Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2013, 07:02 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(10-10-2013 06:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you've got no evidence, just assert something, and have the balls to say you're a skeptic ? Really ? Silly to you maybe. The minority makes no difference, (seriously, the "argumentum ad populum") and you have in no way demonstrated that, just asserted it. We're supposed to believe someone who made such uneducated mistakes, yet thinks she can rant about what should or shoud not be discussed by atheists. All Ehrman says is : "it's in Paul ,and the gospels". He rants against the "mythicists", and in the end, he's got nothing except what the Christies use.
Be happy to be in your "majority, just like all flat earthers once were.

You need do nothing for me dear, I AM IN academia.

I don't give a flying piece of crap if you believe me or not. Its not my job to prove anything to you. Nice use of Latin phrases though. That proves you're smart.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." ~Rene Descartes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 07:13 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(10-10-2013 07:02 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 06:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you've got no evidence, just assert something, and have the balls to say you're a skeptic ? Really ? Silly to you maybe. The minority makes no difference, (seriously, the "argumentum ad populum") and you have in no way demonstrated that, just asserted it. We're supposed to believe someone who made such uneducated mistakes, yet thinks she can rant about what should or shoud not be discussed by atheists. All Ehrman says is : "it's in Paul ,and the gospels". He rants against the "mythicists", and in the end, he's got nothing except what the Christies use.
Be happy to be in your "majority, just like all flat earthers once were.

You need do nothing for me dear, I AM IN academia.

I don't give a flying piece of crap if you believe me or not. Its not my job to prove anything to you. Nice use of Latin phrases though. That proves you're smart.

You have provided not one reason why anyone should believe anything you say.
Just generalizations, and "oh I studied it, just believe me" bs.
There's a Bible College you can work at with that one.
psssst .... "sketicism" is not about "believing" people who demonstrate complete ignorance of the subject they're ranting about.
It IS your "job" if you wish to be credible, to support the things you state. You have failed. And even worse, your blog post attempted to stifle discussion of a subject because your unsupported OPINIONS didn't like it.
If I need any advise on what to discuss, I'll be sure and ask. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 07:14 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(10-10-2013 06:58 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 05:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Also... if you are going to claim that Paul's letters are evidence for the existence of a once living flesh and blood Jesus you're going to have to come up with some evidence. Please do so and I'll sit up and pay attention. The only place in the Bible in which Paul talks about what a once leaving human character actually said or did is when he discusses the last supper, and that is almost certainly an interpolation. Paul's Christ was a ghost. If you don't believe me go back and read your bible.

Ok, just caught this. I did claim that, and included the reasons in my blog post. Paul says in Galatians that he visited Peter and James (Jesus' brother) for 15 days 3 years after he converted to Christianity. Why would he do so? I'm sure for 15 days they talked a lot about what Jesus did and didn't do, and it probably would have come out of their talks that Jesus didn't exist if that were the case. Seems odd that Paul continues his ministry in light of learning Jesus wasn't real. You can dismiss this evidence, but Bible scholars the world over do not. Read the evidence they've accumulated if you want to know the details. Journals are out there.

Paul invented "Jesus" based on his hallucination. The rest filled in like a game of Chinese Whispers.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
10-10-2013, 07:20 PM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2013 06:27 AM by grizzlysnake.)
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
post retraction. You can delete my post if you canTongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 09:24 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(09-10-2013 07:03 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  Ok, I'm feeling lazy, so I'm flat out saying I didn't read this entire thread, SNIP Defending Truth Can Mean Defending Jesus".

We sound like theists willing to believe anything that supports the way we wish history was, not the way it actually was. Let be a bit more skeptical.
SNIP

This whole thing started when someone jumped in with an ad populum fallacy, some laziness, and some fairly high-brow condescension that is ignorant of the present debate about the Historicity of Jesus being moved in a direction counter to the traditional view, mainly by said Carrier but possibly by Atwill, only to get directly challenged and not defend blanket assertions made about the old consensus view. Saying something is "ridiculous" without more only says you are unwilling or unable to defend your assertion.

Everyone's comment was "let's see the evidence" (e.g. open minded) and they get castigated on not being sufficiently skeptical? If someone does that and gets handed their ass a bit on the "Heavy Stuff" forums, good. Precisely how it should be. It might be good and healthy for your character. IMHO.

