paul didn't write about the "campain" because it was a fictional story Mark created.
Paul only heard things from a ghost Jesus who appeared to Paul after he had been resurrected and Jesus gave Paul information. Mark took those sayings and crafted them in his fictional tale about a demigod.

You agreed that the last supper was fiction and it's obvious Mark created it from the passages in Paul where Jesus is telling him a message to future Christians. Now you are mentioning "researchers" who know something about about a passover meal???? Give the source. What researchers? I think you are just being vague no because you have no points to make.

 

[oldbadger]

well you walked right into this one? The reason I mentioned Paul is:
1) we were discussing how MArk used the Epistles to create his story
2) it was also a direct response to your comment - "Paul did not write down one single anecdote, account, action or anything else about Jesus (apart from the last hours).
Nothing. Zilch. So any scholar's proposals that Mark wrote the whole account based upon Pauline comments is........... junk."

Talk about ADD? Wow.

You could not offer one verse from any of Paul's letters which detailed anything that Jesus ever did (apart from the last 36 hours).

While we are on the subject of ADD, you asked (twice) for a miracle so you could explain why it was in the gospels. I responded with a detailed post regarding a miraculous claim of resurrection and accounts of older religions having many similar details. No response yet?

I gave you a list of actions (miracles) which Jesus performed and invited you to choose one.
The resurrection was not one of them.
Attention! I do not support or believe in any resurrection.

Exactly. Which is why I source everything and back up my claims with scholarship. The hot air responses you come back with have been complete fails. This is why I have been telling you you are in some fantasy world. You can provide evidence for your claims at any time?

You haven't got any scholarship, Joel, that seems to be quite clear to me.
So far all I have needed to do is junk your claims, although you have admitted that Paul knew Cephas, James and the Baptist, all who featured in the gospels which you claim are all mythical.....

Except you didn't debunk anything. You just said "junk" without any evidence.

You presented verses which you claimed were untrue...... I told you to junk them, bin them, chuck them away.......... which left you with nothing to fight over..... aqnd you couldn't add any others, it seems.
It's easy to debate with people like you. A walk over.

If the 9yr old had good evidence maybe they could. You haven't given evidence one single time. All you have done is agree most of Mark is fiction. You failed to respond to the miracle claim I presented. You failed to make any argument that suggests anything in Mark related to a dying/rising demigod is real. You failed to give any evidence to back up any claim. The only thing you have done is agree with me Mark made stuff up.

Mark never wrote about a dying/rising demigod. Those verses were added later.
You are quite uneducated about this gospel, it seems.

Again, you are stuck in a strange fantasy world where your mysterious, unsourced conjecture about the gospels is correct and where to present an argument you just say "junk" without explanation, reason or sources and think you are saying something of value.

Ha ha! That annoyed you, I think. You wanted somebody to debate with you over certain verses and you got upset when you were told....... 'junk them'! Then you had nothing left.

Wake up!

Now you have to resort to telling lies? Yes I found other aspects of Mark that are also fiction.

So write them down and post them up! But please don't bother me with the last 36 hours onwards..... I junked most of that years ago. There are parts of those last verses which could be true but you definitely do not qualify to discuss those imo.
So write down the aspects of Mark that are fiction and we'll see .............

Everything in Mark is not made up. The story however is a myth.

At last......... some sense.
Now......... which bits are true, in your opinion?

And, another fail. Mythicism has a definition. As usual you seem to think all definitions and basically all knowledge is whatever ideas pop into your head, regardless of what scholarship or even the religion itself has to say.
Mythicism is the idea that Jesus was a myth. Historicity is the idea that there was a Rabbi teaching a new school of Judaism (even though Rabbi Hillel was already teaching most of this before Jesus).
Either way the gospel narrative is a myth. Not the "temple". Not John the Baptist. The story of a demigod is myth either way.
In mythicism Jesus is a created character. The evidence favors mythicism. But either way, the Gods and sons of Gods and such are myths. You don't even understand what mythicism is?

Nah......... you ain't a proper myther in my opinion.
Mythers don't write stuff like 'The evidence favors mythicism'.....

