tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1312413394085109092..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Frank Zindler, J.P. Holding and I Debate the Existence of JesusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62908919725772311042008-12-19T10:16:00.000-05:002008-12-19T10:16:00.000-05:00BTW to get to Nazareth from Galilee one must trave...BTW to get to Nazareth from Galilee one must travel between two towering mountain cliffs. I personally saw them when in Israel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61989709579876684352008-12-19T08:09:00.000-05:002008-12-19T08:09:00.000-05:00Evan, although I initiated these types of discussi...Evan, although I initiated these types of discussions they are truly uninteresting issues to me. I will not waste too much time researching into them. I hope you and everyone else understands. I’ll attempt to answer some of your questions though. Don’t assume I couldn’t attempt to answer them all. I think I’ve both stated and argued for my position.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>If my beliefs are correct, the Jesus cult came to be an important branch of Jewish thought that tried to explain the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by Rome.</I><BR/><BR/>I have my doubts about this you see. All I see is conjectures.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>You have textual evidence John, but that textual evidence cannot be accurate, because it contradicts itself at virtually every turn, as you freely admit. When a source is as unreliable as the Greek gospels, of what value can it be for history, when every fact that is checkable within it turns out to be wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>Not so. This is a wildly improbable highly exaggerated claim.<BR/> <BR/>Evan said…<I>So I ask you, what did get him crucified? We have all your textual evidence ... what was he charged with that makes sense of your understanding of the political situation of Palestine at that time? What authority crucified him? The gospels can't agree? </I><BR/><BR/>The Romans crucified him simply because that’s what they did to Jewish people who stood out and denounced them by saying the Messiah is coming who will reign over them in a new world order. This is consistent with his message. There was no Judas Iscariot. He is a fiction. Do the hard work here, okay? Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. <BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>Matthew for one:<BR/><BR/>"...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23)<BR/><BR/>Matthew places him there specifically so that the midrash can work. Additionally -- I eagerly await discovery of any inscription of any sort describing Nazareth as existing before 70 AD. The silence about this city from Josephus, who is chronicling war in Galilee should make you suspect there is a problem, but the fact that the town that exists today has no nearby cliff at all should make you realize the text as we have it is not historical.</I><BR/><BR/>So because Matthew invents stuff then when he speaks of Nazareth he invented that too? Sorry, that’s a non-sequitur.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>And John Frum isn't embarrassing to the cargo cultists? Yet you don't believe he existed as a historical figure -- or do you? You never answered me.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes I did.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>On what grounds do you deny that legends and stories were created about Jesus? Do you accept the gospels as plain history? Of course you don't. Therefore this statement is really irrefutable unless you are an inerrantist, which I know you not to be. </I><BR/><BR/>This is an either/or informal fallacy. Either this or that but nothing inbetween.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>Things I am sure you believe are legends:<BR/><BR/>1. The miracle at Cana.<BR/>2. The raising of Lazarus.<BR/>3. The Gadarene swine.<BR/>4. The resurrection of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>So again, if those are all legends, and all you have to hang your hat on is that he got some stuff about the eschaton wrong ... well John Frum got stuff wrong about stuff going to Micronesia. Does that prove he was real? </I><BR/><BR/>No single line of evidence “proves” Jesus was real because no single line of evidence ever did so in the first place. It’s the convergence of evidence that you must explain away. Next you’ll deny Paul and Peter and John and Papias existed too. Its easy being a skeptic, isn’t it? The nature of the evidence of the past is that almost anything can be denied. So deny it if you want to. But then you could never be a historian who attempted to write a history of, say, ancient Rome.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>Have you read Bart Ehrman's account of this in "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"? He believes Jesus was real but he accepts this broad outline of what took place in the development of the canon. I'd argue this is the least controversial part of what I'm saying. Eusebius is much less reliable, especially when he talks of martyrdom.</I><BR/><BR/>I’ll look into this, thanks. Where can I find him discussing this? I have looked at his book.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>John, I have no firm idea what the original Jewish founders of the Christian movement may have believed, but I am almost certain they believed strongly in Jewish dietary laws, ritual purity, circumcision and keeping the Sabbath.</I><BR/><BR/>You actually cannot be “almost certain” of anything in the past. What textual evidence do you accept for this conclusion? Most all of it is found in the NT itself. Yes, I believe this and more, as I've argued.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6721751470403378192008-12-19T01:59:00.000-05:002008-12-19T01:59:00.000-05:00well my good friend I would have to oppose the vie...well my good friend I would have to oppose the views that are present on this site and that are present in your information. If you read the book a case for Christ you will see that josh Mcdowell writess with logistisical evidence along with statistical evidence that Jesus our lord and savior did do all of what the Bible says. It is undeniable that any atheist or agnostic wakes up every morning and has a yearning inside of them that just isn't satisfied by any worldly or earthly items. I would have to say that for anyone to claim that it is just something to hide behind is a hypocrite, for the mere fact that people say they are an atheist or an agnostic to hide behind the fact that they are so afraid of anything that brings them to thier knees.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29352767337509455522008-12-18T23:04:00.000-05:002008-12-18T23:04:00.000-05:00John,Thanks for the reply. I would appreciate hear...John,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the reply. I would appreciate hearing whether you think the existence of a man Paul Bonjean who was a lumberjack would mean there was a historical Paul Bunyan. Much of these arguments probably hinge on semantics. However I'm happy to answer the things you state.<BR/><BR/>First you say:<BR/><BR/><I>So there was a historical figure behind the movement, eh? That’s what I’m arguing for!</I><BR/><BR/>All movements have a historical figure behind them. Someone does something to start a movement. I doubt anyone is arguing against that, except perhaps Christians who believe Jesus was God and could walk on water.<BR/><BR/><I>Except I also think the textual evidence is strong that he was a doomsday prophet. The early church did not make that stuff up because they had to continually explain away why the Eschaton did not happen. Can you explain why they made that up about Jesus if it was embarrassing to them? You have to, you know. He was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet. No teacher of righteous or wise sage would be able to start the Jesus cult. That his name was Jesus isn’t problematic, since it was a popular name.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I can explain why they made up stuff about Jesus. If my beliefs are correct, the Jesus cult came to be an important branch of Jewish thought that tried to explain the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by Rome.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, it was important for these stories to show Jesus prophesying just this thing. It may very well have been an important doctrine to the church in 80 CE that the earth was going to end soon. So they put such statements into the mouth of the legendary founder of the movement.<BR/><BR/>Does the failure of a prophecy in the book of Daniel prove there was a real Daniel? I'm curious why you would think that failed Biblical prophecies establish historicity. <BR/><BR/>The Millerite movement was based on a failed prophecy. As such, after it was over, Miller's personal standing collapsed and he is not associated personally with any of the surviving movements (SDA, JW etc.) that exist today. If your argument is compelling, shouldn't there be people who revere William Miller to this day?<BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><BR/><B>This teacher of righteousness founded a sect called Nazarenes. They were a persecuted sect and some of their followers and possibly their leader may have been crucified at some point between 100 BCE and 50 CE.</B><BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>Where is the evidence for this assertion? The dates are surely wrong here as well. I have textual evidence and you have conjecture. Shouldn’t we go with the evidence? If not, why not? Why would they be persecuted? Who persecuted them? And why does the textual evidence single out Jesus for crucifixion over the others who are left holding the bag, so to speak?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think you can so blithely ignore other evidence. I suggest you <A HREF="http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_eisenm.htm" REL="nofollow">look here</A> and try to evaluate the book reviewed on this page.<BR/><BR/>Here's some key evidence from the review:<BR/><BR/><I>To anticipate the thrust of the book as a whole, let it be said that Eisenman first draws a portrait of the early community of James as a nationalistic, messianic, priestly, and xenophobic sect of ultra-legal pietism, something most of us would deem fanaticism. Eisenman shows how "Jewish Christianity" was part and parcel of the sectarian milieu which included Essenes, Zealots, Nazoreans, Nazirites, Ebionites, Elchasites, Sabeans, Mandaeans, etc., and that these categories were no more than ideal types, by no means actually segregated one from the other like exotic beasts in adjacent, well-marked cages in the theological zoo. Over against this sort of "Lubavitcher Christianity," Eisenman depicts Pauline Christianity (plus its Hellenistic cousins Johannine, Markan, Lukan, etc., Christianities) as being root and branch a compromising, assimilating, Herodianizing apostasy from Judaism. Greek Christianity gives the Torah, and Jewish identity, the bum's rush. The Pauline Christ, a spiritual redeemer with an invisible kingdom, is of a piece with the christening of Vespasian as the messiah by Josephus.<BR/><BR/>Of course, these ideas are by no means new. Eisenman is simply filling out the picture in an exhaustive manner undreamt of by S.G.F. Brandon, Robert Eisler, and his successors. The picture of Jesus in the Greek gospels, eating with tax-collectors, lampooning the traditions of his people, welcoming sinners and ridiculing Torah piety are all expressions of Gentile anti-Judaism. Only Gentiles utterly without sympathy to Judaism could profess to see such a Jesus as a noble pioneer of a "higher righteousness." In the same way, the New Testament notion that Jerusalem fell because her people had rejected the messiah, when in fact they were fighting a messianic war against the Roman antichrist, must be judged a piece of cynical Hellenistic Jew-bashing. Christianity as it emerges in the Gentile mission is a product of cultural accomodationism, pro-Roman Quislingism, and intentional assimilation. It is a kind of paganized, syncretic, diluted Judaism not unlike the Sabazius cult.</I><BR/><BR/>You have textual evidence John, but that textual evidence cannot be accurate, because it contradicts itself at virtually every turn, as you freely admit. When a source is as unreliable as the Greek gospels, of what value can it be for history, when every fact that is checkable within it turns out to be wrong?<BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><BR/><B>The Nazarenes were also sometimes called the Ebionim.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Is there any evidence for this assertion?</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/08/earliest-witnesses.html" REL="nofollow">Yes.</A><BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><BR/><B>Over time many legends accrued on to the teacher of righteousness and he was gradually given the title of Jesus Christ, although it is possible that his original name was in fact Jesus.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Sure, legends accrued about him. I don’t deny this. But he was emphatically not just a teacher of righteousness. That would not have gotten him crucified.</I><BR/><BR/>So I ask you, what did get him crucified? We have all your textual evidence ... what was he charged with that makes sense of your understanding of the political situation of Palestine at that time? What authority crucified him? The gospels can't agree? <BR/><BR/>Your textual evidence contradicts itself here and quite plainly does not make plain what charges were brought, nor is it clear just what Judas could have told the authorities that led to the arrest. That is why it is suspect as history.<BR/><BR/>I said: <BR/><BR/><B>Confusion over the term Nazarene led to the fictive creation of a town in Galilee named Nazareth -- a town that Josephus never mentions.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Archaeological evidence in peer-reviewed articles and books say otherwise about Nazareth. What have you been reading?</I><BR/><BR/>Matthew for one:<BR/><BR/>"...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23)<BR/><BR/>Matthew places him there specifically so that the midrash can work. Additionally -- I eagerly await discovery of any inscription of any sort describing Nazareth as existing before 70 AD. The silence about this city from Josephus, who is chronicling war in Galilee should make you suspect there is a problem, but the fact that the town that exists today has no nearby cliff at all should make you realize the text as we have it is not historical.<BR/><BR/>I said <BR/><BR/><B>Eventually many stories were told about this person and many legends were considered to be true about him, in much the same way as modern cargo cultists believe in John Frum.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Nope, I emphatically deny this. The evidence suggests he was a doomsday prophet, and that this eventually became embarrassing to the very movement he founded.</I><BR/><BR/>And John Frum isn't embarrassing to the cargo cultists? Yet you don't believe he existed as a historical figure -- or do you? You never answered me. On what grounds do you deny that legends and stories were created about Jesus? Do you accept the gospels as plain history? Of course you don't. Therefore this statement is really irrefutable unless you are an inerrantist, which I know you not to be. <BR/><BR/>Things I am sure you believe are legends:<BR/><BR/>1. The miracle at Cana.<BR/>2. The raising of Lazarus.<BR/>3. The Gadarene swine.<BR/>4. The resurrection of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>So again, if those are all legends, and all you have to hang your hat on is that he got some stuff about the eschaton wrong ... well John Frum got stuff wrong about stuff going to Micronesia. Does that prove he was real? <BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><BR/><B>Multiple authors penned multiple gospels about this figure all of which contain fictions and legend. Then there was a period of selection in which some gospels began to be favored over other gospels on the basis of the power struggles within the nascent church. The proto-orthodox wing of the church, centered in Rome, where the civil authority was, eventually triumphed in the battles over which sets of fictions and legend would be considered canonical. Since Rome had NO significant Palestinian population, it is unlikely that eyewitnesses were deciding these issues.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Have you read Eusebius’s account of this? These were people who had suffered a great deal for their faith, even martyrdom, and you’re claiming they bought whatever Rome said? Not very likely that people with such resolve, even if misguided, could be bought, or forced into believing something they didn’t.</I><BR/><BR/>Have you read Bart Ehrman's account of this in "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"? He believes Jesus was real but he accepts this broad outline of what took place in the development of the canon. I'd argue this is the least controversial part of what I'm saying. Eusebius is much less reliable, especially when he talks of martyrdom.<BR/><BR/>The real martyrs were the non-orthodox Christians who were killed or forced to convert to orthodoxy after the conversion of the empire.<BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><BR/><B>The final doctrines of the church were not finalized until about 5 centuries after this person existed and bear no resemblance, in all likelihood to whatever the teacher of righteousness actually believed.</B><BR/><BR/><I>No resemblance? Where is the evidence for this assertion? And how can you claim what you do when you don’t accept the textual evidence of the original founder of the Jesus cult? How can you say it was different if you don’t know what the original founder said in the first place? All you have is a conjecture that he was a teacher of righteousness. Where do you get even that notion?</I><BR/><BR/>John, I have no firm idea what the original Jewish founders of the Christian movement may have believed, but I am almost certain they believed strongly in Jewish dietary laws, ritual purity, circumcision and keeping the Sabbath.<BR/><BR/>Do you doubt this?<BR/><BR/>Do you believe that the councils of the 5th century believed in those things? If not, then my point is made.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25124972917378430642008-12-18T19:20:00.000-05:002008-12-18T19:20:00.000-05:00John,Have you read Earl Doherty's stuff?If not...John,<BR/><BR/>Have you read Earl Doherty's stuff?<BR/><BR/>If not, I think that it would be worth some consideration as a reasonable & coherent case for the Mythicist position.<BR/><BR/>see: http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure we'll ever answer this question with surety, but I do not think the Historical Jesus assumption is as secure as one might have been inclined to think 20 years ago. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes thinking outside the box can reap some interesting rewards.<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3753805101713355592008-12-18T17:15:00.000-05:002008-12-18T17:15:00.000-05:00Sam,It's not uncommon. There's a lot of "skeptics"...Sam,<BR/><BR/>It's not uncommon. There's a lot of "skeptics" out there that I'd rather keep a distance from, because they honestly espouse just as many unreasonable assertions as most Christians do.<BR/><BR/>The skeptics who claim that Christianity and Judaism are directly descended from ancient Egyptian religion, for example, I have little respect for. The same for the Jesus mythers, too, honestly. I'd like to be convinced, but I find it more probable that Jesus did exist than that he didnt, and it's confusing to me that so many skeptics seem to think that Jesus HAD to be completely made up or else the nonChristian position holds no water.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I think there are more pertinent issues to debate than the existence of Jesus, especially when an inordinate amount of time has been wasted going back and forth on the issue that could have been used on logical inconsistencies in Christianity or the archaeological evidence for and against what is claimed in the Bible.Philip R Kreychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079037983351521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5219685678189868272008-12-18T16:54:00.000-05:002008-12-18T16:54:00.000-05:00Evan said…John I'll take a stab.There was a moveme...Evan said…<I>John I'll take a stab.<BR/><BR/>There was a movement in ancient Palestine that revered a certain teacher of righteousness whose name may or may not have been Jesus when he was born.</I><BR/><BR/>So there was a historical figure behind the movement, eh? That’s what I’m arguing for! Except I also think the textual evidence is strong that he was a doomsday prophet. The early church did not make that stuff up because they had to continually explain away why the Eschaton did not happen. Can you explain why they made that up about Jesus if it was embarrassing to them? You have to, you know. He was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet. No teacher of righteous or wise sage would be able to start the Jesus cult. That his name was Jesus isn’t problematic, since it was a popular name.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>This teacher of righteousness founded a sect called Nazarenes. They were a persecuted sect and some of their followers and possibly their leader may have been crucified at some point between 100 BCE and 50 CE.</I><BR/><BR/>Where is the evidence for this assertion? The dates are surely wrong here as well. I have textual evidence and you have conjecture. Shouldn’t we go with the evidence? If not, why not? Why would they be persecuted? Who persecuted them? And why does the textual evidence single out Jesus for crucifixion over the others who are left holding the bag, so to speak? <BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>The Nazarenes were also sometimes called the Ebionim.</I><BR/><BR/>Is there any evidence for this assertion?<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I> Over time many legends accrued on to the teacher of righteousness and he was gradually given the title of Jesus Christ, although it is possible that his original name was in fact Jesus.</I> <BR/><BR/>Sure, legends accrued about him. I don’t deny this. But he was emphatically not just a teacher of righteousness. That would not have gotten him crucified.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>Confusion over the term Nazarene led to the fictive creation of a town in Galilee named Nazareth -- a town that Josephus never mentions.</I><BR/><BR/>Archaeological evidence in peer-reviewed articles and books say otherwise about Nazareth. What have you been reading?<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>Eventually many stories were told about this person and many legends were considered to be true about him, in much the same way as modern cargo cultists believe in John Frum.</I><BR/><BR/>Nope, I emphatically deny this. The evidence suggests he was a doomsday prophet, and that this eventually became embarrassing to the very movement he founded.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>Multiple authors penned multiple gospels about this figure all of which contain fictions and legend. Then there was a period of selection in which some gospels began to be favored over other gospels on the basis of the power struggles within the nascent church. The proto-orthodox wing of the church, centered in Rome, where the civil authority was, eventually triumphed in the battles over which sets of fictions and legend would be considered canonical. Since Rome had NO significant Palestinian population, it is unlikely that eyewitnesses were deciding these issues.</I><BR/><BR/>Have you read Eusebius’s account of this? These were people who had suffered a great deal for their faith, even martyrdom, and you’re claiming they bought whatever Rome said? Not very likely that people with such resolve, even if misguided, could be bought, or forced into believing something they didn’t.<BR/><BR/>Evan said…<I>The final doctrines of the church were not finalized until about 5 centuries after this person existed and bear no resemblance, in all likelihood to whatever the teacher of righteousness actually believed.</I><BR/><BR/>No resemblance? Where is the evidence for this assertion? And how can you claim what you do when you don’t accept the textual evidence of the original founder of the Jesus cult? How can you say it was different if you don’t know what the original founder said in the first place? All you have is a conjecture that he was a teacher of righteousness. Where do you get even that notion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41483499863531410642008-12-18T00:20:00.000-05:002008-12-18T00:20:00.000-05:00Charlie said..."These are pseudo-skeptics."This wa...Charlie said..."<I>These are pseudo-skeptics.</I>"<BR/><BR/>This was new to me. I knew we Christians often like to point to other Christians we disagree with or who we don't like to represent us and say they aren't <I>real</I> Christians, but this is the first time I've seen skeptics do the same thing.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80032770309120451692008-12-17T22:47:00.000-05:002008-12-17T22:47:00.000-05:00CARRI keep asking for explanations of Romans 10 an...<I>CARR<BR/>I keep asking for explanations of Romans 10 and Romans 13, but the silence is defeaning.</I><BR/><BR/>Steven, I guess I missed it but how do these two passages and the reference to 2 Cor. come into play in this discussion? Also, which specific verses in these three passages are you directly referring to?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16954244969531392932008-12-17T10:37:00.000-05:002008-12-17T10:37:00.000-05:00John, you wrote above:For me it's about credibilit...John, you wrote above:<BR/><BR/><I>For me it's about credibility, not among skeptics. Skeptics are not my target audience. It's about credibility among Christians who are my target audience.</I><BR/><BR/>You said something similar <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/ive-concluded-that-i-am-wrong.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. You had said:<BR/><BR/><I>you should greatly appreciate that Christians will be much more apt to listen to me because I share these beliefs with them.</I><BR/><BR/>So once again, it kind of sounds like you would prefer to believe Jesus was historical. Otherwise you'll be regarded as a kook. Christians won't listen to you. You'll lose credibility. Of course I felt the same way. I didn't want to find myself leaning towards mythicism. I know that this meant getting laughed off the stage rather than being replied to. Robert Price indicates he went through a similar mental process. So did Richard Carrier, who found himself agreeing with Doherty against his initial bias. I already told you my brother is in the same boat. Many people that come to accept the mythicist hypothesis do so against their desires, because they know they'll be ridiculed. Maybe marginalized. And we don't want that.<BR/><BR/>But of course, that's not a good reason to regard Jesus as historical. You say that this plays no role in your beliefs. Are you sure? Because if you're right then you are a better man about this than me, Carrier, Price, etc.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44189867159331996842008-12-17T09:55:00.000-05:002008-12-17T09:55:00.000-05:00I'm no Bible scholar, but it seems to me that Evan...I'm no Bible scholar, but it seems to me that Evan is on the right track about the necessary framing of the question. Given the fact that there was almost certainly more than one person named "Jesus" in the first century, and the fact that the Bible is demonstrably incorrect about a lot of things, and very likely adduces to "Jesus" stories that are made up or are about other people, we should perhaps rephrase the question. Instead of asking, "did Jesus exist?" we should rather be asking, "how much of what the Bible says is reasonable to ascribe to one particular person named Jesus?"<BR/><BR/>Given the uncertainties, which don't seem likely to be resolved at this late date, I don't see how the question "did Jesus exist" can be meaningfully answered "yes" or "no".zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24025032075675793192008-12-17T01:27:00.000-05:002008-12-17T01:27:00.000-05:00The Jack and the Beanstalk was to show that myths ...The Jack and the Beanstalk was to show that myths can be recognised even when you have no clue how a myth appeared.<BR/><BR/>You claim it is not analogous because the story of Jesus is not a myth.<BR/><BR/>That is a valid point, but not one that detracts from the point I was making.<BR/><BR/>ERIC<BR/>For these reasons, it's not remotely analogous to 'Jack and the Beanstalk.' When you add the explanatory power of such a story, i.e. its role in explaining the rise of the early Christian movement, you further distinguish it from, say, stories like Sherlock Holmes, which are set in a specific time, place and culture, but which don't explain any historical phenomena that would otherwise be rendered more difficult to account for (that is, the notion that Christianity began with a charismatic leader like the one described in the gospels is much simpler than any conspiratorial and/or parallelistic approach).<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I keep asking for explanations of Romans 10 and Romans 13, but the silence is defeaning.<BR/><BR/>How does the idea that there was an intinerant preacher named Jesus best explain Paul's complaint that Christians were following all sorts of different Jesus's?<BR/><BR/>Historicists keep saying that their theory best explains the texts.<BR/><BR/>Please explain why Paul thinks the faith of Christians is by hearing the message about Christ when some of them are supposed to have *met* Jesus.<BR/><BR/>'How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" <BR/><BR/> But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.'<BR/><BR/>This is pretty clear.<BR/><BR/>If it wasn't for Christian preachers, nobody would have heard of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Faith does not come from meeting Jesus in real life. Paul did not expect any Jews to have met Jesus and believed.<BR/><BR/>Or to have heard Jesus preach and believe.<BR/><BR/>Faith comes from hearing people talk about Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this passage is best explained by saying that there was a preacher called Jesus whose preaching was rejected.<BR/><BR/>SO explain away.<BR/><BR/>To me it looks just like Benjamin Creme and the Maitreya.<BR/><BR/>But I am wrong, so educate me.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29732500761795473362008-12-16T22:59:00.000-05:002008-12-16T22:59:00.000-05:00We should take the text seriously as evidence if i...We should take the text seriously as evidence if it refers to undeniably historical figures, places, customs, etc. and coherently ties all of these elements together into a narrative that itself is representative of its time. When you add to all this the fact that the texts were written within thirty to sixty years of the events (and which themselves contain numerous pericopes that can, by definition, be dated even earlier), you have very solid reasons to take the 'ordinary' claims of the text (e.g. there was a man named Jesus [Yeshua], an itinerant preacher who was crucified by Pilate, etc.) seriously, and thus legitimately to shift the burden of proof onto one who would dismiss the core elements of the text. For these reasons, it's not remotely analogous to 'Jack and the Beanstalk.' When you add the explanatory power of such a story, i.e. its role in explaining the rise of the early Christian movement, you further distinguish it from, say, stories like Sherlock Holmes, which are set in a specific time, place and culture, but which don't explain any historical phenomena that would otherwise be rendered more difficult to account for (that is, the notion that Christianity began with a charismatic leader like the one described in the gospels is much simpler than any conspiratorial and/or parallelistic approach).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84701314112137872502008-12-16T17:07:00.000-05:002008-12-16T17:07:00.000-05:00Charlie cleverly points out the absurdity of a chi...Charlie cleverly points out the absurdity of a child pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes, when the child is unable to make any clothes himself.<BR/><BR/>It is the same old 'The Emperor is naked', when the child can't even sew.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1068979925132007512008-12-16T16:13:00.000-05:002008-12-16T16:13:00.000-05:00Evan, there are other presing concerns right now. ...Evan, there are other presing concerns right now. I'll get back to you on this. I never said that YOU couldn't provide a scenario, only that CARR couldn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34184529814978317492008-12-16T16:06:00.000-05:002008-12-16T16:06:00.000-05:00John I'll take a stab.There was a movement in anci...John I'll take a stab.<BR/><BR/>There was a movement in ancient Palestine that revered a certain teacher of righteousness whose name may or may not have been Jesus when he was born. This teacher of righteousness founded a sect called Nazarenes. They were a persecuted sect and some of their followers and possibly their leader may have been crucified at some point between 100 BCE and 50 CE.<BR/><BR/>The Nazarenes were also sometimes called the Ebionim. Over time many legends accrued on to the teacher of righteousness and he was gradually given the title of Jesus Christ, although it is possible that his original name was in fact Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Confusion over the term Nazarene led to the fictive creation of a town in Galilee named Nazareth -- a town that Josephus never mentions.<BR/><BR/>Eventually many stories were told about this person and many legends were considered to be true about him, in much the same way as modern cargo cultists believe in John Frum.<BR/><BR/>Multiple authors penned multiple gospels about this figure all of which contain fictions and legend. Then there was a period of selection in which some gospels began to be favored over other gospels on the basis of the power struggles within the nascent church. The proto-orthodox wing of the church, centered in Rome, where the civil authority was, eventually triumphed in the battles over which sets of fictions and legend would be considered canonical. Since Rome had NO significant Palestinian population, it is unlikely that eyewitnesses were deciding these issues.<BR/><BR/>The final doctrines of the church were not finalized until about 5 centuries after this person existed and bear no resemblance, in all likelihood to whatever the teacher of righteousness actually believed.<BR/><BR/>If I show you there was a man named Paul Bonjean who was a lumberjack in Minnesota in 1832, does that mean that the legends of Paul Bunyan are based on history?<BR/><BR/>If your answer is yes, then I suppose there is a way for you to argue that Jesus of Nazareth is based on a historical person.<BR/><BR/>If you think the idea of a big lumberjack with boots creating the great lakes with his big ox, Babe is too ludicrous to warrant such a statement, then your answer will be no.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73881382876051338662008-12-16T15:28:00.000-05:002008-12-16T15:28:00.000-05:00Thanks Charlie!Carr said...How did the Christian m...Thanks Charlie!<BR/><BR/>Carr said...<I>How did the Christian movement start? Why ask me?</I><BR/><BR/>Ohhhh, I dunno, probably because you can't do it. I've never seen you make an argument or express a belief. My theory has more evidence for it than yours will, that's my claim, even if you can poke some holes through my theory. The fact that there are unexplained holes in any theory does not make that theory wrong unless a competing theory has fewer holes in it with more evidence for it.<BR/><BR/>So I ask you. Make your case. Can't do it? I didn't think so. In my opinion until you do my theory stands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79440528586564644262008-12-16T15:14:00.000-05:002008-12-16T15:14:00.000-05:00Haha.John highlights the absurdity of Steven Carr ...Haha.<BR/><BR/>John highlights the absurdity of Steven Carr throwing out one-liners ,asking questions generated from dogmatic skepticism, and never offering a substantive argument. And what does Steven Carr do in response? Same old, same old:<BR/><BR/><I>I see John is moving the goalposts, and continuing to refuse to examine the textual evidence...<BR/><BR/>How can we know all these different Jesus's were the same person?<BR/><BR/>How can I learn why Paul seems to be behaving like Benjamin Creme in Romans 10, if all I get is abuse for even broaching such subjects?<BR/><BR/>When is there going to be a real debate instead of accusations of acting like Holocaust-deniers?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Where does Paul claim that people had been 'disciples' of Jesus - people who had been with him while he preached?<BR/><BR/>Where is the evidence?<BR/><BR/>And what is the point of trying to open a debate with somebody who responds to everything with abuse?</I>Charliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16241851773339800938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76283009086520623762008-12-16T15:08:00.000-05:002008-12-16T15:08:00.000-05:00John,sconner, puhleeeze. Some of you guys just fai...John,<BR/><BR/><I>sconner, puhleeeze. Some of you guys just fail to understand. That's all I can figure. <B>When it comes to miraculous claims of any kind, like the divine inspiration of the Koran for instance, the claimant has the burden of proof.</B><BR/><BR/>Will some of you guys please try to understand? I feel like I'm dealing with the reasoning skills of many Christians when it comes to this issue all over again. It appears to me that skeptics have no corner on critical thinking skills. I wish it weren't so, but it seems to be so.</I> <BR/><BR/>Maybe I wasn't making myself clear.<BR/> <BR/>That was my point -- with any religious text the claimant has the onus to prove what was said, is true -- including the qur'an. <BR/><BR/>When I said, then, of course, the entire qur'an is completely true, I was just being sarcastic.<BR/> <BR/>I said:<BR/> <BR/>Logical fallacy. <BR/><BR/>Using Zindler's loopy logic -- If, textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise -- then, of course, the entire qur'an is completely true. Start crackin' Zindler. Get out your big red marker and start showing me what isn't true in the qur'an.<BR/><BR/>--S.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48113274586913799072008-12-16T14:52:00.000-05:002008-12-16T14:52:00.000-05:00How did the Christian movement start?Why ask me?I'...How did the Christian movement start?<BR/><BR/>Why ask me?<BR/><BR/>I'm not a psychiatrist!<BR/><BR/>I'm here to learn, not sound off my opinions as though anybody cared about them.<BR/> <BR/>Teach me! Educate me!<BR/><BR/>Is that too much to ask? You're the guy who studied all this stuff for years.<BR/><BR/>With regards to your article on Jesus being the follower of the movement.<BR/><BR/>The first Christian writer was Paul.