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Skippy538's post
10-10-2013, 09:51 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
Carrier got all lit up over this... http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(10-10-2013 06:58 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 05:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Also... if you are going to claim that Paul's letters are evidence for the existence of a once living flesh and blood Jesus you're going to have to come up with some evidence. Please do so and I'll sit up and pay attention. The only place in the Bible in which Paul talks about what a once leaving human character actually said or did is when he discusses the last supper, and that is almost certainly an interpolation. Paul's Christ was a ghost. If you don't believe me go back and read your bible.

Ok, just caught this. I did claim that, and included the reasons in my blog post. Paul says in Galatians that he visited Peter and James (Jesus' brother) for 15 days 3 years after he converted to Christianity. Why would he do so? I'm sure for 15 days they talked a lot about what Jesus did and didn't do, and it probably would have come out of their talks that Jesus didn't exist if that were the case. Seems odd that Paul continues his ministry in light of learning Jesus wasn't real. You can dismiss this evidence, but Bible scholars the world over do not. Read the evidence they've accumulated if you want to know the details. Journals are out there.

Paul never said he "converted to Christianity." If you think he did say that, please quote the verse in the Bible.

He does say he did meet Peter and James in Jerusalem. You are only guessing when you say that you think they talked about Jesus. Paul never described Jesus (think about that for a while) and never mentioned Jesus' miracles or what Jesus allegedly said or did (other than for the brief section about the Last Supper, as I said, I strongly suspect is an interpolation). You have a poor understanding of what Paul's ministry was all about. Once again, I suggest you go back and read your bible. You haven't presented any evidence, and then you tell me and Bucky that we are dismissing it. Please present your evidence that Paul knew of a flesh and blood human Jesus.

I hope you got this far into my post without dropping out because you're so busy. Just in case you're interested, I think Paul associated with Peter and James because he was trying to undermine them. Paul was probably a Roman government agent employed to keep an eye on problematic Jews and dampened down their messianic dreams. He was spectacularly unsuccessful in his own time, as they started a rather large war against Rome in 66 to 70 CE.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
10-10-2013, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2013 06:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
Nothing in Acts is reliable. Stephen recounts the entire list of Hebrew fallacious pseudo-history, that everyone knows was a myth, as fact. There is more than one guy named "Paul" in Acts. They are clearly different people. Different philosophies. Different ideas.
Paul admitted he was a liar :
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" St. Paul, Romans 3.7. He admitted he hallucinated his gospel. In another place he says he got it from the apostles. Nothing anywhere he wrote can be assumed to be true without external corroboration. In an age of "pious fraud" where anything could be stated as the truth, if it promoted the cause, NOTHING is reliable without external (non-believer) references.

Same for the gospels. If they were all essentially based on Q, and reworked for specific audiences, it does not change the fact the basis of them all, could be bunk, + a book of sayings, which was circulating and contained sayings and parables from other sources. The "good faith" of the editors /assemblers cannot be assumed. They had an agenda.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-10-2013, 11:18 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(10-10-2013 09:51 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Carrier got all lit up over this... http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664

Thanks for the link HoC, it was a good read. Although his 8-point 'this is why it's highly improbable' is really enough to get the gist of the whole post (and why Carrier think Atwill is a crank). Say what you will about Carrier, he has a good grasp on logic and probability.

Carrier Wrote:Why the Priors Are Dismally Low on This

There are at least eight general problems with his thesis, which do not refute it but establish that it has a very low prior probability, and therefore requires exceptionally good evidence to be at all credible:

(1) The Roman aristocracy was nowhere near as clever as Atwill’s theory requires. They certainly were not so masterfully educated in the Jewish scriptures and theology that they could compose hundreds of pages of elegant passages based on it. And it is very unlikely they would ever conceive of a scheme like this, much less think they could succeed at it (even less, actually do so).

(2) We know there were over forty Gospels, yet the four chosen for the canon were not selected until well into the 2nd century, and not by anyone in the Roman aristocracy. Likewise which Epistles were selected.

(3) The Gospels and the Epistles all contradict each other far too much to have been composed with a systematic aim in mind. Indeed, they contradict each other in ways that often demonstrate they are deliberately arguing with each other. From the ways Matthew changes Mark; to the way the forged 2 Thessalonians actually tries to argue 1 Thessalonians is the forgery; to how the resurrections depicted in Luke and John are deliberate attempts to refute the doctrine of resurrection defended originally by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5; to how some Epistles insist on Torah observance while others insist it can be discarded; to how Luke’s nativity contradicts Matthew’s on almost every single particular (and not just in placing the event in completely different periods ten years apart); to how Acts blatantly contradicts Paul’s own account of his conversion and travels; to how John invents a real Lazarus to refute a point Luke tried to make with a fictional Lazarus; and so on. (I discuss some of these, and more, in my forthcoming book On the Historicity of Jesus.)

