Did Jesus Exist?

[qadeshet]

Once you strip the miracles, there isn't much left, so who really cares if there was a real character that was embellished upon? If there was, what we have available is still 90% or more myth. As for the sources, today's Infowars is a better source than what we have to go on with the gospels. 

 

Only one person seems to care. Im not saying who. Can you guess?

 

 

To be fair though: most historical characters from that long gone era are scantily mentioned in the sources. How does Jesus fare when compared to other well-known persons we accept as historical?

 

At the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, I've personally seen the swords, the helmets, the coins and most importantly, the busts of many Roman figures of the time. There is an entire floor, the size of a football field, dedicated to the Romans. It's my understanding that we have many of the Roman records too, including census records and legal documents. 

 

Of course a crazy street preacher, if he existed, wouldn't be found amongst any of these, but as they say, absence of evidence is not in fact evidence. 

 

 

 

Really nice picks. Thanks Vigile!

 

I've moved from someone who firmly believed that a man named Jesus existed to the side that says he was a myth or perhaps an amalgam of a few apocalyptic prophets around that time.

 

A really good peer-reviewed book about the myth of Jesus is by Richard Carrier and is called On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason For Doubt. https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1909697494&linkCode=as2&linkId=C66FOJUE2U55IXON&redirect=true&ref_=as_li_tl&tag=jamefmcgrshom-20

 

Also the book Nailed by David Fitzgerald is also very good.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=41xz4C9mqoL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=KN6RQX1FZYWXMJBZFRRT

 

Both were interviewed by The Thinking Atheist podcast in October.

 

My position exactly. Been hoping you'd show.

 

There's a long but pretty good debate on the HJ between Richard Carrier and Zeba Crook. Crook is not a Christian but is an academic who holds that Jesus existed, though we can't know many details about him. Carrier says the myth preceded the biography. The debate begins at about minute eleven.

 

 

A key point of difference lies in the problem, how to evaluate what we read in the Pauline epistles.

 

Carrier is often dismissed as a crank by mainstream scholars (those who pay attention to his work at all). That's a mistake. I have read articles by him in refereed journals.

 

One problem with Carrier is his use of the Ascension of Isaiah to show that there was belief among Jews in a divine son figure who came down to the lower realm of the heavens to contest demons, etc. Some of Carrier's critics say he bungles the interpretation of that text, as well as its dating. I am not qualified to voice an opinion on that problem.

 

Prof Carrier is just about the only Historian examining the question. He sure stirred up a hornet's nest.

 

Carrier is a decent scholar, and worth considering, but he comes with baggage as well, in that his entire focus seems to be proving Jesus didn't exist. I would expect somebody with a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia to have published on many areas related to that field, but nearly all his writing is dedicated to either debunking the New Testament (he hardly glances at the OT) or criticizing modern Christianity. This is apologetics in reverse. 

 

There are serious problems with Carrier's exegesis -- accepting Bible scholars at face value regarding the authenticity of Pauline epistles and the historicity of Paul and/or "12 disciples of Jesus;" insisting that there was a pre-Christian belief in a divine figure named Jesus through a tendentious reading of Philo of Alexandria; proposing that "The Ascension of Isaiah" was a key text for Christians, when it isn't included in the NT and barely mentioned or known among the church fathers and commentators; acting very much like a conventional Christian apologist by dismissing passages inconvenient to his theory as "interpolations," and so on. 

 

No one worried about his baggage until he started questioning the Historical "Jesus".

[qadeshet]

 

So you're saying that people like Bart Ehrman and other serious Bible scholars like him are in the minority? I don't think so...

 

 

If by "serious" you mean "secular," you're wrong. And it is worth noting that the supposedly critical Bart Ehrman never questions the main assumptions of the Jesus Academy -- that the Bible is based on "oral history," that Biblical writers are de facto historians, that the Old Testament's base texts date from the 10th Century BCE, and so on. So he basically agrees with 90% of what the mainline Christian scholars believe. He just draws different conclusions. 

 

Here's what John Barton writes in the Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology (2004): 

 

"In the last twenty years or so there has been a major shift in biblical studies. Consensus even about method has broken down, and the field is now a battleground of conflicting approaches, with no agreed conclusions any longer. 

 

"This can intensify a popular feeling among believing Christians and Jews that biblical scholars are the enemies of faith. In fact, most biblical scholars the world over are religious believers themselves, though not always of a very orthodox kind. Nearly all are Christians, but in recent years biblical studies have been practiced more among Jewish scholars. Only in very recent years have agnostics and even atheists come to take an interest in the bible, partly because of the turn to literary and sociological interpretations ... But a religious motivation for biblical study is still the predominant one. 

 

"...for most people who study the Bible the concern remains, as it has always been, to yield results that are helpful and informative for religious believers. Until the last couple of decades this was achieved through what is called "the historical critical method" - not really a method, more a series of questions that can be put to the text, a particular style of interrogating it."

 

 

Thanks Blood. Bible Scholars sign Articles of Faith. Their primary job is to defend Christianity at all costs. Right now they're circling their wagons. Dr McGrath has promised to destroy the career of any member of the guild who dares to even question the Historical Jesus. It's not so easy now, thanks to the Internet, to shut us up. The Internet may be the greatest threat Religion has ever faced. The Philosopher Celsus got it right 2000 years ago. Since Contra Celsum, Christians have done no better. The link is below. For those who just want to check it out online, it's easy to find.

 

Contra Celsum

[qadeshet]

TrueScotsman, be sure to tell us which Jesus you are supporting.

 

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

[Guest]

TrueScotsman, be sure to tell us which Jesus you are supporting.

 

 

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

 

Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

 

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

 

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

 

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to.

[qadeshet]

 

TrueScotsman, be sure to tell us which Jesus you are supporting.

 

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

 

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

 

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

 

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to.

 

 

Thanks for the update. The only problem I have is with the statement that "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed. This is a very specific Jesus who is only mentioned in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. And the Book of Acts tells us that Judas fell into some rocks and spilled out his guts. The Town of Nazareth wasn't mentioned by any non Bible source until well in the 2nd Century. I'm not trying to be unclear. You may support any brand of Jesus you like, but proving the existence of a very specific "Jesus of Nazareth" is truely a Herculean task. I'm not sure if even Prof Ehrman would try. Remember:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

 

http://www.strangeno...us-part-1-of-2/

 

The only slight change I would make in the quote above is "possibly" instead of "most likely". Remember, this is for entertainment! Most of us really don't care, one way or the other. If it could be proven that the Gospel Jesus actually existed, and did all the things Christians said he did, I would still tell him to kiss my ass. Any "god" who would allow even one of his children to suffer Forever would be a cruel and vengeful monster. F**k him.

[hockeyfan70]

Carrier is a decent scholar, and worth considering, but he comes with baggage as well, in that his entire focus seems to be proving Jesus didn't exist. I would expect somebody with a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia to have published on many areas related to that field, but nearly all his writing is dedicated to either debunking the New Testament (he hardly glances at the OT) or criticizing modern Christianity. This is apologetics in reverse. 

 

There are serious problems with Carrier's exegesis -- accepting Bible scholars at face value regarding the authenticity of Pauline epistles and the historicity of Paul and/or "12 disciples of Jesus;" insisting that there was a pre-Christian belief in a divine figure named Jesus through a tendentious reading of Philo of Alexandria; proposing that "The Ascension of Isaiah" was a key text for Christians, when it isn't included in the NT and barely mentioned or known among the church fathers and commentators; acting very much like a conventional Christian apologist by dismissing passages inconvenient to his theory as "interpolations," and so on. 

 

He has certainly done more in other historical areas. One needs to only look at his other works to see that. He has done some work on Early Rome, Hitler, Homer and more. You are correct in that he is mostly focused on the historicity of Jesus but I don't think that's a bad thing. If I was a scholar, I'm sure that I would probably write papers related to general things in my field, but I would want to spend most of my time researching a narrower focus that I'm much more interested in.

[qadeshet]

 

Carrier is a decent scholar, and worth considering, but he comes with baggage as well, in that his entire focus seems to be proving Jesus didn't exist. I would expect somebody with a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia to have published on many areas related to that field, but nearly all his writing is dedicated to either debunking the New Testament (he hardly glances at the OT) or criticizing modern Christianity. This is apologetics in reverse. 

 

There are serious problems with Carrier's exegesis -- accepting Bible scholars at face value regarding the authenticity of Pauline epistles and the historicity of Paul and/or "12 disciples of Jesus;" insisting that there was a pre-Christian belief in a divine figure named Jesus through a tendentious reading of Philo of Alexandria; proposing that "The Ascension of Isaiah" was a key text for Christians, when it isn't included in the NT and barely mentioned or known among the church fathers and commentators; acting very much like a conventional Christian apologist by dismissing passages inconvenient to his theory as "interpolations," and so on. 

 

He has certainly done more in other historical areas. One needs to only look at his other works to see that. He has done some work on Early Rome, Hitler, Homer and more. You are correct in that he is mostly focused on the historicity of Jesus but I don't think that's a bad thing. If I was a scholar, I'm sure that I would probably write papers related to general things in my field, but I would want to spend most of my time researching a narrower focus that I'm much more interested in.

 

 

By default, Dr Carrier was a default Historicist until he read the works of Doherty and Price. He was convinced enough that he undertook his own research and changed his probability of a Historical "Jesus" to 33%. He will move on to something new. Whatever it is, I'm sure it will be good.

[Guest]

 

 

TrueScotsman, be sure to tell us which Jesus you are supporting.

 

 

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

 

Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to.

 

Thanks for the update. The only problem I have is with the statement that "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed. This is a very specific Jesus who is only mentioned in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. And the Book of Acts tells us that Judas fell into some rocks and spilled out his guts. The Town of Nazareth wasn't mentioned by any non Bible source until well in the 2nd Century. I'm not trying to be unclear. You may support any brand of Jesus you like, but proving the existence of a very specific "Jesus of Nazareth" is truely a Herculean task. I'm not sure if even Prof Ehrman would try. Remember:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."http://www.strangeno...us-part-1-of-2/

 

The only slight change I would make in the quote above is "possibly" instead of "most likely". Remember, this is for entertainment! Most of us really don't care, one way or the other. If it could be proven that the Gospel Jesus actually existed, and did all the things Christians said he did, I would still tell him to kiss my ass. Any "god" who would allow even one of his children to suffer Forever would be a cruel and vengeful monster. F**k him.

Why say "fuck him" to a nonexistent being. Shouldn't that emotional energy be redirected?

 

Regarding what you said, I think it's a difference of opinion stemming from how we view Biblical Scholarship. I don't say the mythicist conclusion is impossible, I just say that it doesn't seem to stem from the evidence available.

[qadeshet]

 

 

 

TrueScotsman, be sure to tell us which Jesus you are supporting.

 

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to.

 

Thanks for the update. The only problem I have is with the statement that "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed. This is a very specific Jesus who is only mentioned in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. And the Book of Acts tells us that Judas fell into some rocks and spilled out his guts. The Town of Nazareth wasn't mentioned by any non Bible source until well in the 2nd Century. I'm not trying to be unclear. You may support any brand of Jesus you like, but proving the existence of a very specific "Jesus of Nazareth" is truely a Herculean task. I'm not sure if even Prof Ehrman would try. Remember:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."http://www.strangeno...us-part-1-of-2/

 

The only slight change I would make in the quote above is "possibly" instead of "most likely". Remember, this is for entertainment! Most of us really don't care, one way or the other. If it could be proven that the Gospel Jesus actually existed, and did all the things Christians said he did, I would still tell him to kiss my ass. Any "god" who would allow even one of his children to suffer Forever would be a cruel and vengeful monster. F**k him.

Why say "fuck him" to a nonexistent being. Shouldn't that emotional energy be redirected?

 

Regarding what you said, I think it's a difference of opinion stemming from how we view Biblical Scholarship. I don't say the mythicist conclusion is impossible, I just say that it doesn't seem to stem from the evidence available.

 

 

Hypothetically, if everything Christians said were proven to be true, I would still tell him to go to Hades.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

TrueScotsman, be sure to tell us which Jesus you are supporting.

 

 

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

 

Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to.

 

Thanks for the update. The only problem I have is with the statement that "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed. This is a very specific Jesus who is only mentioned in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. And the Book of Acts tells us that Judas fell into some rocks and spilled out his guts. The Town of Nazareth wasn't mentioned by any non Bible source until well in the 2nd Century. I'm not trying to be unclear. You may support any brand of Jesus you like, but proving the existence of a very specific "Jesus of Nazareth" is truely a Herculean task. I'm not sure if even Prof Ehrman would try. Remember:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."http://www.strangeno...us-part-1-of-2/

 

 

The only slight change I would make in the quote above is "possibly" instead of "most likely". Remember, this is for entertainment! Most of us really don't care, one way or the other. If it could be proven that the Gospel Jesus actually existed, and did all the things Christians said he did, I would still tell him to kiss my ass. Any "god" who would allow even one of his children to suffer Forever would be a cruel and vengeful monster. F**k him.

Why say "fuck him" to a nonexistent being. Shouldn't that emotional energy be redirected?

Regarding what you said, I think it's a difference of opinion stemming from how we view Biblical Scholarship. I don't say the mythicist conclusion is impossible, I just say that it doesn't seem to stem from the evidence available.

 

Hypothetically, if everything Christians said were proven to be true, I would still tell him to go to Hades.

Fair enough, I'd do the same personally. Worshipping a being who created the universe for its own glory, for all eternity would be a gigantic bore. Mix that in with the knowledge that your loved ones are being tortured by that same being, would make it beyond horrific.

 

"Great are you Lord," they would shout while god in his omnipotence and omnipresence torments their brothers, sister, friends, children, unceasingly. It's the most immoral conception of reality I think, when considering eternal punishment.

[qadeshet]

 

 

 

 

 

TrueScotsman, be sure to tell us which Jesus you are supporting.

 

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to.

 

Thanks for the update. The only problem I have is with the statement that "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed. This is a very specific Jesus who is only mentioned in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. And the Book of Acts tells us that Judas fell into some rocks and spilled out his guts. The Town of Nazareth wasn't mentioned by any non Bible source until well in the 2nd Century. I'm not trying to be unclear. You may support any brand of Jesus you like, but proving the existence of a very specific "Jesus of Nazareth" is truely a Herculean task. I'm not sure if even Prof Ehrman would try. Remember:

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."http://www.strangeno...us-part-1-of-2/

 

The only slight change I would make in the quote above is "possibly" instead of "most likely". Remember, this is for entertainment! Most of us really don't care, one way or the other. If it could be proven that the Gospel Jesus actually existed, and did all the things Christians said he did, I would still tell him to kiss my ass. Any "god" who would allow even one of his children to suffer Forever would be a cruel and vengeful monster. F**k him.

Why say "fuck him" to a nonexistent being. Shouldn't that emotional energy be redirected?

Regarding what you said, I think it's a difference of opinion stemming from how we view Biblical Scholarship. I don't say the mythicist conclusion is impossible, I just say that it doesn't seem to stem from the evidence available.

 

Hypothetically, if everything Christians said were proven to be true, I would still tell him to go to Hades.

Fair enough, I'd do the same personally. Worshipping a being who created the universe for its own glory, for all eternity would be a gigantic bore. Mix that in with the knowledge that your loved ones are being tortured by that same being, would make it beyond horrific.

 

"Great are you Lord," they would shout while god in his omnipotence and omnipresence torments their brothers, sister, friends, children, unceasingly. It's the most immoral conception of reality I think, when considering eternal punishment.

 

Any god that is All PowerfulI, All Knowing, and All Good, that actually cared about Man, would never allow Evil and suffering to exist. Of course, it could be evil. I have judged this hypothetical Abrahamic god, and found him guilty of unspeakable crimes against Humanity. However I remain an Agnostic Atheist. It remains a remote possibility that a Deistic god may have jump started the Universe and doesn't give a crap about Life.

 

As Epicurus pointed out:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

 

Epicurus was so right.

[qadeshet]

This is a fun subject to discuss. Especially since none of us give a darn. And like the Jesus Seminar, it's easy to find the "Jesus" you're looking for.

 

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."http://www.strangeno...us-part-1-of-2

 

But there is a difference between "A historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based" and "Jesus of Nazareth", who is a specific "Jesus". My favorite suspect is the one called "The egyptian", maybe combined with the Tahib and Jesus ben Ananias. It's kinda hard for several men to join into one Jesus.
 

There was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives. He was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to rule them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. — Flavius Josephus, Jewish War, 2.261-262^[1]

 

Acts 21:

21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_ben_Ananias

 

But a further portent was even more alarming. Four years before the war, when the city was enjoying profound peace and prosperity, there came to the feast at which it is the custom of all Jews to erect tabernacles to God, one Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant, who suddenly began to cry out, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people." Day and night he went about all the alleys with this cry on his lips. Some of the leading citizens, incensed at these ill-omened words, arrested the fellow and severely chastised him. But he, without a word on his own behalf or for the private ear of those who smote him, only continued his cries as before. Thereupon, the magistrates, supposing, as was indeed the case, that the man was under some supernatural impulse, brought him before the Roman governor; there, although flayed to the bone with scourges, he neither sued for mercy nor shed a tear, but, merely introducing the most mournful of variations into his utterances, responded to each lashing with "Woe to Jerusalem!" When Albinus, the governor, asked him who and whence he was and why he uttered these cries, he answered him never a word, but unceasingly reiterated his dirge over the city, until Albinus pronounced him a maniac and let him go. During the whole period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached nor was seen talking to any of the citizens, but daily, like a prayer that he had conned, repeated his lament, "Woe to Jerusalem!" He neither cursed any of those who beat him from day to day, nor blessed those who offered him food: to all men that melancholy presage was his one reply. His cries were loudest at the festivals. So for seven years and five months he continued his wail, his voice never flagging nor his strength exhausted, until in the siege, having seen his presage verified, he found his rest. For, while going his round and shouting in piercing tones from the wall, "Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the temple," as he added a last word, "and woe to me also," a stone hurled from the ballista struck and killed him on the spot. So with those ominous words still upon his lips he passed away. – Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the historian Flavius Josephus' The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem ^[2]

[Blood]

Bertrand Russell, Introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (1945):

 

"Confucius, the Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, belonged to the same century (6th BCE)." 

 

See how easy that was? Russell needed to make no qualifying statements, cite no scholars, provide no equivocating footnote. Christ-like figures in non-Western religions can freely and openly be posited to be entirely mythical characters with no controversy whatsoever. It is presumed by the author and the publisher that this will simply be accepted with a nod by the reader. Russell had nothing to lose positing such a claim, since there were no Confucian priesthoods in England or English-speaking nations to smear him or shame him. 

 

This is how sacred cows function in society, folks. Scholars in certain circles in China, who will question the existence of Jesus with no repercussions, may become quite defensive if the non-existence of Confucius is proposed. I'm sure the same rhetorical tactics are deployed: only a fringe lunatic believes Confucius was a myth, not believing in the existence of Confucius is the same as Holocaust denial, etc. 

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there. Such wide variance in views, based solely on geography and cultural tendencies, tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of "Biblical scholars." It simply isn't a serious field of rigorous study. It is largely emotional wish-fulfillment and regional, two things real scholarship never is and never will be.  

[rjn]

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there.

 

Not that I'm arguing against this, but I've never stumbled upon such claims so I simply wonder, what do you base that on? Granted, I've never studied religion at an academic institution, but the mythicist approach seems to be quite an obscure notion outside of forums with an Atheist- or outspoken non-Christian bent. Other than that: great post.

[Guest]

Bertrand Russell, Introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (1945):

 

"Confucius, the Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, belonged to the same century (6th BCE)." 

 

See how easy that was? Russell needed to make no qualifying statements, cite no scholars, provide no equivocating footnote. Christ-like figures in non-Western religions can freely and openly be posited to be entirely mythical characters with no controversy whatsoever. It is presumed by the author and the publisher that this will simply be accepted with a nod by the reader. Russell had nothing to lose positing such a claim, since there were no Confucian priesthoods in England or English-speaking nations to smear him or shame him. 

 

This is how sacred cows function in society, folks. Scholars in certain circles in China, who will question the existence of Jesus with no repercussions, may become quite defensive if the non-existence of Confucius is proposed. I'm sure the same rhetorical tactics are deployed: only a fringe lunatic believes Confucius was a myth, not believing in the existence of Confucius is the same as Holocaust denial, etc. 

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there. Such wide variance in views, based solely on geography and cultural tendencies, tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of "Biblical scholars." It simply isn't a serious field of rigorous study. It is largely emotional wish-fulfillment and regional, two things real scholarship never is and never will be.

 

You seem to be oversimplifying the debate by reducing it to a regionally/culturally and emotionally biased position. There is substantial disagreement on this matter, and that's also from scholars who have no stake in the metaphysics. As I've pointed out before, your argument does ultimately stem from an ad hominem against all Biblical scholars, and I think you do need to address that.

[qadeshet]

Bertrand Russell, Introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (1945):

 

"Confucius, the Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, belonged to the same century (6th BCE)." 

 

See how easy that was? Russell needed to make no qualifying statements, cite no scholars, provide no equivocating footnote. Christ-like figures in non-Western religions can freely and openly be posited to be entirely mythical characters with no controversy whatsoever. It is presumed by the author and the publisher that this will simply be accepted with a nod by the reader. Russell had nothing to lose positing such a claim, since there were no Confucian priesthoods in England or English-speaking nations to smear him or shame him. 

 

This is how sacred cows function in society, folks. Scholars in certain circles in China, who will question the existence of Jesus with no repercussions, may become quite defensive if the non-existence of Confucius is proposed. I'm sure the same rhetorical tactics are deployed: only a fringe lunatic believes Confucius was a myth, not believing in the existence of Confucius is the same as Holocaust denial, etc. 

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there. Such wide variance in views, based solely on geography and cultural tendencies, tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of "Biblical scholars." It simply isn't a serious field of rigorous study. It is largely emotional wish-fulfillment and regional, two things real scholarship never is and never will be.  

 

Christianity exists! Shut up you mean Christianity deniers.

 

Sorry, their are no Christianity deniers. The question we should be asking is how Christianity began, not whether Jesus existed. Below are two scenarios.

 

1. Christianity began with an Historical jesus. He had a few followers, delivered some (partly) good teachings, got into trouble with the authorites, was executed, and stayed dead. Then his morose(or Moronic) followers deified him and invented miracle stories about him. If so, please answer as to why a devout Monotheistic Jew, Paul, would worship a recently dead fellow Jew.

 

or

 

2. Christianity began with a visionary, maybe Paul, who wanted to tell everyone about his trip to the 3rd Heavon and his friend Christ Jesus. Many years later, his followers created some alegorical teaching stories which later became taken literally. According to the Gnostic Marcion, who created the first New Testament, Paul was the Founder of Gnosticism. To Marcion, the idea that Jesus ever lived a physical life on Earth was blasphemy. And the god in Eden was only the Demiurge, not the One True God.

 

Mythicism is not a new idea. It is a wonder that the later Church didn't wipe Marcion's name from History. Either one of these theories is equally valid. However, I think that the origins of Mormonism can help. Mormonism exists, and so did Joseph Smith. Smith is the equivalent of Paul, and the Angel Moroni, in this comparison, is Jesus. So is Moroni the Founder of Mormonism? Mormons still argue over the Golden Tablets.

 

Why whould a normal, intelligent Atheist go to a Bible School or Theological Seminary, falsely sign Letters of Faith, in order to become a Bible Scholar? I submit that all Bible Scholars started as True Believers. Eventually, some will start questioning, just as we did, and become an Agnostic like Dr Ehrman. But this is not a guild of open minded Thuth Seekers. Dire threats are issued to any member who dares to question the Historical Jesus. Since Bible Scholars can't even ask this question, how can they answer it?

 

Is an Historical Jesus any more probable than an Historical Heracles or Moroni? If so, then why? And, considering the actual evidence, which of the 2 scenarios are more likely? Marcion, or perhaps Paul, was the first Mythicist.

[qadeshet]

TrueScotsman, are we now on the same Page?

 

 

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."http://www.strangeno...us-part-1-of-2

 

Our only disagreement seems to be the Probability that this historical preacher existed. But if you still believe that a very specific "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, then we still disagree. "Jesus of nazareth" must be wholly, mostly, or partly the figure found in the Gospels, not just some itenerant preacher.

 

From your earlier post:

 

Jesus or Yeshua was from what I personally can gather was an itinerant preacher in Galilee who had particular disciples, Peter, James, and John to be sure of. He seems to have had critical views of oral laws which were "commandments of men," which missed the purpose of the law, which was love for Jesus.

He also spoke about a coming kingdom, but that is hard to be fully clear about as the gospel writers seemed to warp that message to their purposes, and it seems clear that he used parables, though not for the reasons the gospel writers say.

I don't personally think Jesus in part predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, or the temple, but were additions that came after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

I take an even more minimalist view of Jesus than Ehrman does, as I have not commitment to doing research in the field, and I would say that seems to influence scholars to want to say more then perhaps they ought to.

Do you still stand by your statement that "Jesus of Nazarth" (from the earlier Post Was Christianity Really that bad?) certainly existed? When I saw this claim I had to contest it. Based on your above statement, we are very close to an agreement.

[Blood]

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there.

 

Not that I'm arguing against this, but I've never stumbled upon such claims so I simply wonder, what do you base that on? Granted, I've never studied religion at an academic institution, but the mythicist approach seems to be quite an obscure notion outside of forums with an Atheist- or outspoken non-Christian bent. Other than that: great post.

 

 

 

Yeah, it was reported on one of the Atheist sites a year or two ago. I didn't keep a link. 

[Blood]

 

Bertrand Russell, Introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (1945):

 

"Confucius, the Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, belonged to the same century (6th BCE)." 

 

See how easy that was? Russell needed to make no qualifying statements, cite no scholars, provide no equivocating footnote. Christ-like figures in non-Western religions can freely and openly be posited to be entirely mythical characters with no controversy whatsoever. It is presumed by the author and the publisher that this will simply be accepted with a nod by the reader. Russell had nothing to lose positing such a claim, since there were no Confucian priesthoods in England or English-speaking nations to smear him or shame him. 

 

This is how sacred cows function in society, folks. Scholars in certain circles in China, who will question the existence of Jesus with no repercussions, may become quite defensive if the non-existence of Confucius is proposed. I'm sure the same rhetorical tactics are deployed: only a fringe lunatic believes Confucius was a myth, not believing in the existence of Confucius is the same as Holocaust denial, etc. 

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there. Such wide variance in views, based solely on geography and cultural tendencies, tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of "Biblical scholars." It simply isn't a serious field of rigorous study. It is largely emotional wish-fulfillment and regional, two things real scholarship never is and never will be.

You seem to be oversimplifying the debate by reducing it to a regionally/culturally and emotionally biased position. There is substantial disagreement on this matter, and that's also from scholars who have no stake in the metaphysics. As I've pointed out before, your argument does ultimately stem from an ad hominem against all Biblical scholars, and I think you do need to address that.

 

 

 

I've already addressed it. What you are calling an ad hominem is actually a plain statement of fact: "the majority of Bible scholars are believers themselves," as The Blackwell Guide to Modern Theology observed. The majority of Bible scholars believe in the Resurrection. Study of the Bible is properly classified under the field of Theology. Very, very few scholars of Ancient History seek a masters in Biblical Studies and vice versa. Your lack of acceptance of this fact does not alter its reality. 

[Vigile]

 

Bertrand Russell, Introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (1945):

 

"Confucius, the Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, belonged to the same century (6th BCE)." 

 

See how easy that was? Russell needed to make no qualifying statements, cite no scholars, provide no equivocating footnote. Christ-like figures in non-Western religions can freely and openly be posited to be entirely mythical characters with no controversy whatsoever. It is presumed by the author and the publisher that this will simply be accepted with a nod by the reader. Russell had nothing to lose positing such a claim, since there were no Confucian priesthoods in England or English-speaking nations to smear him or shame him. 

 

This is how sacred cows function in society, folks. Scholars in certain circles in China, who will question the existence of Jesus with no repercussions, may become quite defensive if the non-existence of Confucius is proposed. I'm sure the same rhetorical tactics are deployed: only a fringe lunatic believes Confucius was a myth, not believing in the existence of Confucius is the same as Holocaust denial, etc. 

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there. Such wide variance in views, based solely on geography and cultural tendencies, tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of "Biblical scholars." It simply isn't a serious field of rigorous study. It is largely emotional wish-fulfillment and regional, two things real scholarship never is and never will be.  

 

Christianity exists! Shut up you mean Christianity deniers.

 

Sorry, their are no Christianity deniers. The question we should be asking is how Christianity began, not whether Jesus existed. Below are two scenarios.

 

1. Christianity began with an Historical jesus. He had a few followers, delivered some (partly) good teachings, got into trouble with the authorites, was executed, and stayed dead. Then his morose(or Moronic) followers deified him and invented miracle stories about him. If so, please answer as to why a devout Monotheistic Jew, Paul, would worship a recently dead fellow Jew.

 

or

 

2. Christianity began with a visionary, maybe Paul, who wanted to tell everyone about his trip to the 3rd Heavon and his friend Christ Jesus. Many years later, his followers created some alegorical teaching stories which later became taken literally. According to the Gnostic Marcion, who created the first New Testament, Paul was the Founder of Gnosticism. To Marcion, the idea that Jesus ever lived a physical life on Earth was blasphemy. And the god in Eden was only the Demiurge, not the One True God.

 

Mythicism is not a new idea. It is a wonder that the later Church didn't wipe Marcion's name from History. Either one of these theories is equally valid. However, I think that the origins of Mormonism can help. Mormonism exists, and so did Joseph Smith. Smith is the equivalent of Paul, and the Angel Moroni, in this comparison, is Jesus. So is Moroni the Founder of Mormonism? Mormons still argue over the Golden Tablets.

 

Why whould a normal, intelligent Atheist go to a Bible School or Theological Seminary, falsely sign Letters of Faith, in order to become a Bible Scholar? I submit that all Bible Scholars started as True Believers. Eventually, some will start questioning, just as we did, and become an Agnostic like Dr Ehrman. But this is not a guild of open minded Thuth Seekers. Dire threats are issued to any member who dares to question the Historical Jesus. Since Bible Scholars can't even ask this question, how can they answer it?

 

Is an Historical Jesus any more probable than an Historical Heracles or Moroni? If so, then why? And, considering the actual evidence, which of the 2 scenarios are more likely? Marcion, or perhaps Paul, was the first Mythicist.

 

 

Good questions. 

 

Additionally, it's important to explore the vehicle that essentially caused its success. There were, and have probably always have been, a plethora of competing sects. The Roman adoption clearly raised this particular sect out of the dust, but then at that point, we need to consider where the original sect/myth separates from the Roman adaptations. IOW, even if there was a street preacher who was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified, what he taught, and what eventually became the religion would necessarily be wildly different (or at the very least, the original would be lacking the components that the Romans added on later as they replaced pagan institutions with xian institutions and rituals). 

 

Hopefully I haven't lost you here. I'm not sure I explained my thoughts on this clearly. 

[Blood]

 

Bertrand Russell, Introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (1945):

 

"Confucius, the Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, belonged to the same century (6th BCE)." 

 

See how easy that was? Russell needed to make no qualifying statements, cite no scholars, provide no equivocating footnote. Christ-like figures in non-Western religions can freely and openly be posited to be entirely mythical characters with no controversy whatsoever. It is presumed by the author and the publisher that this will simply be accepted with a nod by the reader. Russell had nothing to lose positing such a claim, since there were no Confucian priesthoods in England or English-speaking nations to smear him or shame him. 

 

This is how sacred cows function in society, folks. Scholars in certain circles in China, who will question the existence of Jesus with no repercussions, may become quite defensive if the non-existence of Confucius is proposed. I'm sure the same rhetorical tactics are deployed: only a fringe lunatic believes Confucius was a myth, not believing in the existence of Confucius is the same as Holocaust denial, etc. 

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there. Such wide variance in views, based solely on geography and cultural tendencies, tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of "Biblical scholars." It simply isn't a serious field of rigorous study. It is largely emotional wish-fulfillment and regional, two things real scholarship never is and never will be.  

 

Christianity exists! Shut up you mean Christianity deniers.

 

Sorry, their are no Christianity deniers. The question we should be asking is how Christianity began, not whether Jesus existed. Below are two scenarios.

 

1. Christianity began with an Historical jesus. He had a few followers, delivered some (partly) good teachings, got into trouble with the authorites, was executed, and stayed dead. Then his morose(or Moronic) followers deified him and invented miracle stories about him. If so, please answer as to why a devout Monotheistic Jew, Paul, would worship a recently dead fellow Jew.

 

or

 

2. Christianity began with a visionary, maybe Paul, who wanted to tell everyone about his trip to the 3rd Heavon and his friend Christ Jesus. Many years later, his followers created some alegorical teaching stories which later became taken literally. According to the Gnostic Marcion, who created the first New Testament, Paul was the Founder of Gnosticism. To Marcion, the idea that Jesus ever lived a physical life on Earth was blasphemy. And the god in Eden was only the Demiurge, not the One True God.

 

Mythicism is not a new idea. It is a wonder that the later Church didn't wipe Marcion's name from History. Either one of these theories is equally valid. However, I think that the origins of Mormonism can help. Mormonism exists, and so did Joseph Smith. Smith is the equivalent of Paul, and the Angel Moroni, in this comparison, is Jesus. So is Moroni the Founder of Mormonism? Mormons still argue over the Golden Tablets.

 

Why whould a normal, intelligent Atheist go to a Bible School or Theological Seminary, falsely sign Letters of Faith, in order to become a Bible Scholar? I submit that all Bible Scholars started as True Believers. Eventually, some will start questioning, just as we did, and become an Agnostic like Dr Ehrman. But this is not a guild of open minded Thuth Seekers. Dire threats are issued to any member who dares to question the Historical Jesus. Since Bible Scholars can't even ask this question, how can they answer it?

 

Is an Historical Jesus any more probable than an Historical Heracles or Moroni? If so, then why? And, considering the actual evidence, which of the 2 scenarios are more likely? Marcion, or perhaps Paul, was the first Mythicist.

 

 

 

It's entirely possible that Christianity began with one charismatic person. Since we observe new sects being constantly created in our time, the same social phenomenon was undoubtedly happening in ancient times. 

 

But Mormonism, for example, wouldn't have gotten off the ground at all without a holy text that everyone knew already. It was not created ex nihilo. Everybody who joined the cult was already familiar with the Bible and most were already members of other sects. 

 

A similar trajectory may have happened with Christian sects. The decisive factor was not a single charismatic preacher, but the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into common Greek, which may have begun occurring as early as the Third Century BCE. Hebrew was a rare language by that time and mainly used for liturgical purposes, the same way Latin was/is used in modern Catholic liturgies. Aramaic was the lingua franca in Palaestine.

 

So as time went by, more and more Greek-speaking people would have been exposed to these holy texts and probably were drawn to the religion by this exposure as well as disaffection with the existing Greek religions. People of Greco-Roman origin were often seduced by the antiquity of "Oriental" culture and religion; witness all the Romans who adopted the Isis/Osiris cult. It isn't hard to see why a Greek colonist in the Levant or Egypt would be greatly intrigued by the Bible and its narrative of a deity who loves his people even though they are constantly rebelling against him. A non-Jew reading that is quite likely to react by saying, "I will not rebel against you, Lord, if you adopt me as one of your children." 

 

It's a small leap from there to "Christianity," meaning groups of Greek-speaking Gentiles forming their own sects of Yahweh worship and simultaneously developing an early form of anti-Semitism. No Christ or Paul or charismatic person was needed. What was absolutely essential was a copy of the Greek Old Testament. The writers of the New Testament are thoroughly familiar with this book and have been studying it their whole lives. That tells me that they were born into communities where it already served as the holy text, the same way that the King James Bible served as the holy text of the community that Joseph Smith was born into. His interpretation was innovative but would have impressed no one without the community already accepting the base text itself as holy. 

 

The Gospels are written with the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the Greek Old Testament -- not just its main figures and narratives, but also with its language and phraseology. It would have been too alien and meaningless if the expected audience was not already steeped in the Greek Old Testament and its worship -- and probably had been for generations prior to the day that Mark put quill to papyrus. 

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

But Mormonism, for example, wouldn't have gotten off the ground at all without a holy text that everyone know already. It was not created ex nihilo. Everybody who joined the cult was already familiar with the Bible and most were already members of other sects. 

 

 

I'm far from knowledgeable about this, but it seems from what I do know, it would have died on the vine without Brigham Young too, who created and enforced a structure. I think this is what the Romans did for xianity. 

[Blood]

I don't think it would have died without Young. There was a schism after Smith's death, with Young taking leadership of the main sect and Smith's son taking the leadership of another sect. Young was a far more effective leader and it was his sect that thrived. 

[qadeshet]

 

 

Bertrand Russell, Introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (1945):

 

"Confucius, the Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, belonged to the same century (6th BCE)." 

 

See how easy that was? Russell needed to make no qualifying statements, cite no scholars, provide no equivocating footnote. Christ-like figures in non-Western religions can freely and openly be posited to be entirely mythical characters with no controversy whatsoever. It is presumed by the author and the publisher that this will simply be accepted with a nod by the reader. Russell had nothing to lose positing such a claim, since there were no Confucian priesthoods in England or English-speaking nations to smear him or shame him. 

 

This is how sacred cows function in society, folks. Scholars in certain circles in China, who will question the existence of Jesus with no repercussions, may become quite defensive if the non-existence of Confucius is proposed. I'm sure the same rhetorical tactics are deployed: only a fringe lunatic believes Confucius was a myth, not believing in the existence of Confucius is the same as Holocaust denial, etc. 

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there. Such wide variance in views, based solely on geography and cultural tendencies, tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of "Biblical scholars." It simply isn't a serious field of rigorous study. It is largely emotional wish-fulfillment and regional, two things real scholarship never is and never will be.  

 

Christianity exists! Shut up you mean Christianity deniers.

 

Sorry, their are no Christianity deniers. The question we should be asking is how Christianity began, not whether Jesus existed. Below are two scenarios.

 

1. Christianity began with an Historical jesus. He had a few followers, delivered some (partly) good teachings, got into trouble with the authorites, was executed, and stayed dead. Then his morose(or Moronic) followers deified him and invented miracle stories about him. If so, please answer as to why a devout Monotheistic Jew, Paul, would worship a recently dead fellow Jew.

 

or

 

2. Christianity began with a visionary, maybe Paul, who wanted to tell everyone about his trip to the 3rd Heavon and his friend Christ Jesus. Many years later, his followers created some alegorical teaching stories which later became taken literally. According to the Gnostic Marcion, who created the first New Testament, Paul was the Founder of Gnosticism. To Marcion, the idea that Jesus ever lived a physical life on Earth was blasphemy. And the god in Eden was only the Demiurge, not the One True God.

 

Mythicism is not a new idea. It is a wonder that the later Church didn't wipe Marcion's name from History. Either one of these theories is equally valid. However, I think that the origins of Mormonism can help. Mormonism exists, and so did Joseph Smith. Smith is the equivalent of Paul, and the Angel Moroni, in this comparison, is Jesus. So is Moroni the Founder of Mormonism? Mormons still argue over the Golden Tablets.

 

Why whould a normal, intelligent Atheist go to a Bible School or Theological Seminary, falsely sign Letters of Faith, in order to become a Bible Scholar? I submit that all Bible Scholars started as True Believers. Eventually, some will start questioning, just as we did, and become an Agnostic like Dr Ehrman. But this is not a guild of open minded Thuth Seekers. Dire threats are issued to any member who dares to question the Historical Jesus. Since Bible Scholars can't even ask this question, how can they answer it?

 

Is an Historical Jesus any more probable than an Historical Heracles or Moroni? If so, then why? And, considering the actual evidence, which of the 2 scenarios are more likely? Marcion, or perhaps Paul, was the first Mythicist.

 

 

Good questions. 

 

Additionally, it's important to explore the vehicle that essentially caused its success. There were, and have probably always have been, a plethora of competing sects. The Roman adoption clearly raised this particular sect out of the dust, but then at that point, we need to consider where the original sect/myth separates from the Roman adaptations. IOW, even if there was a street preacher who was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified, what he taught, and what eventually became the religion would necessarily be wildly different (or at the very least, the original would be lacking the components that the Romans added on later as they replaced pagan institutions with xian institutions and rituals). 

 

Hopefully I haven't lost you here. I'm not sure I explained my thoughts on this clearly. 

 

 

Christianity did not win until the time of Constantine and Eusebius. Constantine declared(supposedly),on his death bed, Christianity to be the official Religion of the Empire. Eusebius, known by many as the Father of Pious Fraud, is not very trustworthy.

 

The Problem of Eusebius

 

 

Many people know Eusebius of Caesarea as the "Father of Church History." But as Robert M. Grant, a modern historian of the early church period, provocatively asked, "Did the Father of Church History write history?"

Jewish historian Doron Mendels describes Eusebius's Church History as a "media revolution" and suggests that, because of his style of weaving short entries into a broader scheme, the author was "one of the fathers of the journalistic genre." Another writer concludes that Eusebius was "less a historian than a mediator of knowledge."

Or perhaps a mediator of propaganda. This is the man who called Emperor Constantine "most beloved by God," described the fourth-century church as being brought to "a state of uniform harmony," and called Jews "a people who had slain the prophets and the Lord himself."

However one evaluates Eusebius's achievement, his work remains foundational for our knowledge of the church in its first three centuries. And this foundation stands firm despite noticeable cracks.

 

The proponent of pious fraud is considered the Father of Church History. But for Constantine's Vision(?), we might have a very different Christianity.

[qadeshet]

 

 

Bertrand Russell, Introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (1945):

 

"Confucius, the Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, belonged to the same century (6th BCE)." 

 

See how easy that was? Russell needed to make no qualifying statements, cite no scholars, provide no equivocating footnote. Christ-like figures in non-Western religions can freely and openly be posited to be entirely mythical characters with no controversy whatsoever. It is presumed by the author and the publisher that this will simply be accepted with a nod by the reader. Russell had nothing to lose positing such a claim, since there were no Confucian priesthoods in England or English-speaking nations to smear him or shame him. 

 

This is how sacred cows function in society, folks. Scholars in certain circles in China, who will question the existence of Jesus with no repercussions, may become quite defensive if the non-existence of Confucius is proposed. I'm sure the same rhetorical tactics are deployed: only a fringe lunatic believes Confucius was a myth, not believing in the existence of Confucius is the same as Holocaust denial, etc. 

 

Christ mythicism is actually quite common in Scandinavian countries, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes entrenched in academia there. Such wide variance in views, based solely on geography and cultural tendencies, tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of "Biblical scholars." It simply isn't a serious field of rigorous study. It is largely emotional wish-fulfillment and regional, two things real scholarship never is and never will be.

You seem to be oversimplifying the debate by reducing it to a regionally/culturally and emotionally biased position. There is substantial disagreement on this matter, and that's also from scholars who have no stake in the metaphysics. As I've pointed out before, your argument does ultimately stem from an ad hominem against all Biblical scholars, and I think you do need to address that.

 

 

 

I've already addressed it. What you are calling an ad hominem is actually a plain statement of fact: "the majority of Bible scholars are believers themselves," as The Blackwell Guide to Modern Theology observed. The majority of Bible scholars believe in the Resurrection. Study of the Bible is properly classified under the field of Theology. Very, very few scholars of Ancient History seek a masters in Biblical Studies and vice versa. Your lack of acceptance of this fact does not alter its reality. 

 

 

TrueScotsman, when Bible Scholars admit this themselves, and are proud of it, why is this the one consensus of Bible Scholars you choose to reject?

 

https://www.quora.com/How-do-religious-Biblical-scholars-continue-to-maintain-their-faith-religiosity-after-knowing-that-the-Bible-has-so-many-historical-problems-inaccuracies-and-contradictions

 

How do religious Biblical scholars continue to maintain their faith (religiosity) after knowing that the Bible has so many historical problems, inaccuracies and contradictions?

I've recently seen some debates by a very renowned and foremost scholar on the subject, Bart Ehrman.  His conclusions are debatable, but the evidence is not.  None of the arguments raised by his debate counterparts seem to make any sense to me.  So, if most biblical scholars acknowledge so much historical problems and contradictions, how do these scholars continue in their faith as Christians?

 

I'm going to re word this good question. Hopefully TrueScotsman can help.

 

How do Atheist ex-Christians continue to maintain their faith in Bible Scholars after knowing that the Guild is almost entirely composed of Believers?