<BR/><BR/>According to Paul, what did Jesus do to start this movement?<BR/><BR/>As an aside, why did Paul not persecute the movement while Jesus was leading it?<BR/><BR/>Did he send out disciples? Did he preach? Did he demonstrate against the Temple? Did he rewrite the Jewish law so that it did not apply? DId he declare himself to be king?<BR/><BR/>Or did Jesus found the cultic meal,where the founder exists in a symbolic fashion as bread and wine?<BR/><BR/>What would a mythical founder of a cult do other than found a ceremony highly charged with symbolism, where the believers can be in the prescence of the founder in a mystical way?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63626151288877576792008-12-16T14:46:00.000-05:002008-12-16T14:46:00.000-05:00Picture this scenario, okay? Play it back in your ...<I>Picture this scenario, okay? Play it back in your mind. How would it actually work?</I><BR/><BR/>It is obvious that it does work exactly this way. It is clear that the gospel that Matthew is preaching is absolutely not the gospel that Paul was preaching. Paul says a man is justified by faith, not works of the law. Matthew has Jesus say "Do not thing that I have come to abolish the law. I have come to fulfill it. Not the least stroke of a pen is to be done away with" etc, etc. The fact is the gospel authors have their own agenda, and they have no qualms about altering the previous preaching. And yes, the church thinks they can accept both documents without contradiction.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49539376174301888422008-12-16T14:45:00.000-05:002008-12-16T14:45:00.000-05:00And what I see from you Carr is that you never exp...And what I see from you Carr is that you never express a belief. Skepticism is easy, isn't it? Stating a position, now that's more difficult isn't it? It's easier to smell a rotten egg than it is to lay a good one. Try it sometime and you'll be less the way you are.<BR/><BR/>For instance, no one liners, and no sound bites. YOU do some work here. Defend how you think the Jesus Cult movement arose. Give details. Provide evidence. nothing less than, say 750 words, that's three double spaced pages. Come on now. Do some work this time. then it will be I who will sit back and have it easy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27382995736749330152008-12-16T14:38:00.000-05:002008-12-16T14:38:00.000-05:00I'm not even a Jesus myther and you haven't convin...I'm not even a Jesus myther and you haven't convinced me.<BR/><BR/>As an agnostic on the question, all I see is somebody who is not prepared to debate on the issue.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24311445853726366302008-12-16T14:34:00.000-05:002008-12-16T14:34:00.000-05:00What then becomes of the existence of Paul? And wh...<I>What then becomes of the existence of Paul? And where does it stop?</I><BR/><BR/>Who cares? Let it go as far as it needs to go if that's where the facts lead. People say "Gosh, if we take that method we can hardly believe what we read in the paper." Yeah. That's right. So what? My experience with newspapers when those I know have been quoted in them is that they get things grossly wrong all the time. How often have you read in a publication about something you understand really well and you spot all kinds of errors. Then you read the next article and you assume it's all accurate. Maybe it isn't.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11984858550589299392008-12-16T14:26:00.000-05:002008-12-16T14:26:00.000-05:00Second, to take this a step further as you do and ...<I>Second, to take this a step further as you do and argue that because Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, that saying was probably made up. This is absurd.</I><BR/><BR/>I may have my terms mistaken with regards to criteria, but the premise is this. There is a propensity amongst ancient writers, and even modern ones, to attribute a person's favorite saying to a favorite sage. According to Robert Price in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man we see the same saying in the Mishnah attributed to different people, depending on who the hero of the story was at the time. The tendency for the writer who is enamored with a person is to also have sayings that they think are just wonderful, so they tend to want to elevate their hero and they persuade themselves that their hero is really the person that said it. Also, unique people that become heros aren't usually remembered for quoting others. They are remembered for what they did that was unique.<BR/><BR/>Many of Jesus' sayings fit this pattern of error. That's absurd you say? I don't know how you can say it is absurd. I'm not saying it's impossible that Jesus said it. I'm saying it fits a pattern of error we find in ancient writings, and this makes it unlikely to be authentic. That's not absurd.<BR/><BR/><I>The New Testament writers don't say anything about the carpenter being a metaphor. </I><BR/><BR/>Again Robert Price makes this claim. I can get the citation from his book and if he has a source.<BR/><BR/><I>The reason Joseph was the name of Jesus' father is probably just because it was a common name.</I><BR/><BR/>Or it was invented for other purposes. I'm not denying that it is possible Jesus' father was genuinely believed to be Joseph. I'm saying, how can you know when it plausibly can be understood as invented in that it clearly fits with an invented agenda, much like other fictional writing does. Again, when we can check the facts we see they are either invented or are reasonably understood as invented. Why start by assuming that the whole thing is not invented.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com