(January 28, 2016 at 5:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 5:56 pm)Aegon Wrote: I mean, really. How could Christianity take off without a central prophet figure? What stops someone from the time saying to his followers, "No man, you're full of shit," and going to where Jesus allegedly lived and preached and saying, "See!? No Jesus! You guys are crazy!" Without Jesus, the rise of Christianity is missing a big puzzle piece. What would you put in his place to explain it all?

Who would die for a lie...........?  

Is it plato that's possibly socrates, or socrates that's possibly plato's?  I can never remember.....but, so what if he didn't exist?  How have you determined that jesus was a physical person and zues "not so much"?  Certainly couldn't have teased that differences out of the stories told about either.

I'll just go find all the ancient historians in the world and tell them to pick a new profession. So what if so many of the people of that time didn't exist? Who cares? No contemporary sources! What's the point, am I right? There's nothing in this counterargument that hasn't already been settled. You say Jesus wasn't real and people believed in a lie as time went on? That's been settled already:

"This idea has been presented in most detail by another amateur theorist in yet another self-published book: R.G. Price's Jesus - A Very Jewish Myth (2007).  Unlike "Acharya S" and, to a lesser extent Doherty, Price at least takes account of the fact that the Jesus stories and the first members of the Jesus sect are completely and fundamentally Jewish, so fantasies about Egyptian myths or Greek Middle Platonic philosophy are not going to work as points of origin for them.  According to this version of Jesus Mythicism, Jesus was an idealisation of what the Messiah was to be like who got turned into a historical figure largely by mistake and misunderstanding.

Several of the same objections to Doherty's thesis can be made about this one - if this was the case, why are there no remnants of debates with or condemnations of those who believed the earlier version and maintained there was no historical Jesus at all?  And why don't any of Christianity's enemies use the fact that the original Jesus sect didn't believe in a historical Jesus as an argument against the new version of the sect?  Did everyone just forget?

More tellingly, if the Jesus stories arose out of ideas about and expectations of the Messiah, it is very odd that Jesus doesn't fit those expectations better.  Despite Christian claims to the contrary, the first Christians had to work very hard to convince fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah precisely because he didn't conform to these expectations. Most importantly, there was absolutely no tradition or Messianic expectation that told of the Messiah being executed and then rising from the dead - this first appears with Christianity and has no Jewish precedent at all.  Far from evolving from established Messianic prophecies and known elements in the scripture, the first Christians had to scramble to find anything at all which looked vaguely like a "prophecy" of this unexpected and highly unMessianic event.

That the centre and climax of the story of Jesus would be based on his shameful execution and death makes no sense if it evolved out of Jewish expectations about the Messiah, since they contained nothing about any such idea.  This climax to the story only makes sense if it actually happened, and then his followers had to find totally new and largely strained and contrived "scriptures" which they then claimed "predicted" this outcome, against all previous expectation.  Price's thesis fails because Jesus' story doesn't conform to Jewish myths enough." 
-http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html

The "embarrassing details" defense. There isn't enough conformity to the preceding myths or legends? If it was myth or legend they would have simply written it in a more confirming way? Do you think that the people who wrote the gospels actually -knew- the older myths that well? If I write a book that doesn't stick close enouigh to Star Wars cannon as a sequel, does that mean that my book is no longer sci-fi?

Quote:Several of the same objections to Doherty's thesis can be made about this one - if this was the case, why are there no remnants of debates with or condemnations of those who believed the earlier version and maintained there was no historical Jesus at all? And why don't any of Christianity's enemies use the fact that the original Jesus sect didn't believe in a historical Jesus as an argument against the new version of the sect? Did everyone just forget?

um...no.....we didn't forget, though there was an attempt to eradicate the notion.........people point -constantly- to the confusion among early christian sects in criticism..........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

Quote: If you read my latest post, your 5th point means Plato didn't exist.

I think you meant to say "Socrates," not Plato.  Generally when believers trot out this silly argument they use Socrates as the example of a figure who only shows up in a handful of written works.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus

Quote:The problem here is you thinking any historian who agrees that Jesus existed is a Christian trying to prove their religion.

Whereas you think that anyone who dares to question your obsession is an atheist with an agenda to destroy you.

The difference is "evidence."  I have forever insisted to any of your ilk who show up ( and that goes for muslims, as well) that I don't give a flying fuck what is written in your books of holy horseshit.  Where is the evidence to back up those books? 

Even as reasonable a writer as Bart Ehrman eventually has to fall back on "the gospels" and the irony is that he has spent an entire career pissing into that pond and now wants to say "It's okay guys, I found a clean spot you can drink from."  No thanks, Bart.  I'll pass.

Carrier exhaustively examines all the evidence....including your gospels and epistles...but you are right not to read it.  Your head would explode.  I sense that you do not want facts.  You want vindication for your beliefs.

I regard this as your problem.

If he did/does exist, I hope he's proud of himself for all the agro he's caused.

(January 28, 2016 at 6:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The "embarrassing details" defense. There isn't enough conformity to the preceding myths or legends? If it was myth or legend they would have simply written it in a more confirming way? Do you think that the people who wrote the gospels actually -knew- the older myths that well? If I write a book that doesn't stick close enouigh to Star Wars cannon as a sequel, does that mean that my book is no longer sci-fi?

Do I think that they knew the Torah well? Yes I do. Jewish mythicism is what we're talking about. And that's a poor analogy. Star Wars would be the only major sci-fi story anybody in the area cared about, and you'd have to make a sequel close enough to Star Wars for it to garner any attention. There was never any expectation in Judaism that the Messiah would be killed, so it seems improbable that a Messianic sect would make up a dead Messiah.

Quote:um...no.....we didn't forget, though there was an attempt to eradicate the notion.........people point -constantly- to the confusion among early christian sects in criticism..........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

What are you giving me that link for? All that matters there would be the bit about Serapion of Antioch. I'm not sure why it says that he denied the human/historical Jesus though (unless I'm misreading it.) He never denied it. He accepted Christ's existence and the word of Peter being Christ's word. He said the Gospel of Peter as he read it was a forgery. "For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself."

(January 28, 2016 at 6:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: If you read my latest post, your 5th point means Plato didn't exist.

I think you meant to say "Socrates," not Plato.  Generally when believers trot out this silly argument they use Socrates as the example of a figure who only shows up in a handful of written works.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus

No, I meant Plato. Like I said, the only evidence of him were his philosophical followers and the name of an academy. Everything else is pieced together by ancient historians, just like Jesus is pieced together. Over a millennium passed between Plato's life and any evidence of said life. But reading this article is funny, because it doesn't seem the evidence in favor of Socrates is much stronger. Two of the writings serving as evidence are straight pieces of fiction. What makes them different from Paul? And then Plato (if he even existed) wrote about him after when he would have been alive, so now according to you that shouldn't count. The author himself seems dubious until the end. This helps prove my point more than anything. ANCIENT HISTORY IS NOT A HARD SCIENCE.

(January 28, 2016 at 6:59 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 6:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The "embarrassing details" defense.  There isn't enough conformity to the preceding myths or legends?  If it was myth or legend they would have simply written it in a more confirming way?   Do you think that the people who wrote the gospels actually -knew- the older myths that well?  If I write a book that doesn't stick close enouigh to Star Wars cannon as a sequel, does that mean that my book is no longer sci-fi?

Do I think that they knew the Torah well? Yes I do. Jewish mythicism is what we're talking about. And that's a poor analogy. Star Wars would be the only major sci-fi story anybody in the area cared about, and you'd have to make a sequel close enough to Star Wars for it to garner any attention. There was never any expectation in Judaism that the Messiah would be killed, so it seems improbable that a Messianic sect would make up a dead Messiah.

There's no need to suggest that they did.  So it doesn't matter whether or not it's improbable, whatever that means to you.

Quote:What are you giving me that link for? All that matters there would be the bit about Serapion of Antioch. I'm not sure why it says that he denied the human/historical Jesus though (unless I'm misreading it.) He never denied it. He accepted Christ's existence and the word of Peter being Christ's word. He said the Gospel of Peter as he read it was a forgery. "For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself."

The link describes precisely those scenarios you were describing, asking where they were.   There -were- people who thought that the human christ was bullshit.  Council was, indeed, convened, lol. Ultimately they were the losers in the dogma game. None of the various machinations of different sects and trains of thought within the faithful speak to the veracity of the account upon which their faith is built. All of that was there, as it has been in every faith, regardless of and entirely unrelated to the historicity of their accounts, their characters.

Jesus-as-man is culturally christian modern euhemerism. It may help to explain the history of religion, not it's historicity, mind you...but these stories rely only on -belief- that their accounts are truthful, the actual truth of the account is a non-factor.

(January 28, 2016 at 7:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 6:59 pm)Aegon Wrote: Do I think that they knew the Torah well? Yes I do. Jewish mythicism is what we're talking about. And that's a poor analogy. Star Wars would be the only major sci-fi story anybody in the area cared about, and you'd have to make a sequel close enough to Star Wars for it to garner any attention. There was never any expectation in Judaism that the Messiah would be killed, so it seems improbable that a Messianic sect would make up a dead Messiah.

There's no need to suggest that they did.  So it doesn't matter whether or not it's improbable, whatever that means to you.

Quote:What are you giving me that link for? All that matters there would be the bit about Serapion of Antioch. I'm not sure why it says that he denied the human/historical Jesus though (unless I'm misreading it.) He never denied it. He accepted Christ's existence and the word of Peter being Christ's word. He said the Gospel of Peter as he read it was a forgery. "For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself."

The link describes precisely those scenarios you were describing, asking where they were.   There -were- people who thought that the human christ was bullshit.  Ultimately they were the losers in the dogma game.  None of the various machinations of different sects and trains of thought within the faithful speak to the veracity of the account upon which their faith is built.

No need to suggest they did? Yes there is? That's the whole "myth", no? 

And the only people I see from that link denying an historical Jesus are scholars from the 20th century. Otherwise I see arguments about the divinity of Christ and an argument over transubstantiation.

---

(January 28, 2016 at 6:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The problem here is you thinking any historian who agrees that Jesus existed is a Christian trying to prove their religion.

Whereas you think that anyone who dares to question your obsession is an atheist with an agenda to destroy you.

The difference is "evidence."  I have forever insisted to any of your ilk who show up ( and that goes for muslims, as well) that I don't give a flying fuck what is written in your books of holy horseshit.  Where is the evidence to back up those books? 

Even as reasonable a writer as Bart Ehrman eventually has to fall back on "the gospels" and the irony is that he has spent an entire career pissing into that pond and now wants to say "It's okay guys, I found a clean spot you can drink from."  No thanks, Bart.  I'll pass.

Carrier exhaustively examines all the evidence....including your gospels and epistles...but you are right not to read it.  Your head would explode.  I sense that you do not want facts.  You want vindication for your beliefs.

I regard this as your problem.

I'm not a Christian. Didn't I say that already? I'll say it a third time. I'm not a Christian

(January 28, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Aegon Wrote: No need to suggest they did? Yes there is? That's the whole "myth", no? 

No.  Not that it matters what charicature of the mythicist position you have in mind, as criticism of that position, any position, would not be evidence of historicity.  

Quote:And the only people I see from that link denying an historical Jesus are scholars from the 20th century. Otherwise I see arguments about the divinity of Christ and an argument over transubstantiation.

You only see scholars in the 20th century talking about quantum physics as well...I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean? You didn't want to piss off mother church friend, like docetics did. Those that remain in the fold have disagreements within the approved boundaries of the fold. What does any of this have to do with the historicity of jesus? This smacks of a bare appeal to traditionalism, amusingly forgeting that it is -christian- traditionalism to which we are referring.

(January 28, 2016 at 7:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Aegon Wrote: No need to suggest they did? Yes there is? That's the whole "myth", no? 

No.  Not that it matters what charicature of the mythicist position you have in mind, as criticism of that position, any position, would not be evidence of historicity.  

Quote:And the only people I see from that link denying an historical Jesus are scholars from the 20th century. Otherwise I see arguments about the divinity of Christ and an argument over transubstantiation.

You only see scholars in the 20th century talking about quantum physics as well...I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean?  You didn't want to piss off mother church friend, like docetics did.  Those that remain in the fold have disagreements within the approved boundaries of the fold.  What does any of this have to do with the historicity of jesus?  This smacks of a bare appeal to traditionalism, amusingly forgeting that it is -christian- traditionalism to which we are referring.

Because Ithe quote was referring to the lack of examples closer to Jesus' time period of people who didn't believe he was real. 20th century scholars are no more proof than Carrier.