(4) The Gospels and the Epistles differ far too much in style to have come from the same hand, and many show signs of later doctoring that would problematize attempts to confirm any theory like Atwill’s. For example, Mark 16:9-20, John 20 vs. 21, the hash job made of the epistle to the Romans, etc. Even the fact of how the canon was selected creates a problem for Atwill’s research requirements–for instance, the actual first letter to the Corinthians is completely missing, yet Paul refers to its existence in “our” 1 Corinthians.

(5) Christianity was probably constructed to “divert Jewish hostility and aggressiveness into a pacifist religion, supportive of–and subservient to–Roman rule,” but not by Romans, but exasperated Jews like Paul, who saw Jewish militarism as unacceptably disastrous in contrast with the obvious advantages of retooling their messianic expectations to produce the peaceful moral reform of society. The precedents were all there already in pre-Christian Jewish ideology and society (in Philo’s philosophy, in Essene and Qumranic efforts to solve the same problems, and so on) so we don’t have to posit super-genius Aryans helping the poor little angry Jews to calm down.

(6) Pacifying Jews would not have been possible with a cult that eliminated Jewish law and accepted Gentiles as equals, and in actual fact Christianity was pretty much a failure in Palestine. Its success was achieved mainly in the Diaspora, where the Romans rarely had any major problems with the Jews. The Jewish War was only fought in Palestine, and not even against all the Jews there (many sided with Rome). How would inventing a religion that would have no chance of succeeding in the heart of Palestine but instead was tailor made to succeed outside Palestine, ever help the Romans with anything they considered important?

(7) If the Roman elite’s aim was to “pacify” Palestinian Jews by inventing new scriptures, they were certainly smart and informed enough to know that that wouldn’t succeed by using the language the Judean elite despised as foreign (Greek).[*]

(8) The Romans knew one thing well: War. Social ideology they were never very good at.[*] That’s why Rome always had such problems keeping its empire together, and why social discontent and other malfunctions continued to escalate until the empire started dissolving. Rome expected to solve every problem militarily instead–and up until the 3rd century Rome did so quite well. The Jewish War was effectively over in just four years (any siege war was expected to take at least three, and Vespasian was actually busy conquering Rome in the fourth year of that War). So why would they think they needed any other solution?


Carrier Wrote:With all that counting against Atwill, he has a very high burden to meet. And he just doesn’t. He actually has no evidence at all for his thesis, except “Bible Code”-style readings of coincidences among texts, which he seems only to read in English and not the original Greek, all the while relying on egregious fallacies in probabilistic reasoning.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 02:15 AM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(10-10-2013 06:39 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 11:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your blog piece was an attempt to invalidate the entire discussion. It's there for anyone to read.

You name not one scholar you have studied, except Ehrman, yet keep make sweeping generalizations. From your statements, (the usual Christian clap-trap), concerning the non-Christian sources, it appears you have no real knowledge of the subject. ? "Most scholars say" ? Really ? Show me the poll.
More generalizations. No substance. Nothing in the actual argument addressed.
You have presented not one piece of evidence to believe, (apart from the usual false debunked junk). If they were writing 75 years later, ... no newspapers, no records of ANY kind, Herod's secretary who talks about FAR less important things, yet never mentions this, Philo, who talks about FAR less important things fails to mention this, nd all the other dying and rising gods, who "were a dime a dozen", (Dr. Carole Fontaine), such as Simon of Perea are VERY similar, ... announced by Gabriel, died, and rose in 3 days), you have no "proof" that this one of many Jesuses (Yeshua ben Josef), actually existed.

Um... it was a blog post, not a dissertation for a scholarly journal. The evidence is out there for you to find. I cited Ehrman because his books contain a wealth of factual evidence and citations you can follow for yourself. For the most part, he writes about what is common knowledge in academia, not necessarily his own opinion, so I find his popular writings to be quite useful for understanding the current evidence and what scholars know on the subject. I don't have the time nor inclination to do your thinking or research for you. Its all there in plain sight. The "jesus didn't exist" tripe is actually beyond silly.

Believe whatever you want to believe. You'll be in the crazy minority, but whatevs.

RE
"Um... it was a blog post, not a dissertation for a scholarly journal."

Here's the important point. You badmouthed the ideas of an historian who's spent 10 years studying the subject, YET YOU HADN"T EVEN READ HIS BOOK!

It matters not whether you're right or wrong, you shouldn't have committed your
uninformed opinion to paper.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: