There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Vigile]

You're going to have to spell it out for me. I honestly don't see where you're going here.

Infinite regression of grandmothers? Maybe it's impossible for Antlerman not to have an 11th grandmother, but at some point in the past, someone didn't have one, and how can we know Antlerman wasn't one of them? What's the evidence?

 

I'll probably never understand the math you are referring to here. I don't see how this destroys my basic point though. In fact, it seems like it makes it for me if I understand you correctly. I.e., it becomes unclear who is an 11th grandmother removed as the tree branches out in so many directions 11 generations back.

[Akheia]

Ouro, for chrissakes. You're smarter than that. Here's the list of primary documents alone that discuss Caligula, from Wikipedia:

 

Bibliography

Primary sources

• Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book 59
  
• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (trans. W.Whiston), Books XVIII–XIX
  
• Philo of Alexandria, (trans. C.D.Yonge, London, H. G. Bohn, 1854–1890):
  
  • On the Embassy to Gaius
    
  • Flaccus
    

  [*]Seneca the Younger

  • On Firmness
    
  • On Anger
    
  • To Marcia, On Consolation
    
  • On Tranquility of Mind
    
  • On the Shortness of Life
    
  • To Polybius, On Consolation
    
  • To Helvia, On Consolation
    
  • On Benefits
    
  • On the Terrors of Death (Epistle IV)
    
  • On Taking One's Own Life (Epistle LXXVII)
    
  • On the Value of Advice (Epistle XCIV)
    

  [*]Suetonius, The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Life of Caligula

  [*]Tacitus, Annals, Book 6

[Akheia]

It's a bit late to edit, Ouro, so please allow me to apologize for sounding so short with you. I'm annoyed because I don't like being asked to spoon-feed someone obvious stuff like that.

 

I will however note that Caligula's reality does not in any way make Jesus' more or less possible. Nice derail attempt!

[Antlerman]

I'll probably never understand the math you are referring to here. I don't see how this destroys my basic point though. In fact, it seems like it makes it for me if I understand you correctly. I.e., it becomes unclear who is an 11th grandmother removed as the tree branches out in so many directions 11 generations back.

I would actually have 4096 11th great grandmothers, except subtracting the one there are no historical records for, of course. I'm sure there was enough genetic overlap to fill in what her mythological self lacked in my tree. "Guinevere", let's call this mythological being was just simply a 'gene splice' stolen from any number of other great grandmothers back then that created the offspring, which led to me.

[Antlerman]

You're going to have to spell it out for me. I honestly don't see where you're going here.

Infinite regression of grandmothers? Maybe it's impossible for Antlerman not to have an 11th grandmother, but at some point in the past, someone didn't have one, and how can we know Antlerman wasn't one of them? What's the evidence?

And on that note..... Grandma!!

 

[Ouroboros]

Freaky.

[mwc]

Historicity of the Iliad

 

Status of the Iliad

 

The modern dispute over the historicity of the Iliad has been very heated at times.^[8] Modern discourse has turned from questions of the historicity of the particular human events that transpire in the Iliad; Moses I. Finley, in The World of Odysseus (1954), which sets out a coherent picture of the society reflected in the Iliad and the Odyssey, deflects the question as "beside the point that the narrative is a collection of fictions from beginning to end"^[9]

 

Finley, for whom the Trojan War is "a timeless event floating in a timeless world",^[10] breaks down the question of historicity, aside from invented narrative details, into five essential elements: 1. Troy was destroyed by a war; 2. the destroyers were a coalition from mainland Greece; 3. the leader of the coalition was a king named Agamemnon; 4. Agamemnon's overlordship was recognized by the other chieftains; 5. Troy, too, headed a coalition of allies. Finley finds no evidence for any of these points.^[11]

 

The more we know about Bronze Age history, the clearer it becomes that it is not a yes-or-no question but one of educated assessment of how much historical knowledge is present in Homer, and whether it reflects a retrospective memory of Dark Age Greece, as Finley concludes, or of Mycenaean Greece, which is the dominant view of A Companion to Homer, A.J.B. Wace and F.H. Stebbings, eds. (New York/London: Macmillan 1962). The particular narrative of the Iliad is not an account of the war, but a tale of the psychology, the wrath, vengeance and death of individual heroes, which assumes common knowledge of the Trojan War to create a backdrop. No scholars now assume that the individual events in the tale (many of which centrally involve divine intervention) are historical fact; on the other hand, no scholars claim that the scenery is entirely devoid of memories of Mycenaean times: it is rather a subjective question of whether the factual content is rather more or rather less than one would have expected.

 

The extent of a demonstrable historicity for Homer's Troy faces hurdles that are analogous to the historical basis for King Arthur. With Plato's Atlantis the less comparable case is the extent to which myth has been manipulated or created, to illustrate philosophical generalizations. In all cases, an ancient body of culturally agreed-upon "facts" embodied in a crystallizing "classic" narrative version, is now seen by some to be true, by others to be mythology or fiction. It may be possible to establish connections between either story and real places and events, but these always risk being subject to selection bias.

The Iliad as essentially legendary

 

Some archaeologists and historians, most notably, until his death in 1986, Finley,^[12] maintain that none of the events in Homer's works are historical. Others accept that there may be a foundation of historical events in the Homeric narrative, but say that in the absence of independent evidence it is not possible to separate fact from myth.

 

The Iliad as essentially historical

 

Another view is that Homer was heir to an unbroken tradition of oral epic poetry reaching back some 500 years into Mycenaean times. In this view, the poem's core could reflect an historical campaign that took place at the eve of the decline of the Mycenaean civilization. Much legendary material would have been added during this time, but in this view it is meaningful to ask for archaeological and textual evidence corresponding to events referred to in the Iliad.

 

The Iliad as partly historical

 

As mentioned above, though, it is most likely that the Homeric tradition contains elements of historical fact and elements of fiction interwoven.

I've edited the sections down as they were too lengthy to repost here. Go to the Wikipedia link for the complete article.

 

Based on what I've been reading it would seem to me that instead of arguing for a historical/mythical jesus, as I posted those earlier, that people are arguing one of these positions instead (and if I had to choose which is being argued it would be the "partly historical" position).

 

If you want to click the link to the historicity of King Arthur then you'll be faced with:

The historical basis of King Arthur is a source of considerable debate among historians. Due to the poverty of British records in the period 450-550CE, historian Thomas Charles-Edwards noted that "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".^[1] Historian David Dumville summed up his position by saying, "I think we can dispose of him [Arthur] quite briefly. He owes his place in our history books to a 'no smoke without fire' school of thought ... The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books."^[2]

The legend of Arthur is much richer (and accessible from this Arthur article).

 

mwc

[qadeshet]

http://en.wikipedia....ricity_of_Jesus

Virtually all scholars accept the existence of Jesus, but differ on the accuracy of the details of his life within the biblical narratives.^[5][118] The Christ myth theory is still being debated in the 21st century, with Graham Stanton stating in 2002 that the most thorough analysis of the theory had been by G. A. Wells.^[119] But Wells' book Did Jesus Exist? was criticized by James D.G. Dunn in his book The Evidence for Jesus.^[120] And the debates continue, e.g. Wells changed his views over time and while he used to argue that there was no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, he later modified his position, and in his later book The Jesus Myth accepted the possible existence of Jesus based on historical sources, although still disputing the gospel portrayals of his life.^{[121][122][123][124]}Robert Van Voorst states that among "New Testament scholars and historians the theory of the non-existence of Jesus remains effectively dead as a scholarly question".^[121][122]

Is Wikipedia really your best source? Even critical Bible Scholars start with the a priori assumption of an Historical Jesus. Historians are a different matter. Since Bible Scholars will lose their careers if they don't toe the party line, I"m not surprised. What all Bible Scholars believe can't prove, or disprove, the Historical Jesus. Bible Scholars argue in a circle. The Gospels must have been written by honest men who wouldn't lie to us. Therefore there must be some Historical Jesus to find in them.

 

Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies

[qadeshet]

It Is black and white. Did he exist or did he not?

Wow. Really? Do you think you can answer that definitively, in black and white answers? Seriously? Why?

 

Which "Jesus"? Yeshua ben Pandera, Yeshua bar Damneus, or the Gospel Jesus? Or perhaps the Essene "Jesus"? The Gospel Jesus never existed. If you would like to tell us what part of the Gospel Jesus you would like to keep, that might help.

 

The evidence is damning--even going so far as to start looking like the entire person of Jesus as presented in the NT is drawn up from older myths and OT tales.

And the evidence of the evidence itself is black and white? Are you so sure people don't debate the validity of interpreting the evidence that way? If so, then how the hell is it black and white? For instance, "Jesus is a copy of Krishna". Yes, the similarities are pretty striking. But no record of Krishna looking like Christ exists before 500 AD. Oops.

 

James M. Robertson argues otherwise, in great detail. Beginning location 3631 in the Kindle edition.

 

Christianity and mythology (1910)

 

Hell, it's even possible that Christianity as a movement didn't begin until decades after its propagandists claimed it did, considering there's also no evidence for the existence of Christians anywhere around 35-50CE.

Breadcrumb trails. If Mark was written around 70 AD, those traditions it culls together into its Narrative story were around before then. It's a case of unraveling the texts to see lines that relate to the approximate times they would have likely been written.

 

We don't know who wrote the Gospels or when they were written. I would put Mark's Gospel closer to 90 AD. Unraveling the Christian Texts themselves is what Bible Scholars do. Without external controls, arguing from the Christian documents themselves is a circular argument.

 

It'd just be one small thing about the religion that turned out to be accurate. But ideas presented without evidence can, as the great man said, be dismissed without evidence.

 

There are great many things in Christianity that are accurate. Not enough for me to embrace it as a useful system. On the contrary, it was worth leaving it. And this business of evidence, evidence, evidence. That is so unrealistic. No one actually lives their life like that. See my earlier comments about Positivism as a failed philosophy

 

Really? There are great many things in Christianity that are accurate? Please illuminate us. Show me the Evidence!

[Antlerman]

Breadcrumb trails. If Mark was written around 70 AD, those traditions it culls together into its Narrative story were around before then. It's a case of unraveling the texts to see lines that relate to the approximate times they would have likely been written.

 

We don't know who wrote the Gospels or when they were written. I would put Mark's Gospel closer to 90 AD. Unraveling the Christian Texts themselves is what Bible Scholars do. Without external controls, arguing from the Christian documents themselves is a circular argument.

Fascinating. Do you also then naturally move Matthew, Luke and John up squarely into the 2nd Century? Or do you make them earlier than Mark? What about all the other Gospels? What dates do you give these in relation to Mark. I'm not sure I've ever heard such a late date for Mark? How do you arrive at this?

 

There are great many things in Christianity that are accurate. Not enough for me to embrace it as a useful system. On the contrary, it was worth leaving it. And this business of evidence, evidence, evidence. That is so unrealistic. No one actually lives their life like that. See my earlier comments about Positivism as a failed philosophy

 

Really? There are great many things in Christianity that are accurate? Please illuminate us. Show me the Evidence!

Now I believe you're yanking my chain.

[Ouroboros]

http://en.wikipedia....ricity_of_Jesus

Virtually all scholars accept the existence of Jesus, but differ on the accuracy of the details of his life within the biblical narratives.^[5][118] The Christ myth theory is still being debated in the 21st century, with Graham Stanton stating in 2002 that the most thorough analysis of the theory had been by G. A. Wells.^[119] But Wells' book Did Jesus Exist? was criticized by James D.G. Dunn in his book The Evidence for Jesus.^[120] And the debates continue, e.g. Wells changed his views over time and while he used to argue that there was no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, he later modified his position, and in his later book The Jesus Myth accepted the possible existence of Jesus based on historical sources, although still disputing the gospel portrayals of his life.^{[121][122][123][124]}Robert Van Voorst states that among "New Testament scholars and historians the theory of the non-existence of Jesus remains effectively dead as a scholarly question".^[121][122]

Is Wikipedia really your best source?