You believe in some of it, I can see that, because you could not write down any more verses than those which I took off the table. What a laugh......... and you thought that such debates would be easy?

What you clearly have never figured out is that Cephas was very upset about Paul's waffle, and clearly wanted his version of events to be known, hence the origins of G-Mark, which then got tampered with, somewhat. That's all above your scholar-grade in my opinion.

 

[oldbadger]

How many times do I have to say this, Mark is written like fiction, uses older myths, our copy may have been edited many times, there is no evidence for a dying/rising demigod.

Are you telling me that I needed to PROVE your own beliefs back to you?
What a joke!

The rising demi-god end to G-Mark was not written by Mark. It was an addition.
Wake up. Junk it. Bin it.

Bart has books exploring the background, the politics and everything else regarding the historicity of the NT.

Oh no he hasn't....got the full 'everything else' about this!
If you think he has, then look up what Bart wrote about the Temple coinage....anything you can find about the Temple coinage, and we'll take it from there. If you cannot bdo this then I would be please to teach you more about this very important aspect with....'everything else'.

And we know every other religion and the thousands of dead religions were myth. Clearly this religion is no exception. Terrible argument.

What argument? Now off you go, and find/copy/paste any sentence that I have ever written that supports an aware, involved, interested.... God!

Did you just say "anecdotes"....... Yet the millions of anecdotes about other demigods and supernatural people are false, but this time they are true LOL!!! Sai Baba has over 1 million followers who swear he performed miracles in the late 1800s. How about those Joe Smith anecdotes..... Terrible argument.

Do stick to G-Mark, Joel.

The other gospels? They copied Mark and added their own theological and political agendas?

Please stick to G-Mark...... you can't cope with that yet.

Christian scholarship demonstrates Matthew is a creative re-interpretation of Mark.
Biblical historians generally agree the others are copied from Mark as well.

So debate G-Mark. But you cannot, it seems, apart from a few selected verses.

Massive scholarship on why the TF is fake and the James passage was a Christian interpolation. Many new papers demonstrating this fact. Even Wiki now knows this-
"The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, "

Carrier has a blog post summarizing the work done on Josephus and Jesus.

Oh.... stop you there......... Carrier hasn't got the first clue about the passages that Josephus wrote about Jesus. Nor have you, it seems.

If you want to debate this one single aspect then that might be good.......... but do you?
It is easy to show that Josephus 'did write about Jesus'.
That can be shown. But it takes some intelligent investigation to figure that out.

 

[joelr]

You could not offer one verse from any of Paul's letters which detailed anything that Jesus ever did (apart from the last 36 hours).

Jesus came to Paul in visions and told him stuff. Mark took the letters and used them in his storytelling. Your point is........?

I gave you a list of actions (miracles) which Jesus performed and invited you to choose one.
The resurrection was not one of them.
Attention! I do not support or believe in any resurrection.

No you said give a miracle. I picked one. If you have something to say with historical evidence to back it up regarding a miracle then say it and stop whining?

You haven't got any scholarship, Joel, that seems to be quite clear to me.
So far all I have needed to do is junk your claims, although you have admitted that Paul knew Cephas, James and the Baptist, all who featured in the gospels which you claim are all mythical.....

Right, except the scholarship I've sourced. More lies.
Yes Paul was real. He wrote real letters. Mark seems to have taken them and crafted a fictional narrative around the information in them. He used other sources as well.
You haven't junked anything? You just wrote the word "junk" next to a few examples. That isn't debunking anything? You have to explain why you think something, back it up with sources and some scholarship that demonstrates it might be true. You did nothing.
I get it. You don't know anything about the field, scholars and just make up stuff. I got it.

You presented verses which you claimed were untrue...... I told you to junk them, bin them, chuck them away.......... which left you with nothing to fight over..... aqnd you couldn't add any others, it seems.
It's easy to debate with people like you. A walk over.

