Why The Gospels Are Myth

[directionless]

^ I was just thinking:

- James made-up a mythical brother named Jesus who had claimed to be the messiah and was executed

- authorities feared James enough to stone him and anger their Roman overlords

 

Why wouldn't the authorities question the existence of the mythical Jesus to discredit James? If so, why wouldn't Josephus mention these questions about the existence of Jesus?

 

It seems unlikely that James made up a mythical brother IMO.

 

I agree it is not important for most ex-Christians to decide if Jesus existed, but I have been hoping to discover a mismatch between a historical Jesus and a more divine Christian Jesus. If the historical Jesus did not believe in anything remotely like Christianity then I would feel more comfortable.

[Brother Jeff]

^ I was just thinking:

- James made-up a mythical brother named Jesus who had claimed to be the messiah and was executed

- authorities feared James enough to stone him and anger their Roman overlords

 

Why wouldn't the authorities question the existence of the mythical Jesus to discredit James? If so, why wouldn't Josephus mention these questions about the existence of Jesus?

 

It seems unlikely that James made up a mythical brother IMO.

 

I agree it is not important for most ex-Christians to decide if Jesus existed, but I have been hoping to discover a mismatch between a historical Jesus and a more divine Christian Jesus. If the historical Jesus did not believe in anything remotely like Christianity then I would feel more comfortable.

 

The real historical Jesus, if he did live, did not believe anything like our modern Christianity. He was an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic preacher, but little if anything can be known about him now. The Gospel accounts of a divine Jesus are clearly myth, and the historical Jesus -- who was nothing like the Jesus of the Gospels and who did not teach or believe what the Gospel Jesus did -- is long dead. Spend some time at this site:

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net 

 

This one is good too:

 

http://www.christianitydisproved.com

 

The Jesus of the Gospels is clearly myth. Check this site out too:

 

http://department.monm.edu/classics/Courses/Clas230/MythDocuments/HeroPattern/

 

Hope that all helps. Glory!

[Sextus]

 The myth is much older than the gospel, in my opinion. 

 

One of the problems with Carrier's argument is that, actually, it isn't.  The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unknown in Judaism before the rise of Christianity.  So was the idea that the Messiah was going to die and rise again.  It was so unknown that it was a major obstacle to the acceptance of the idea of Jesus as the Messiah - Paul refers to the whole concept of a crucified Messiah as "a stumbling block to the Jews".  This is why Carrier is forced to contrive some pre-Christian Jewish precedents for this idea - because without them, the best explanation for the origin of this alien idea is ... a historical guy who was considered the Messiah but then got crucified.  Guess who.  Unfortunately for Carrier, no-one finds his claims that he is the first person in hundreds of years of scholarship to have "discovered" evidence of these pre-Christian Jewish precedents for a Dying Messiah at all convincing.  Which is why he remains an unemployed blogger who goes around giving powepoint presentations on his amazing "findings" instead of getting the academic job he once wanted.

[Sextus]

 

 

Is there any evidence that Jesus was a real person?

O'Neil's initial review of "Nailed" mentioned the references to James the brother of Jesus by Josephus and Paul.

 

I watched Richard Carrier's talk last night, and it was interesting. Some of his arguments seemed convincing. (I started from about 29 minutes in as suggested )

 

 

 

So it is all built on hearsay and if James lied then Jesus was a myth.

 

 

Almost all ancient history is "built on hearsay".  And if "James lied" about what, exactly?

[Sextus]

- James made-up a mythical brother named Jesus who had claimed to be the messiah and was executed

 

 

When you're having to resort to this level of conspiracist fantasy to make some of the evidence go away, you are simply finding reasons to cling to an a priori position.  That's not exactly rational.

[Sextus]

What a waste of time.  So some blogger likes to characterize people as angry fanatics.

 

 

Please detail what exactly it was in my detailed counter arguments and analysis of the source material that made my post "a waste of time"? 

[Brother Jeff]

Well I've read the link to O'Neils criticism and found it a little suspicious in some areas. He really made Fitzgerald out as a bumbling idiot so I followed the link at the bottom of the article to Fitzgerald's response to the criticism:

 

And Then There’s This Guy...