Do you see those little numbers within square brackets? They are references to the sources for the information. If you don't trust what the quote from Wiki says, click on those numbers and go directly to the sources for that information. If the source doesn't satisfy your standards, then so be it.

 

Even critical Bible Scholars start with the a priori assumption of an Historical Jesus. Historians are a different matter.

The quote above isn't about the Bible Scholars but about a Mythologist Scholar who changed his mind. Totally different point.

 

Since Bible Scholars will lose their careers if they don't toe the party line, I"m not surprised. What all Bible Scholars believe can't prove, or disprove, the Historical Jesus. Bible Scholars argue in a circle. The Gospels must have been written by honest men who wouldn't lie to us. Therefore there must be some Historical Jesus to find in them.

So Wells was a Bible scholar who claimed mythology and then changed his mind to do what exactly? Did he lose his job as Bible scholar and was forced to retract his position to get his job back? I'm not sure what you're point is.

 

Historical Facts and the very UNfactual Jesus: contrasting nonbiblical history with ‘historical Jesus’ studies

Is Vridar a trustworthy source? Better than Wiki? It's a personal blog with a strong slant of opinions... I'm not sure that's a better source.

[Ouroboros]

It's a bit late to edit, Ouro, so please allow me to apologize for sounding so short with you. I'm annoyed because I don't like being asked to spoon-feed someone obvious stuff like that.

I asked because I could only find that Cassius was the source. I didn't see the other ones. Besides, can we trust these sources?

 

I will however note that Caligula's reality does not in any way make Jesus' more or less possible. Nice derail attempt!

You were the one bringing up Caligula. You made a claim about Caligula and Pocahontas and I wanted to know how you supported that claim.

[qadeshet]

Even critical Bible Scholars start with the a priori assumption of an Historical Jesus. Historians are a different matter.

The quote above isn't about the Bible Scholars but about a Mythologist Scholar who changed his mind. Totally different point.

 

Your Wiki quote claimes that virtually all Scholars accept the Historicity of Jesus. I submit that "virtually all Scholars" refers to Bible Scholars. Richard Carrier is a famous Historian who changed his mind. At one point he thought the better explanation was an Historical Jesus. Not any longer. Wells apparently changed his mind based on the "Q" documents as an independent source. The "Q" source is totally hypothetical and depends on the Two Source hypothesis. Mark Goodacre, not a Mythicist, has recently agrued against the "Q" hypothesis.

 

The Case Against Q

 

If Goodacre is correct, Luke had access to Mark and Matthew, therefore there is no need for a hypothetical "Q" source.

 

Is Vridar a trustworthy source? Better than Wiki? It's a personal blog with a strong slant of opinions... I'm not sure that's a better source.

 

I don't trust any source, but I do look for ideas everywhere.

[Antlerman]

I don't trust any source, but I do look for ideas everywhere.

Except of course for the ones you cite that you like?

[Ouroboros]

I don't trust any source, but I do look for ideas everywhere.

Then you should trust that it can go both ways. There could have been a totally mythical Jesus or there could have been some fragment of truth that there was an historical Jesus, but a very tiny one. Therefore, beyond knowing it can be either or, we can have an opinion about what we think is more likely. You think it's more likely that it's totally mythical. I think it's more likely there was some tiny figure/character/person who was the template for the ensuing legend/myth.

 

Step 1: Either way

 

Step 2: We have two different opinions which way could be more likely.

 

Sorry for having a different opinion.

[qadeshet]

Breadcrumb trails. If Mark was written around 70 AD, those traditions it culls together into its Narrative story were around before then. It's a case of unraveling the texts to see lines that relate to the approximate times they would have likely been written.

 

We don't know who wrote the Gospels or when they were written. I would put Mark's Gospel closer to 90 AD. Unraveling the Christian Texts themselves is what Bible Scholars do. Without external controls, arguing from the Christian documents themselves is a circular argument.

 

Fascinating. Do you also then naturally move Matthew, Luke and John up squarely into the 2nd Century? Or do you make them earlier than Mark? What about all the other Gospels? What dates do you give these in relation to Mark. I'm not sure I've ever heard such a late date for Mark? How do you arrive at this?

 

I place Matthew, Luke, and John in the first third of the 2nd Century. No Church Father before Bishop Irenaeus, around 180 AD, mentions the four Gospels by name. Church Tradition wants to date the Gospels as early as possible. I put no faith in Church Tradition. How do you arrive at 70 AD?

 

There are great many things in Christianity that are accurate. Not enough for me to embrace it as a useful system. On the contrary, it was worth leaving it. And this business of evidence, evidence, evidence. That is so unrealistic. No one actually lives their life like that. See my earlier comments about Positivism as a failed philosophy

 

Really? There are great many things in Christianity that are accurate? Please illuminate us. Show me the Evidence!

 

Now I believe you're yanking my chain.

 

Early Christianity was a forgery factory, and it is Early Christianity we are discussing. You claim a great many things in Christianity are accutate. List your "great many things". Or at least a few. I can't think of many at all.

[qadeshet]

I don't trust any source, but I do look for ideas everywhere.

Then you should trust that it can go both ways. There could have been a totally mythical Jesus or there could have been some fragment of truth that there was an historical Jesus, but a very tiny one. Therefore, beyond knowing it can be either or, we can have an opinion about what we think is more likely. You think it's more likely that it's totally mythical. I think it's more likely there was some tiny figure/character/person who was the template for the ensuing legend/myth.

 

Step 1: Either way

 

Step 2: We have two different opinions which way could be more likely.

 

Sorry for having a different opinion.

 

Either we have a Mythical Christ that was later brought down to Earth, or we have some kind of an Historical Jesus who performed no Miracles and died an ignominius death. And stayed dead. The degree of probability depends on how much faith we are willing to put in the Gospels. Is there a kernel of truth in the Gospels or are the Gospels strictly allegorical? There are numerus 1st Century men who's name was Yeshua. Is it possible that one of them partially inspired early Christians? If we actually had any evidence, then we wouldn't have to ask these questions. I know that Julius Caesar existed. I can't say the same about Jesus.

[Antlerman]

I place Matthew, Luke, and John in the first third of the 2nd Century. No Church Father before Bishop Irenaeus, around 180 AD, mentions the four Gospels by name. Church Tradition wants to date the Gospels as early as possible. I put no faith in Church Tradition. How do you arrive at 70 AD?

You didn't answer my question about how you arrive at a date of 90 AD for Mark? Arbitrary assignment based on your dislike of what you perceive as Church Tradition? I arrive at the date of 70 AD because that is what the majority of reasonable scholarship places it at - not tradition! Tradition says Matthew was the first Gospel written, not Mark. Here's one site that's got a list of the basis for these general held dates, which the range of possible dates, and the debates over them. Nowhere I've ever seen puts Mark at 90 AD. So again, what is your source other than just guessing because you don't like tradition? Who, and on what basis places Mark that late?

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

Now I believe you're yanking my chain.

 

Early Christianity was a forgery factory, and it is Early Christianity we are discussing. You claim a great many things in Christianity are accutate. List your "great many things". Or at least a few. I can't think of many at all.

A forgery factory? Whatever. I take mythmaking not as lying, but as something entirely different that trying to foist over a lie on someone. If you understood anything about myth and symbol you wouldn't call it fraud. That said however, yes, there was some forgery as well, but hardly what I'd call a "factory" as you paint it.

 

What sort of things are your critera for truth? Scientific and historical facts? What about principles, such as love your neighbor as yourself? Are those lies? Are those inaccurate as to the the value and good of them?

[qadeshet]

I don't trust any source, but I do look for ideas everywhere.

Except of course for the ones you cite that you like?

 

I don't quote the ones I don't like. Everyone has the right and the responsibility to do their own research.

[Ouroboros]

Either we have a Mythical Christ that was later brought down to Earth, or we have some kind of an Historical Jesus who performed no Miracles and died an ignominius death.

No. Either we have a Mythical Jesus or we have an Historical Jesus who didn't perform miracles but impressed a group of people enough to create a cult of followers.

 

And stayed dead. The degree of probability depends on how much faith we are willing to put in the Gospels.

No. Disagree. The Gospels aren't the issue.

 

Is there a kernel of truth in the Gospels or are the Gospels strictly allegorical? There are numerus 1st Century men who's name was Yeshua. Is it possible that one of them partially inspired early Christians? If we actually had any evidence, then we wouldn't have to ask these questions. I know that Julius Caesar existed. I can't say the same about Jesus.

Correct. You don't know. But you argue that you do know that he didn't. There's a scale that starts at "Positively sure he was the Jesus in the Gospels", over to, "He wasn't the person in the Gospels, but he was some kind of leader for a small cult that grew", all the way to, "There never was anyone at all, called Jesus, Christ, or Messiahs, because history is just made-up by a bunch of writers." That's a scale with many different steps in between, and you just happen to choose to take the line a bit farther to the "myth" side than I do. That doesn't mean I'm aaaaaalll the waaaay over the "Glory to Jesus our savior" side. This is the black-and-white/categorical thinking I'd like you to realize and get out of.

[qadeshet]

I place Matthew, Luke, and John in the first third of the 2nd Century. No Church Father before Bishop Irenaeus, around 180 AD, mentions the four Gospels by name. Church Tradition wants to date the Gospels as early as possible. I put no faith in Church Tradition. How do you arrive at 70 AD?

You didn't answer my question about how you arrive at a date of 90 AD for Mark? Arbitrary assignment based on your dislike of what you perceive as Church Tradition? I arrive at the date of 70 AD because that is what the majority of reasonable scholarship places it at - not tradition! Tradition says Matthew was the first Gospel written, not Mark. Here's one site that's got a list of the basis for these general held dates, which the range of possible dates, and the debates over them. Nowhere I've ever seen puts Mark at 90 AD. So again, what is your source other than just guessing because you don't like tradition? Who, and on what basis places Mark that late?

 

Since Mark 13 alludes to the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple, Mark must have been written sometime after 70AD. No Church Father makes mention of this Gospel until perhaps the middle of the 2nd Century. Justin Martyr quotes a passage from Mark that he attributes to "the Memoirs of Peter". I would like to date Mark's Gospel to around 110 AD but am currently going with Doherty's estimate. I see no reason to accept "reasonable" scholarship on this issue. At least until I see a much better argument.

 

 

Early Christianity was a forgery factory, and it is Early Christianity we are discussing. You claim a great many things in Christianity are accutate. List your "great many things". Or at least a few. I can't think of many at all.

A forgery factory? Whatever. I take mythmaking not as lying, but as something entirely different that trying to foist over a lie on someone. If you understood anything about myth and symbol you wouldn't call it fraud. That said however, yes, there was some forgery as well, but hardly what I'd call a "factory" as you paint it.

 

Even Bible Scholars like Prof. Bart Ehrman admit to Bible forgery. Eusebius wrote a famous treatise extolling the virtue of Pious Fraud. Mythmaking is not fraud, forging books and letters and attaching various names to them is forgery.

 

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

 

What sort of things are your critera for truth? Scientific and historical facts? What about principles, such as love your neighbor as yourself? Are those lies? Are those inaccurate as to the the value and good of them?

 

I thought we were discussing the Historical "Jesus"? What do principals have to do with whether or not Jesus existed?

[qadeshet]

Either we have a Mythical Christ that was later brought down to Earth, or we have some kind of an Historical Jesus who performed no Miracles and died an ignominius death.

No. Either we have a Mythical Jesus or we have an Historical Jesus who didn't perform miracles but impressed a group of people enough to create a cult of followers.

 

Paul writes of the Christ or Christ Jesus from his visions. The tradition of a Jesus brought down to Earth is a Gospel invention. And the Gospels may never have been intended to be taken literally, but as allegories.

 

And stayed dead. The degree of probability depends on how much faith we are willing to put in the Gospels.

No. Disagree. The Gospels aren't the issue.

 

The Gospels and Epistles are all we have to work with. According to Bible Scholars themselves, the best evidence for the the Historical Jesus is from Galatians 1:19

"But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord."

 

Is there a kernel of truth in the Gospels or are the Gospels strictly allegorical? There are numerus 1st Century men who's name was Yeshua. Is it possible that one of them partially inspired early Christians? If we actually had any evidence, then we wouldn't have to ask these questions. I know that Julius Caesar existed. I can't say the same about Jesus.

Correct. You don't know. But you argue that you do know that he didn't. There's a scale that starts at "Positively sure he was the Jesus in the Gospels", over to, "He wasn't the person in the Gospels, but he was some kind of leader for a small cult that grew", all the way to, "There never was anyone at all, called Jesus, Christ, or Messiahs, because history is just made-up by a bunch of writers." That's a scale with many different steps in between, and you just happen to choose to take the line a bit farther to the "myth" side than I do. That doesn't mean I'm aaaaaalll the waaaay over the "Glory to Jesus our savior" side. This is the black-and-white/categorical thinking I'd like you to realize and get out of.

 

I have never claimed absolute certainty. I put the probability of some kind of Historical "Jesus" at 30%. It may never be possible to determine whether or not one of the 1st Century Cult leaders may have inspired early Christians. All we have are probabilities.

[Antlerman]

I don't trust any source, but I do look for ideas everywhere.

Except of course for the ones you cite that you like?

 

I don't quote the ones I don't like. Everyone has the right and the responsibility to do their own research.

And you feel you're qualified? Plus, researching how? On the Internet?

 

Believe me, I don't feel qualified to claim I'm an expert in this. I can certainly read others works and base my personal opinion on them, which will have to do with a lot of factors. I think there is always a certain amount of trustworthiness that has to go into these sources, and that's what I look for largely in helping shape my opinions.

 

You know, this comes to a problem that Jurgen Habermas pointed out in an article of his I read some time back, how that the Internet and personal blogs are destroying intelligence in the world because we are marginalizing the experts, the specialists, the intellectuals. We no longer rely on them to inform us, people just go "do their own research", as you are championing doing using what you read on the Internet, and then dismiss the experts because you think they reflect what the church says somehow, which you don't like of course, so defacto, they're full of it. (Not to mention they actually don't reflect the church, but that doesn't matter I guess).

 

I've looked at Doherty, and though he's interesting, he's not the level I would expect from an expert. Not to say he doesn't have some good insights now and then, but I've read far more informed individuals.

[Antlerman]

You didn't answer my question about how you arrive at a date of 90 AD for Mark? Arbitrary assignment based on your dislike of what you perceive as Church Tradition? I arrive at the date of 70 AD because that is what the majority of reasonable scholarship places it at - not tradition! Tradition says Matthew was the first Gospel written, not Mark. Here's one site that's got a list of the basis for these general held dates, which the range of possible dates, and the debates over them. Nowhere I've ever seen puts Mark at 90 AD. So again, what is your source other than just guessing because you don't like tradition? Who, and on what basis places Mark that late?

Since Mark 13 alludes to the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple, Mark must have been written sometime after 70AD. No Church Father makes mention of this Gospel until perhaps the middle of the 2nd Century. Justin Martyr quotes a passage from Mark that he attributes to "the Memoirs of Peter". I would like to date Mark's Gospel to around 110 AD but am currently going with Doherty's estimate. I see no reason to accept "reasonable" scholarship on this issue. At least until I see a much better argument.

You see no reason to accept "reasonable" scholarship, because Doherty says so? Do you not believe that these people looked at all these things, that you somehow have figured out? I enjoy how you state it "I would like to date Mark's Gospel", as though you are qualified to make this assertion yourself. Do you fancy yourself at a doctorate level of research and knowledge here because you read the Jesus Puzzle and some of Carrier's blogs?

 

Yes, Habermas seems frighteningly a prophet here.

 

A forgery factory? Whatever. I take mythmaking not as lying, but as something entirely different that trying to foist over a lie on someone. If you understood anything about myth and symbol you wouldn't call it fraud. That said however, yes, there was some forgery as well, but hardly what I'd call a "factory" as you paint it.

 

Even Bible Scholars like Prof. Bart Ehrman admit to Bible forgery. Eusebius wrote a famous treatise extolling the virtue of Pious Fraud. Mythmaking is not fraud, forging books and letters and attaching various names to them is forgery.

I'm fully aware there is some forgery that occurred. I said so in my post. I have Ehrman's books and have read them. I consider his calling some of the things he does as fraud is inaccurate, not because it was clearly not the person writing, but I disagree with him ascribing motives like this. I disagree with him, because I do not sense at all from him any awareness of the things I take into account in understanding why people take such liberties. I disagree with him assigning human motives of avarice, because I do not see him as a psychologist or an expert in myth studies. I however am not going to say he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about in his area of expertise. And then, even then, he is not the final authority, but one of many qualified individuals.

 

Unlike you, I don't call him unqualified in his area of expertise, as you dismiss everyone because you enjoyed reading The Jesus Puzzle.

 

What sort of things are your critera for truth? Scientific and historical facts? What about principles, such as love your neighbor as yourself? Are those lies? Are those inaccurate as to the the value and good of them?

 

I thought we were discussing the Historical "Jesus"? What do principals have to do with whether or not Jesus existed?

I made my original comment in response to you saying something to the effect that the Bible is nothing but a book of lies, in essence.

[qadeshet]

I don't trust any source, but I do look for ideas everywhere.

Except of course for the ones you cite that you like?

 

I don't quote the ones I don't like. Everyone has the right and the responsibility to do their own research.

And you feel you're qualified? Plus, researching how? On the Internet?

 

Believe me, I don't feel qualified to claim I'm an expert in this. I can certainly read others works and base my personal opinion on them, which will have to do with a lot of factors. I think there is always a certain amount of trustworthiness that has to go into these sources, and that's what I look for largely in helping shape my opinions.

 

You know, this comes to a problem that Jurgen Habermas pointed out in an article of his I read some time back, how that the Internet and personal blogs are destroying intelligence in the world because we are marginalizing the experts, the specialists, the intellectuals. We no longer rely on them to inform us, people just go "do their own research", as you are championing doing using what you read on the Internet, and then dismiss the experts because you think they reflect what the church says somehow, which you don't like of course, so defacto, they're full of it. (Not to mention they actually don't reflect the church, but that doesn't matter I guess).

 

I've looked at Doherty, and though he's interesting, he's not the level I would expect from an expert. Not to say he doesn't have some good insights now and then, but I've read far more informed individuals.

 

Do I feel like I'm qualified for what exactly? I am qualified to do my own research and come to my own conclusions. I don't take the word of any Scholar. When I started researching this subject there was no such thing as the Internet. Just many hours spent in Libraries and Bookstores. I put no trust or faith in Bible Scholars or Doherty. I put my trust in evidence. No one knows who wrote any of the Gospels or Epistles, or when they were written. All we have is speculation. Doherty is a layman, not a "qualified expert". According to Bible Scholars, the only "qualified experts" are Bible Scholars who have careers to protect.

 

 

You see no reason to accept "reasonable" scholarship, because Doherty says so? Do you not believe that these people looked at all these things, that you somehow have figured out? I enjoy how you state it "I would like to date Mark's Gospel", as though you are qualified to make this assertion yourself. Do you fancy yourself at a doctorate level of research and knowledge here because you read the Jesus Puzzle and some of Carrier's blogs?

 

Yes, Habermas seems frighteningly a prophet here.

 

"Reasonable Scholars" declare that Mark must have been written in 70 AD so case closed? Scholars believe that Mark was probably written between 70 AD and 80 AD. That is an assumption based on the Christian writings themselves, with no external evidence. I think Doherty has dated Mark's Gospel a little early but I'm open to new evidence.

 

I made my original comment in response to you saying something to the effect that the Bible is nothing but a book of lies, in essence.

 

The Bible is a collection of Myths and Legends written by men, not the word of any god. A Myth is not a lie. The Bible may have some good teachings mixed in there, but it is not in any way trustworthy as "History".