No, you agreed with me that they are fiction. Which backs up the idea that Mark was writing fiction.
I did add ALL THE OTHERS? Mark is a fictional narrative. Religious fiction often does use real people and real places. What the real people do in the story is probably fiction as well.
Fiction also makes up characters. Jesus is probably a made up character.
I've put forth a large amount of sources to this point. All you have done is agree. You haven't done anything to show there was a real Jesus. You admitted the crucifixion narrative taken from Psalms was fiction. so it's fiction all the way down?

Mark never wrote about a dying/rising demigod. Those verses were added later.
You are quite uneducated about this gospel, it seems.

Yes I am uneducated in pseudoscience, conspiracy theory crank. In Christian scholarship and biblical historicity Mark wrote about a demigod. He writes about the Messiah. we can never know the intentions regarding the different endings.

Ha ha! That annoyed you, I think. You wanted somebody to debate with you over certain verses and you got upset when you were told....... 'junk them'! Then you had nothing left.

Wake up!

No I get annoyed when someone presents as if they can debate honestly then completely fail at everything. But still imagine they are saying something.
I sometimes forget not everyone understands critical thinking and how evidence works?

So write them down and post them up! But please don't bother me with the last 36 hours onwards..... I junked most of that years ago. There are parts of those last verses which could be true but you definitely do not qualify to discuss those imo.
So write down the aspects of Mark that are fiction and we'll see ............

.


You haven't demonstrated any part of Mark is fiction at all.
I don't need to write anything down. I told you, the dying/rising demigod story is a myth. The story is fiction.

At last......... some sense.
Now......... which bits are true, in your opinion?

John the Baptist is thought to be historical. What he does in the story is probably made up. Since we know Mark used older stories to craft events this means it's likely he made everything up. Historical writing does not use literary fiction devices.

Nah......... you ain't a proper myther in my opinion.
Mythers don't write stuff like 'The evidence favors mythicism'.....

It's like you enjoy being wrong.

The recent Jesus historicity study favors mythicism 3 to 1. The evidence in fact ....... favors mythicism. There is a 700pg book that reviews the evidence. You can read it for yourself.

You believe in some of it, I can see that, because you could not write down any more verses than those which I took off the table. What a laugh......... and you thought that such debates would be easy?

What debate? You haven't made any points that were backed up by any form of evidence? All you have presented is fantasy and attempts at saving face at your complete loss?

What you clearly have never figured out is that Cephas was very upset about Paul's waffle, and clearly wanted his version of events to be known, hence the origins of G-Mark, which then got tampered with, somewhat. That's all above your scholar-grade in my opinion.

Clearly you never figured that out either outside of fantasy world.
Mark is a fiction. Your long winded point about some people being real doesn't change that one bit. This bit about Cephas isn't above me scholar grade because it's zero scholar grade.

"In the 19th century it became widely accepted that Mark was the earliest of the gospels and therefore the most reliable source for the historical Jesus, but since about 1950 there has been a growing consensus that the primary purpose of the author of Mark was to announce a message rather than to report history.[22] The idea that the gospel could be used to reconstruct the historical Jesus suffered two severe blows in the early part of the 20th century, first when William Wrede argued strongly that the "Messianic secret" motif in Mark was a creation of the early church rather than a reflection of the historical Jesus, and in 1919 when Karl Ludwig Schmidt further undermined its historicity with his contention that the links between episodes are the invention of the writer, meaning that it cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the chronology of Jesus' mission: both claims are widely accepted today.

 

[joelr]

Are you telling me that I needed to PROVE your own beliefs back to you?
What a joke!

No you have to explain your beliefs (you generally skirt around that issue which is weird) then give reasons and sources why they are possible. That has happened, zero times.

The rising demi-god end to G-Mark was not written by Mark. It was an addition.
Wake up. Junk it. Bin it.

Provide evidence.
Mark was using Paul who claimed Jesus had already risen. In Mark Jesus is first announced as the Messiah and then later as the Son of God; he is baptised by John and a heavenly voice announces him as the Son of God; he is tested in the wilderness by Satan, all demigod stories. Plus miracles. All fiction.
No one can prove Mark wasn't also going to write about the resurrection. But he makes Jesus a demigod right off.

Oh no he hasn't....got the full 'everything else' about this!
If you think he has, then look up what Bart wrote about the Temple coinage....anything you can find about the Temple coinage, and we'll take it from there. If you cannot bdo this then I would be please to teach you more about this very important aspect with....'everything else'.

There are some descriptions of Ehrman';s books here
Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia

You haven't presented one single bit of information regarding Mark being an actual historical account. I'm sure you cannot. If you have a theory that you think can provide this then give it, source it and that is when we will take it from there. Your silly games are just silly games. It's the same old thing, religious guy thinks he knows more than scholars who specialize on the topic, but mysteriously cannot provide evidence.

What argument? Now off you go, and find/copy/paste any sentence that I have ever written that supports an aware, involved, interested.... God!

YOur argument here for Jesus was "anecdotal evidence". We have anecdotal evidence for every other religion that we can agree is false. For ghosts, Big Foot and all sorts of wu-wu. Not an argument.

Do stick to G-Mark, Joel.

I was debunking anecdotal evidence. Your response about sticking to Mark is pointless. This is becoming a trend.

Please stick to G-Mark...... you can't cope with that yet.

I just did. The other gospels are re-writes of Mark. I even gave a source.

So debate G-Mark. But you cannot, it seems, apart from a few selected verses.

Once again, it's all myth. You will never provide evidence against this if you haven't by now.

Oh.... stop you there......... Carrier hasn't got the first clue about the passages that Josephus wrote about Jesus. Nor have you, it seems.

If you want to debate this one single aspect then that might be good.......... but do you?
It is easy to show that Josephus 'did write about Jesus'.
That can be shown. But it takes some intelligent investigation to figure that out.

You brought this up as evidence for Jesus? Scholars have fully debunked this claim.
You haven't debated anything this entire time? Just opinions with no facts or evidence. I don't want to waste time on a fraud debater. You will refuse to comment on scholarship opinion/facts, waste time, only give opinion. I don't care about your opinion. If you have counter evidence write a paper and submit it to a biblical scholar. Waste their time.

Josephus -
A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.


The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at researchgate).


: “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.
Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.


Further evidence that the longer reference is a Christian fabrication lies in an article I didn’t cite, however, but that is nevertheless required reading on the matter: G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). There are some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of common kinds of authorial embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are very improbable on any other hypothesis than dependence.

Goldberg also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed, Lukan) and un-Josephan. He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and contrary to what Goldberg concludes, the latter is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively, and informedly).


Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can't Cite Opinions Before 2014 • Richard Carrier
The Josephus Testimonium: Let's Just Admit It's Fake Already • Richard Carrier
Jesus in Josephus • Richard Carrier

 

[Sheldon]

I don't accept slavery today, nor back then............ I don't accept many of those old laws for today, but back then...... ?

Laws that fail in just a few hundred years, but are purported to be from an infallible deity.

Under what circumstances did the Israelites stone their children? Can you show the exact verses?

<LINK>

 

[oldbadger]

Laws that fail in just a few hundred years, but are purported to be from an infallible deity.

I think that they were brilliant for the survival/success of a people, Sheldon. The trouble is that humans go wrong....... those laws were amazing............. in that time, for that time.

<LINK>

Sheldon, you were going to show me how little children got executed....stones...is that right?

Your link is good fun...... let's just look at the first 8 examples, ok?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ESV / 22 helpful votes
‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

No Sheldon! That ain't a sweet baby child, that's a great big full grown waste of space.

Proverbs 13:24 ESV / 13 helpful votes
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

No Sheldon. caning a child (or beating) is not stoning it to death!

Proverbs 23:13-14 ESV / 6 helpful votes
Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.

Nope........ no stoning there. Just caning/beating.

Hebrews 12:9 ESV / 5 helpful votes
Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?

Nope.......... Paul just ranting on about smacking/beating etc


Numbers 31:17-18 ESV / 5 helpful votes
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

Hang on! This is about treatment of a captured enemy, isn't it? They would kill any woman who was not a virgin...they couldn't dare to bring sexual transmitted sickness amongst their people. But all virgins could live and be brought in to the nation.

Leviticus 20:9 ESV / 5 helpful votes
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
This isn't about Johnny, aged 9 years...... this is about a brat grown up and gone bad.
What is the youngest age that minors have been executed in, say, the USA?

Exodus 21:17 ESV / 5 helpful votes
“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
and.....
Exodus 21:15 ESV / 5 helpful votes
“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
Well, we wouldn't stone the moron today but we would surely lock them up. A grown up son (or daughter) inflicting violence upon anybody should be incarcerated imo, but back then they didn't have the resources to lock up and feed folks............ they got rid of criminals.

And it goes on..... no sweet little babies there...

 

[oldbadger]

No you have to explain your beliefs (you generally skirt around that issue which is weird) then give reasons and sources why they are possible. That has happened, zero times.

Provide evidence.
Mark was using Paul who claimed Jesus had already risen. In Mark Jesus is first announced as the Messiah and then later as the Son of God; he is baptised by John and a heavenly voice announces him as the Son of God; he is tested in the wilderness by Satan, all demigod stories. Plus miracles. All fiction.
No one can prove Mark wasn't also going to write about the resurrection. But he makes Jesus a demigod right off.

There are some descriptions of Ehrman';s books here
Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia

You haven't presented one single bit of information regarding Mark being an actual historical account. I'm sure you cannot. If you have a theory that you think can provide this then give it, source it and that is when we will take it from there. Your silly games are just silly games. It's the same old thing, religious guy thinks he knows more than scholars who specialize on the topic, but mysteriously cannot provide evidence.

YOur argument here for Jesus was "anecdotal evidence". We have anecdotal evidence for every other religion that we can agree is false. For ghosts, Big Foot and all sorts of wu-wu. Not an argument.

I was debunking anecdotal evidence. Your response about sticking to Mark is pointless. This is becoming a trend.

I just did. The other gospels are re-writes of Mark. I even gave a source.

Once again, it's all myth. You will never provide evidence against this if you haven't by now.

This is all repetition of previous rants. All you seem to do is read the books of selected writers and parrot their opinions as if they are holy.
Let's get to something interesting, like Josephus.

You brought this up as evidence for Jesus? Scholars have fully debunked this claim.
You haven't debated anything this entire time? Just opinions with no facts or evidence. I don't want to waste time on a fraud debater. You will refuse to comment on scholarship opinion/facts, waste time, only give opinion. I don't care about your opinion. If you have counter evidence write a paper and submit it to a biblical scholar. Waste their time.

Easy......... Any bright kid can offer a case for Josephus having written about Jesus.
You want it?

Josephus -
A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.

But those people just didn't look at the FACTS of the case, Joel. YOu certainly have not.

The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, ............................
: “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.
Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably ..........

No Joel........... Probably is not a certain case.
And writing long titles of writers is a typical kind of Ad Hominem offering..... as in: this is a great schoilar so he must be right! Pathgetic.

Further evidence that the longer reference is a Christian fabrication.....

Good....... this part is better, Joel. So we can agree that Christians almost certainly wrote the account that can be seen.

So....moving on....... Christians wanted to pop a reference to their God in to the writings of Josephus. A kid in junior school could see that. Now....... where would these Christians have put this entry, eh? It's about their God!

The Baptist got a really substantial write up (do you need me to show you? Not acquainted with Josephus, possibly?)

A sensible Christian would have written a nice long account, at least as long as the Baptist's, and maybe have plonked inbehind or in front of the Baptosts's accounts?

But no....... it was a miserable little entry in a section dealing with trouble and difficult people!

Using your substantial intellectual powers, can you figure out how that might have come about, a silly short entry amongst trouble? Any ideas?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Would Jesus put up with unreasonable wealth and unreasonable poverty?
He didn't accept it back then, and I don't think he would now.
He would definitely support the centre-left, I think.

As if Jesus would care a hoot about earthly politics.

 

[oldbadger]

As if Jesus would care a hoot about earthly politics.

Hello Saint Frankenstein.

Yep.... He did.
He changed unworkable and corrupted laws.
He called out against the corruption of Jewish Leadership.
He demonstrated fiercely in the Temple, trashing the money bazaar.
He picketed the Temple Courts, two days running.
He spoke out against unreasonable wealth and poverty.
He supported the ancient poor laws.

Political. I like to read about him.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hello Saint Frankenstein.

Yep.... He did.
He changed unworkable and corrupted laws.
He called out against the corruption of Jewish Leadership.
He demonstrated fiercely in the Temple, trashing the money bazaar.
He picketed the Temple Courts, two days running.
He spoke out against unreasonable wealth and poverty.
He supported the ancient poor laws.

Political. I like to read about him.

He promoted asceticism and apocalyptic manifestation of his deity. "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand". Has nothing to do with earthly politics, as if he would be supporting some political figure, movement or party. Regardless, he's dead and consented to that death, according to the Gospels. His message as we have it didn't promote earthly affairs. Just the opposite.

 

[joelr]

This is all repetition of previous rants. All you seem to do is read the books of selected writers and parrot their opinions as if they are holy.

No rants. Just evidence and information that is accurate. There is no field where you wouldn't consider the general consensus opinions the current best guess at the truth. Would you criticize a physicist for "parroting" Einstien's relativity theories or ask your heart surgeon to not "parrot" the consensus opinions and to find their own truth about best practices through experimentation?
That is obviously absurd. Only in fields where people believe things on terrible evidence do they have to say ridiculous things like this.
These scholars can read all original documents, biblical and extra-biblical. They understand how histories and myths were written and have knowledge about the text so far beyond the layman that it's as stupid as going to a Bach performance and telling the chamber orchestra to stop "parroting" old composers and write a new Baroque piece.

All this is is a dishonest way to admit scholarship has ideas that don't agree with your ideas, you cannot provide evidence for your ideas, scholars can can but you have no interest in changing your beliefs based on actual facts.


Another strawman, these are not "selected writers", these are the experts in the field and it's the vast consensus among historians.
"Generally Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE.["
Moses - Wikipedia

Outside of fundamentaslism the supernatural aspects of these stories are considered myth.

Let's get to something interesting, like Josephus.

You haven't made a case yet for any Jesus story being true or responded to anything with any evidence? There has been no debate. I linked to 23 articles from Carrier that detail most of the current papers that demonstrate Josephus is a Christian fake on both accounts. It is widely accepted that the TF mention is a Christian addition. The James mention now has several papers that show this was not the brother of Christ James.

Easy......... Any bright kid can offer a case for Josephus having written about Jesus.
You want it?

You haven't given evidence for anything. So you haven't even tried to make a point about any subject. At any time you can make a case for any extra-biblical mention being proof of Jesus and then I can debunk it because scholars who know far more than you already have.

But those people just didn't look at the FACTS of the case, Joel. YOu certainly have not.

Which fact do you think was overlooked? Assuming scholars either "didn't look at the facts" or that there are facts you have that they didn't shows more of this delusion problem that seems to be happening.

No Joel........... Probably is not a certain case.
And writing long titles of writers is a typical kind of Ad Hominem offering..... as in: this is a great schoilar so he must be right! Pathgetic.

That isn't what Ad Hominem means?
You are attempting to invoke the argument from authority. It isn't an argument from authority fallacy when there is actual evidence to present. I'm showing you this subject has been studied and the vast amounts of evidence of later has concluded the Josephus passages are not about Jesus.

What might actually be "pathgetic" is terrible attempts to invoke fallacies.

Good....... this part is better, Joel. So we can agree that Christians almost certainly wrote the account that can be seen.



So....moving on....... Christians wanted to pop a reference to their God in to the writings of Josephus. A kid in junior school could see that. Now....... where would these Christians have put this entry, eh? It's about their God!

The Baptist got a really substantial write up (do you need me to show you? Not acquainted with Josephus, possibly?)

A sensible Christian would have written a nice long account, at least as long as the Baptist's, and maybe have plonked inbehind or in front of the Baptosts's accounts?

But no....... it was a miserable little entry in a section dealing with trouble and difficult people!

Using your substantial intellectual powers, can you figure out how that might have come about, a silly short entry amongst trouble? Any ideas?

It was re-written by Eusebius. The passage was already in that spot, written by Josephus, but Eusebius wanted it to confirm things about Jesus that matched the Gospels. He was already responsible for writing new versions. He could not change the location. This matter is settled in scholarship. The Josephus passages do not provide any confirmation to a historical Jesus.

 

[joelr]

I think that they were brilliant for the survival/success of a people, Sheldon. The trouble is that humans go wrong....... those laws were amazing............. in that time, for that time.


Sheldon, you were going to show me how little children got executed....stones...is that right?

The laws were similar to all nations in that region. Here is your child killing and "plundering". I know you will use the awful apologetics "they were evil", as if babies were evil. But unfortunately the Archeologists and Assyriologyists (like Dr Bowen) can confirm the laws were not any better than other nations and the Canaanites were peaceful farmers who respected their parents and so on. There is no evidence to demonstrate these other cities were pure "evil" and should be wiped out.

Deuteronomy 20

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.


Ha, Yahweh is such a weak God that if an Israelite just sees another religion he will convert? Maybe Yahweh could deal with it then if it happened? One thing is for sure, these were laws written by people. Like all Gods, Yahweh is a myth. Ha, plunder. Yeah, great laws.

 

[oldbadger]

He promoted asceticism and apocalyptic manifestation of his deity. "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand". Has nothing to do with earthly politics, as if he would be supporting some political figure, movement or party. Regardless, he's dead and consented to that death, according to the Gospels. His message as we have it didn't promote earthly affairs. Just the opposite.

I guess it's all down to what we believe individually, SF. I see him as a historical social warrior, pushing for the rights of the people against the tyranny of a corrupted leadership.

 

[oldbadger]

No rants. Just evidence and information that is accurate. There is no field where you wouldn't consider the general consensus opinions the current best guess at the truth. Would you criticize a physicist for "parroting" Einstien's relativity theories or ask your heart surgeon to not "parrot" the consensus opinions and to find their own truth about best practices through experimentation?
That is obviously absurd. Only in fields where people believe things on terrible evidence do they have to say ridiculous things like this.
These scholars can read all original documents, biblical and extra-biblical. They understand how histories and myths were written and have knowledge about the text so far beyond the layman that it's as stupid as going to a Bach performance and telling the chamber orchestra to stop "parroting" old composers and write a new Baroque piece.

All this is is a dishonest way to admit scholarship has ideas that don't agree with your ideas, you cannot provide evidence for your ideas, scholars can can but you have no interest in changing your beliefs based on actual facts.

Another strawman, these are not "selected writers", these are the experts in the field and it's the vast consensus among historians.
"Generally Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE.["
Moses - Wikipedia

Outside of fundamentaslism the supernatural aspects of these stories are considered myth.

You haven't made a case yet for any Jesus story being true or responded to anything with any evidence? There has been no debate. I linked to 23 articles from Carrier that detail most of the current papers that demonstrate Josephus is a Christian fake on both accounts. It is widely accepted that the TF mention is a Christian addition. The James mention now has several papers that show this was not the brother of Christ James.

You haven't given evidence for anything. So you haven't even tried to make a point about any subject. At any time you can make a case for any extra-biblical mention being proof of Jesus and then I can debunk it because scholars who know far more than you already have.

Which fact do you think was overlooked? Assuming scholars either "didn't look at the facts" or that there are facts you have that they didn't shows more of this delusion problem that seems to be happening.

That isn't what Ad Hominem means?
You are attempting to invoke the argument from authority. It isn't an argument from authority fallacy when there is actual evidence to present. I'm showing you this subject has been studied and the vast amounts of evidence of later has concluded the Josephus passages are not about Jesus.

What might actually be "pathgetic" is terrible attempts to invoke fallacies.

TLDR.
Probably the usual stuff with no attempt (or ability?) to debate the subject matter, Joel.
Let's face it, your chosen scholars are your prophets; Erhman might be your Jesus and Carrier your Paul!
You've grasped and clung to to a cherry-picked bunch of prophets that suit you, and you rave about their brilliance and accuracy because of their various degrees, where they lectured, and who they are...... in your faith they cannot be wrong. Thus you try to debate on the basis of Ad Hominem and from their 'authority'........ you haven't offered anything yourself at all.

And you keep admitting that characters and names from the Jesus story really did exist......... so you're not a real myther, I think? .....

It was re-written by Eusebius. The passage was already in that spot, written by Josephus, ...................

That'll do, although I don't care who you think re-wrote it.
It was already there!
Josephus had written a few words about Jesus in one of his 'trouble' sections.... a real man who had attempted a real mission!

Thank you and good night, Joel...... now please go and chuck your weak insults somewhere else.

 

[joelr]

TLDR.

I'm writing for people interested in truth and empirical evidence. You haven't been in this debate since the first post when you failed to produce an argument with evidence. But the TLDR is just a demonstration of acting like a spoiled brat when you cannot continue.

Probably the usual stuff with no attempt (or ability?) to debate the subject matter, Joel.

And by that you mean making actual points and using academic sources and empirical logic.

Let's face it, your chosen scholars are your prophets; Erhman might be your Jesus and Carrier your Paul!

Sorry, unlike you I don't choose unsupported beliefs and fantasies as holding more weight than actual facts and people who spend their lives attempting to find our best guess at truth.
Another spoiled tactic. Someone is educated and uses sources so you belittle them and the source. As if ignorance is the best path to truth.
Even worse, instead of following scholarship you actually have prophets, liars and myths from the Bronze age. Ha.

You've grasped and clung to to a cherry-picked bunch of prophets that suit you, and you rave about their brilliance and accuracy because of their various degrees, where they lectured, and who they are...... in your faith they cannot be wrong. Thus you try to debate on the basis of Ad Hominem and from their 'authority'........ you haven't offered anything yourself at all.

Uh, except I offered fact after fact. YOu failed to debunk or provide counter evidence to one single historical fact. You failed to produce evidence or sources for one single idea you have. The most you said on any topic was "junk" and "Josephus wouldn't write in this part of the book" (showing you know nothing about Josephus).
Everything you said was proven wrong with actual facts.
The, clearly butthurt you try to invoke the argument from authority and completely mess that up (twice). An argument from authority is when you say something is correct based on the fact that a person is a scholar. I'm discussing facts and simply giving the facts a source.
So that's another fail. Also using the term "ad-hom" here is completely incorrect.

And you keep admitting that characters and names from the Jesus story really did exist......... so you're not a real myther, I think? .....

And then we get back to this lie. a Mythicist believes Jesus was an invented character. Not a Rabbi who the gospel fiction was based on and maybe said a few of the sayings in Mark. Jesus was invented wholecloth. Which is why he scores higher than King Arthur on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale and his name means "savior". Other supporting characters may have been real people. That doesn't change the mythicism term one bit.
Except I already explained this at least two times.

That'll do, although I don't care who you think re-wrote it.
It was already there!
Josephus had written a few words about Jesus in one of his 'trouble' sections.... a real man who had attempted a real mission!

It's now well known among historians that that passage was not written by Josephus. The detailed evidence is overwhelming. It was first written in the margins by Eusebius in the Pontias Pilot section and during a re-write Eusebius fit it in. It's been shown to be 100% non-Josephus style, he would have explained all of those strange statements, said why he was killed and much more. Josephus never wrote short cryptic passages that didn't explain every detail. He would have explained what "returned in 3 days" meant, and the style of the passage is Eusebian who was a Christian and wanted there to be some record of Jesus. It's a work. Means nothing.

Thank you and good night, Joel...... now please go and chuck your weak insults somewhere else.

I haven't said one insult? These are facts. You have made no debate, no points, no facts, no sources and seem to be in a fantasy world, don't understand fallacies, repeat the same mistakes and continually lie about my use of scholarship. I use the historical facts and simply source the author so they can be confirmed and researched. You mistakenly thought that was a point to criticized which helps make sense of your complete inconsistent crank worldview.