 

 

That said, there is one review that I do want to respond to here; not simply because it’s almost completely wrong, but because it’s often so ass-backwards wrong in ways that actually prove the points I argue. (and because demonstrating all this gives a surprisingly high entertainment value) It’s the screed-in-book review’s clothing from an Australian blogger, Tim O’Neill....

 

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

 

The rebuttal is worth a read. 

 

O'Neill's response to Fitzgerald is worth a read too:

 

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html

 

I came away much more impressed with Tim O'Neill.

[Blood]

 

 The myth is much older than the gospel, in my opinion. 

 

One of the problems with Carrier's argument is that, actually, it isn't.  The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unknown in Judaism before the rise of Christianity.  So was the idea that the Messiah was going to die and rise again.  It was so unknown that it was a major obstacle to the acceptance of the idea of Jesus as the Messiah - Paul refers to the whole concept of a crucified Messiah as "a stumbling block to the Jews".  This is why Carrier is forced to contrive some pre-Christian Jewish precedents for this idea - because without them, the best explanation for the origin of this alien idea is ... a historical guy who was considered the Messiah but then got crucified.  Guess who.  Unfortunately for Carrier, no-one finds his claims that he is the first person in hundreds of years of scholarship to have "discovered" evidence of these pre-Christian Jewish precedents for a Dying Messiah at all convincing.  Which is why he remains an unemployed blogger who goes around giving powepoint presentations on his amazing "findings" instead of getting the academic job he once wanted.

 

 

Welcome to the forum, Mr. O'Neill. 

[Blood]

And why exactly do we have to assume a Jewish context for early Christianity? We do not need actual Persians/Zoroastrians in Rome to explain the rise of the Roman cultus of Mithras. All we need for that is the archetype of an ancient and exotic soteriological figure from the East, and some holy texts in Greek or Latin that purport to be "translations" of the ancient mysteries of said figure. Done. 

 

A supposedly "Jewish" context for Christianity is only assumed if you take the New Testament literally. Why should I? 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Is there any evidence that Jesus was a real person?

O'Neil's initial review of "Nailed" mentioned the references to James the brother of Jesus by Josephus and Paul.

 

I watched Richard Carrier's talk last night, and it was interesting. Some of his arguments seemed convincing. (I started from about 29 minutes in as suggested )

 

 

 

So it is all built on hearsay and if James lied then Jesus was a myth.

 

 

Almost all ancient history is "built on hearsay".  And if "James lied" about what, exactly?

 

 

The half brother with cosmic powers who flies, walks on water and atones for the sins of the entire world.

[mymistake]

 

What a waste of time.  So some blogger likes to characterize people as angry fanatics.

 

 

Please detail what exactly it was in my detailed counter arguments and analysis of the source material that made my post "a waste of time"? 

 

 

Are you kidding?

 

Attacking other people's character is a fallacy.  I can't wade through paragraph after paragraph of ranting against other people's character to find the grain of evidence buried somewhere in that mess.  It's an impenetrable wall of text.  Yes there was the time he said the bad thing.  And there was the other time he said the other bad thing.

 

None of that makes Jesus for reals.

[Sextus]

And why exactly do we have to assume a Jewish context for early Christianity? We do not need actual Persians/Zoroastrians in Rome to explain the rise of the Roman cultus of Mithras. All we need for that is the archetype of an ancient and exotic soteriological figure from the East, and some holy texts in Greek or Latin that purport to be "translations" of the ancient mysteries of said figure. Done. 

 

A supposedly "Jewish" context for Christianity is only assumed if you take the New Testament literally. Why should I? 

 

We conclude (not "assume") a Jewish context for the origins of Christianity because that's precisely where all the evidence points.  The earliest Christian texts we have, the Pauline material, are written by a Jew explaining Jesus in the context of Jewish ideas to non-Jews.  Then we have the gospels, which depict Jesus as a Jew and as the Messiah (a purely Jewish concept) and as preaching a Jewish eschatological message about the coming "kingdom" of the Jewish God to Jews.  Then we have Josephus and Tacitus both tracing the origin of the cult to Judea and a Jewish preacher.  It takes a lot of work to ignore all that and pretend that Christianity didn't arise out of a Jewish sect.  That's why, if you notice, that even Carrier doesn't go off on that particular wild goose chase.  And no, none of the above requires you to take the New Testament "literally".  It just requires you to look at the evidence objectively and with sufficient common sense.

[Blood]

 

And why exactly do we have to assume a Jewish context for early Christianity? We do not need actual Persians/Zoroastrians in Rome to explain the rise of the Roman cultus of Mithras. All we need for that is the archetype of an ancient and exotic soteriological figure from the East, and some holy texts in Greek or Latin that purport to be "translations" of the ancient mysteries of said figure. Done. 

 

A supposedly "Jewish" context for Christianity is only assumed if you take the New Testament literally. Why should I? 

 

We conclude (not "assume") a Jewish context for the origins of Christianity because that's precisely where all the evidence points.  The earliest Christian texts we have, the Pauline material, are written by a Jew explaining Jesus in the context of Jewish ideas to non-Jews.  Then we have the gospels, which depict Jesus as a Jew and as the Messiah (a purely Jewish concept) and as preaching a Jewish eschatological message about the coming "kingdom" of the Jewish God to Jews.  Then we have Josephus and Tacitus both tracing the origin of the cult to Judea and a Jewish preacher.  It takes a lot of work to ignore all that and pretend that Christianity didn't arise out of a Jewish sect.  That's why, if you notice, that even Carrier doesn't go off on that particular wild goose chase.  And no, none of the above requires you to take the New Testament "literally".  It just requires you to look at the evidence objectively and with sufficient common sense.

 

 

Yes, and Franz Cumont led scholars on a wild goose chase for 75 years with his conclusion that the Roman Mithras cult was started by actual Persians in Rome. After all, Mithras was a Persian savior figure, who came out of a Persian religion, so how in the world could it be otherwise? That was where "all the evidence" pointed. It was only when ancient history scholars actually started questioning Cumont's conclusions that progress was made. Nowadays, not a single ancient history scholar follows the "conclusions" that their earlier predecessors were so sure of just a couple of generations ago. 

 

And mind you, that was in ancient history, a somewhat serious, somewhat objective discipline -- not theology, where "Christian studies" is held. Christian studies is not history. It is basically an apologetic enterprise led by theologians who have a strong emotional need for their religious texts and figures to be historical. If you don't think a heavy confirmation bias smothers everything in Biblical studies, I have a bridge to sell you. 

 

It takes a lot of work to ignore the fact that the Pauline epistles were written after 70; that the gospels AND Acts (the two supposedly main sources for the "historical Jesus") are written by Gentiles, not Jews; that the Gentile author of the Petrine Epistles tells the reader quite explicitly that "Jewish myths" did not inspire them; that no texts exist at all in Hebrew; that Origen is unaware of the "evidence" from the Testimonium Flavianum; that there are no Jewish bishops or elders in the church at all after 70 (were there any before then?); that there is no historical precedent whatever for Jews making an actual man "the Son of God;" and so on. 

[Sextus]

 

 

The half brother with cosmic powers who flies, walks on water and atones for the sins of the entire world.

 

 

Well, it's certainly possible that James made up this whole story and that he is the origin of the whole shebang.  But millions of things are merely possible - history is about looking at the evidence and trying to determine what is likely.  Anyone can make up a "just so" story and say "well, maybe this happened".  That doesnt' get us very far.  So, where is the evidence that indicates that this is what happened and that this is the most parsimonious read of the evidence?

[Sextus]

 

 

Please detail what exactly it was in my detailed counter arguments and analysis of the source material that made my post "a waste of time"? 

 

 

Are you kidding?

 

Attacking other people's character is a fallacy.  I can't wade through paragraph after paragraph of ranting against other people's character to find the grain of evidence buried somewhere in that mess.  It's an impenetrable wall of text.  Yes there was the time he said the bad thing.  And there was the other time he said the other bad thing.

 

None of that makes Jesus for reals.

 

 

Firstly, it's only a "fallacy" if someone substitutes attacks on people for argument.  Prefacing their arguments with any such attacks is not a fallacy at all.  People need to stop mistaking ad hominems for the ad hominem fallacy - they are not the same thing.  Secondly, what you've decided to dismiss as "attacking (their) character" is actually demonstrating, by reference to evidence, the emotional biases of Fitzgerald and Carrier.  That's directly relevant to the topic of my post.  It might not be exactly fascinating to you, but that's what you get when you come into the middle of a debate that had, at that stage, been running for several years.  Thirdly, if you aren't interested in that stuff and want to get down to the detailed analysis of where Fitzgerald and, later, Carrier, go badly wrong because of those emotional biases, you could skip to the section entitled "Apologists versus "Critical Scholars" and read from there.  That's where I get down to brass tacks and tackle Fitzgerald's response on a point by point basis, with detailed reference to the scholarship and the evidence. 

 

It feels like you just skimmed the first few paragraphs looking for an excuse not to read further and then gave up as soon as you found what you thought would do.  Try again.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

The half brother with cosmic powers who flies, walks on water and atones for the sins of the entire world.

 

 

Well, it's certainly possible that James made up this whole story and that he is the origin of the whole shebang.  But millions of things are merely possible - history is about looking at the evidence and trying to determine what is likely.  Anyone can make up a "just so" story and say "well, maybe this happened".  That doesnt' get us very far.  So, where is the evidence that indicates that this is what happened and that this is the most parsimonious read of the evidence?

 

 

 

Do historians look for the real Merlin, the real Thor or the real Hercules?  Who was the historical Perseus?

 

Jesus is not a mortal who led a political movement, governed a region or commanded an army.  Jesus battled against demons.  Jesus commanded the forces of nature.  Jesus defied the laws of physics.  Jesus could reverse death itself.  The burden of proof falls on those who claim that Jesus was real.  If your argument was that Jesus was a crazy homeless man then you have to explain why in the stories he appears as a cosmic superhero but really isn't.  Crazy homeless people usually don't wind up at the protagonist in mythology.

[Brother Jeff]

 

 

 

Please detail what exactly it was in my detailed counter arguments and analysis of the source material that made my post "a waste of time"? 

 

 

Are you kidding?

 

Attacking other people's character is a fallacy.  I can't wade through paragraph after paragraph of ranting against other people's character to find the grain of evidence buried somewhere in that mess.  It's an impenetrable wall of text.  Yes there was the time he said the bad thing.  And there was the other time he said the other bad thing.

 

None of that makes Jesus for reals.

 

 

Firstly, it's only a "fallacy" if someone substitutes attacks on people for argument.  Prefacing their arguments with any such attacks is not a fallacy at all.  People need to stop mistaking ad hominems for the ad hominem fallacy - they are not the same thing.  Secondly, what you've decided to dismiss as "attacking (their) character" is actually demonstrating, by reference to evidence, the emotional biases of Fitzgerald and Carrier.  That's directly relevant to the topic of my post.  It might not be exactly fascinating to you, but that's what you get when you come into the middle of a debate that had, at that stage, been running for several years.  Thirdly, if you aren't interested in that stuff and want to get down to the detailed analysis of where Fitzgerald and, later, Carrier, go badly wrong because of those emotional biases, you could skip to the section entitled "Apologists versus "Critical Scholars" and read from there.  That's where I get down to brass tacks and tackle Fitzgerald's response on a point by point basis, with detailed reference to the scholarship and the evidence. 

 

It feels like you just skimmed the first few paragraphs looking for an excuse not to read further and then gave up as soon as you found what you thought would do.  Try again.

 

 

Sextus, I spend a few hours yesterday evening reading the exchanges between you and David Fitzgerald. I came away more impressed with what you had to say, and I agree that there probably was a historical Jesus behind the mythical stories we find in the Gospels. But I don't think much can be known about the real historical Jesus now, if such a person did actually live. I am curious though, have you seen the video by Dr. Carrier that I posted to start this glorious topic? I do not agree with your low opinion of Dr. Carrier. I found this particular video very well done and very educational. 

 

I currently own "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty and Fitzgerald's book "Nailed". Nailed was by far the easier read and I was initially impressed by it, but you have given me a lot to think about, so thank you for that. For me, this issue is fun to think about but ultimately doesn't matter. If Jesus lived in history, he is long dead now, and the fact that Christianity isn't true is actually easy to prove, whether a historical Jesus lived or not. So, interesting as it is to think about, what does it really matter?

[Sextus]

 

 

And why exactly do we have to assume a Jewish context for early Christianity? We do not need actual Persians/Zoroastrians in Rome to explain the rise of the Roman cultus of Mithras. All we need for that is the archetype of an ancient and exotic soteriological figure from the East, and some holy texts in Greek or Latin that purport to be "translations" of the ancient mysteries of said figure. Done. 

 

A supposedly "Jewish" context for Christianity is only assumed if you take the New Testament literally. Why should I? 

 

We conclude (not "assume") a Jewish context for the origins of Christianity because that's precisely where all the evidence points.  The earliest Christian texts we have, the Pauline material, are written by a Jew explaining Jesus in the context of Jewish ideas to non-Jews.  Then we have the gospels, which depict Jesus as a Jew and as the Messiah (a purely Jewish concept) and as preaching a Jewish eschatological message about the coming "kingdom" of the Jewish God to Jews.  Then we have Josephus and Tacitus both tracing the origin of the cult to Judea and a Jewish preacher.  It takes a lot of work to ignore all that and pretend that Christianity didn't arise out of a Jewish sect.  That's why, if you notice, that even Carrier doesn't go off on that particular wild goose chase.  And no, none of the above requires you to take the New Testament "literally".  It just requires you to look at the evidence objectively and with sufficient common sense.

 

 

Yes, and Franz Cumont led scholars on a wild goose chase for 75 years with his conclusion that the Roman Mithras cult was started by actual Persians in Rome. After all, Mithras was a Persian savior figure, who came out of a Persian religion, so how in the world could it be otherwise? That was where "all the evidence" pointed. It was only when ancient history scholars actually started questioning Cumont's conclusions that progress was made. Nowadays, not a single ancient history scholar follows the "conclusions" that their earlier predecessors were so sure of just a couple of generations ago. 

 

And mind you, that was in ancient history, a somewhat serious, somewhat objective discipline -- not theology, where "Christian studies" is held. Christian studies is not history. It is basically an apologetic enterprise led by theologians who have a strong emotional need for their religious texts and figures to be historical. If you don't think a heavy confirmation bias smothers everything in Biblical studies, I have a bridge to sell you. 

 

It takes a lot of work to ignore the fact that the Pauline epistles were written after 70; that the gospels AND Acts (the two supposedly main sources for the "historical Jesus") are written by Gentiles, not Jews; that the Gentile author of the Petrine Epistles tells the reader quite explicitly that "Jewish myths" did not inspire them; that no texts exist at all in Hebrew; that Origen is unaware of the "evidence" from the Testimonium Flavianum; that there are no Jewish bishops or elders in the church at all after 70 (were there any before then?); that there is no historical precedent whatever for Jews making an actual man "the Son of God;" and so on. 

 

 

The reason that Cumont led the field of Mithraic studies down that erroneous path was precisely because, given the very scanty nature of our evidence for anything about the Roman cult of Mithras, he started with an assumption.  But we have (relatively) extensive textual evidence about the early Jesus cult and so the idea that it arose out of a Jewish sect is not an assumption - it's right there in the evidence.  This is why it will take some significant work to (i) explain all that evidence and (ii) then come up with an alternative reading that is more parsimonious.

 

If you're up for doing that here, I can only say that I await your detailed argument with great anticipation.

 

Some of the statements in your final paragraph don't exactly fill me with hope about the coherence of that argument.  It's a "fact that the Pauline epistles were written after 70"?  That's quite a claim on its own.  If it's a "fact" then it's very odd that the consensus of even highly sceptical scholars puts them 20 years before that.  Given that we have no idea who exactly wrote the gospels and Acts, your second claim is also remarkable.  Several of those texts are likely to have been written by Gentiles.  Others could easily have been written by Jews.  We simply don't know, so your categorical statement here is pretty brave.  But even if it were true, the traditions they are recording contain sufficient elements to support the idea of a Jewish origin of the sect nonetheless - that Gentiles joined it doesn't affect that.  In fact, that same material, especially Acts and some of the Pauline material, indicates a rather bitter dispute about how Gentiles could be accomodated within a Jewish sect, which would be odd if it was never a Jewish sect in the first place.  Exactly what you're referring to regarding "the Petrine epistles" I have no idea - do you have a specific citation?  I can't see why Origen would know of the TF in its current form or in what context he'd be citing it in its pre-redacted form, so again - what?  The lack of Jewish "bishops or elders" is not much of a mystery given that our sources are from the form of Christianity that drifted from its Jewish roots in the wake of the disruption of the Jewish War, though you will need to explain the variant sects such as the Ebionites who traced their origins to the earliest Jewish church or the constant battle against "heretics" who were "Judaisers".  And the long process of transforming a Jewish Messiah into "God the Son" took centuries and left a trail in the evidence a mile wide.  Bart Ehrman's latest book traces this progession very well.

[mymistake]

 

 

Firstly, it's only a "fallacy" if someone substitutes attacks on people for argument.  Prefacing their arguments with any such attacks is not a fallacy at all.  People need to stop mistaking ad hominems for the ad hominem fallacy - they are not the same thing.  Secondly, what you've decided to dismiss as "attacking (their) character" is actually demonstrating, by reference to evidence, the emotional biases of Fitzgerald and Carrier.  That's directly relevant to the topic of my post.  

 

Please.

 

"Never argue with a fanatic." 

 

". . . - the fanatic in question is usually completely beyond reason and, on most subjects, everyone else really doesn't care.

 

" . . .  arguing with a few of the more fanatical adherents of the "Jesus Never Existed" brigade . . . "

 

" . . . I usually only do so when there is some chance that the other person or some of the onlookers might see . . . "

 

The article would be greatly improved by deleting everything at least up to the Simpson cartoon.  But why would you ask the opinion of a "fanatic" like me?   

 

 

 

It might not be exactly fascinating to you, but that's what you get when you come into the middle of a debate that had, at that stage, been running for several years.  

 

Actually this thread is only a few days old.  You came here and advertised your blog without immediately identifying it as your blog.  You presented it as an interesting read and when I gave you my opinion you asked me why I thought it was a waste of my time.

 

 

 

Thirdly, if you aren't interested in that stuff and want to get down to the detailed analysis of where Fitzgerald and, later, Carrier, go badly wrong because of those emotional biases, you could skip to the section entitled "Apologists versus "Critical Scholars" and read from there.  That's where I get down to brass tacks and tackle Fitzgerald's response on a point by point basis, with detailed reference to the scholarship and the evidence. 

 

It feels like you just skimmed the first few paragraphs looking for an excuse not to read further and then gave up as soon as you found what you thought would do.  Try again.

 

 

I read it word for word until the Simpson Cartoon.  I can't go on.  I can't imagine anything that would make reading the rest of it worth it.  Maybe somewhere in there you say why you think the Cosmic Superhero from the mythical stories was really a living, breathing, very much real yet crazy homeless person.  I just can't care enough to wade through all the stuff it is buried under.

[Orbit]

I find it reasonable that Jesus existed historically, but it does not follow that miracles are true or that he was the son of God (who really doesn't exist). He is a person who got mythologized. So in the end, it doesn't matter if Jesus was a historical person or not.

[Sextus]

 

Do historians look for the real Merlin, the real Thor or the real Hercules?  Who was the historical Perseus?

 

Jesus is not a mortal who led a political movement, governed a region or commanded an army.  Jesus battled against demons.  Jesus commanded the forces of nature.  Jesus defied the laws of physics.  Jesus could reverse death itself.  The burden of proof falls on those who claim that Jesus was real.  If your argument was that Jesus was a crazy homeless man then you have to explain why in the stories he appears as a cosmic superhero but really isn't.  Crazy homeless people usually don't wind up at the protagonist in mythology.

 

 

No, but if we had a series of documents that talked about Merlin, Thor, Hercules and Perseus as having lived a few decades earlier, including one that mentions meeting the brother of any of these figures, and references to any of them as historical men, putting them in a clear historical context, then historians definitely would.  Spot the difference.

 

Your second paragraph is a good reason historians don't go looking for the Jesus who did these supernatural things.  Any more than they go looking for the Augustus who was conceived by Apollo in the form of a snake, the Caesar who ascended into heaven or the Vespasian who cured the blind and the lame.  We don't dismiss any ancient figure about whom supernatural stories were told.  They were told about all kinds of historical people, so supernatural stories are not good indicators of historicity or the lack of it.

[Sextus]

Sextus, I spend a few hours yesterday evening reading the exchanges between you and David Fitzgerald. I came away more impressed with what you had to say, and I agree that there probably was a historical Jesus behind the mythical stories we find in the Gospels. But I don't think much can be known about the real historical Jesus now, if such a person did actually live. I am curious though, have you seen the video by Dr. Carrier that I posted to start this glorious topic? I do not agree with your low opinion of Dr. Carrier. I found this particular video very well done and very educational. 

 

I currently own "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty and Fitzgerald's book "Nailed". Nailed was by far the easier read and I was initially impressed by it, but you have given me a lot to think about, so thank you for that. For me, this issue is fun to think about but ultimately doesn't matter. If Jesus lived in history, he is long dead now, and the fact that Christianity isn't true is actually easy to prove, whether a historical Jesus lived or not. So, interesting as it is to think about, what does it really matter?

 

 

I have seen the video and I find it the usual skewed and tendentious stuff we always get from Carrier.  Yes, some mythic figures were euhemerised and given "historical" exploits later.  But at the same time, other historical figures were said to have achieved apotheosis and so became mythic figures.  The question then becomes - which was Jesus?  Carrier doesn't even bother to answer that question.  When he can give me an example of a euhemerised mythic figure for whom there is similar evidence of the kind we have for Jesus that talk abou them in a recent historical context (ie just decades earlier) and makes matter of fact references to meeting their relatives and friends, then I'll be impressed.  Until then, he's preaching to the choir with a contrived thesis that doesn't stack up.

[Sextus]

 

The article would be greatly improved by deleting everything at least up to the Simpson cartoon.  But why would you ask the opinion of a "fanatic" like me?   

 

 

I had things that I felt needed to be addressed, as part of the context of the debate.  You think they weren't necessary?  Okay.  I'll post my way on my blog thanks.  And I don't think you are a "fanatic" just because you've disagreed with me.  Though that opinion could change. 

 

 

Actually this thread is only a few days old.

 

 

I was talking about my debate with Fitzgerald and Carrier.

 

I read it word for word until the Simpson Cartoon.  I can't go on.

 

So you stopped before I got into the detailed point by point debunking of Fitzgerald and then said that I didn't do a detailed debunking of Fitzgerald.  If you want to comment on what I said, you will need to actually read what I said.

 

 

I can't imagine anything that would make reading the rest of it worth it.

 

 

The rest contains what you claim I didn't say.  If you want to have something to say about my debunking of Fitzgerald, you will need to read the rest.  You seem to be just looking for an excuse for avoiding the substance of my argument.  That's not exactly rational.

 

I just can't care enough to wade through all the stuff it is buried under.

 

 

Okay.  For someone who doesn't care you seem to have quite a bit to say.  Feel free to not respond to anything else I post.

[mymistake]

 

No, but if we had a series of documents that talked about Merlin, Thor, Hercules and Perseus as having lived a few decades earlier, including one that mentions meeting the brother of any of these figures, and references to any of them as historical men, putting them in a clear historical context, then historians definitely would.  Spot the difference.

 

 

We have a series of documents?  I thought it was just two, that they are highly suspect as altered after the fact, and the Roman Empire spent centuries exterminating sects, burning books, manufacturing evidence and rewriting everything to make Christianity into whatever suited their needs.

 

Maybe you should come up with stronger evidence before mocking those who are unconvinced.

[mymistake]

You seem to be just looking for an excuse for avoiding the substance of my argument. 

 

Not the case.