(December 3, 2018 at 12:59 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: The flaw in your arguments is you think that if a historic Jesus existed there must be corroboration of the supposed miracles he performed and his supposed resurrection. But secular historians don't believe Jesus did any of that in the first place, or at least admit there is no historical evidence for it apart from Christian devotional literature. Nevertheless, the question of the historicity of Jesus has to be separated from mythology that surrounds him.
Mythology also surrounds other historical figures, especially Roman emperors like Julius Caesar, Augustus and Vespasian. That hardly impugns their historicity of those figures.

It has to be remember that the historic Jesus was not an aristocrat or a royal. He was an apocalyptic Galilean prophet in a land and society teeming with such figures. Jesus was obviously influenced by another apocalyptic prophet - John the Baptizer - who was indeed an historic figure even mentioned by Josephus.

What's the point? If Jesus the miracle man didn't exist, but Jesus the apocalyptic preacher did, why would we care? Nobody gives a shit about the historical Jesus. He's just a prop used to shore up crappy arguments about miracle Jesus. If Jesus was just a man, I'm happy to embrace that possibility. But that's not what I'm actually being asked to embrace. The historical Jesus argument is just a moronic bait and switch.

(December 3, 2018 at 12:51 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: And if the events purported to have occurred during his life had happened, we would have had records of it outside Christian books.

We don't.

And please don't dismiss the possibility of other potentially historical figures while attemptin to advocate for your own.

I don't dismiss the possibility of other potentially historical figures. I didn't dismiss the existence of some ancient Britannic king upon whom the legend of King Arthur is based. But the case for the existence of Jesus is a lot more stronger than that of King Arthur. Typically, the further back you go in history the harder it is to make that case. Jesus only existed some 2000 years ago, which is relatively recent.

The Gospels mention the figure of John the Baptist and how he was executed by Herod Antipas. This is also confirmed in the writings of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews) - a record outside Christian books as you asked for.

(December 3, 2018 at 12:59 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: The flaw in your arguments is you think that if a historic Jesus existed there must be corroboration of the supposed miracles he performed and his supposed resurrection. But secular historians don't believe Jesus did any of that in the first place, or at least admit there is no historical evidence for it apart from Christian devotional literature. Nevertheless, the question of the historicity of Jesus has to be separated from mythology that surrounds him.
Mythology also surrounds other historical figures, especially Roman emperors like Julius Caesar, Augustus and Vespasian. That hardly impugns their historicity of those figures.

It has to be remember that the historic Jesus was not an aristocrat or a royal. He was an apocalyptic Galilean prophet in a land and society teeming with such figures. Jesus was obviously influenced by another apocalyptic prophet - John the Baptizer - who was indeed an historic figure even mentioned by Josephus.

Nope.

And I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth.

I said Jesus MAY have existed but, in my opinion, is more likely to be an amalgam of different people wrapped together.

I dismiss "holy" books as sources because they are inherently agenda driven and, in the case of the bible, contradictory. Mark has three? Different authors.

(December 3, 2018 at 1:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What's the point?  If Jesus the miracle man didn't exist, but Jesus the apocalyptic preacher did, why would we care?  Nobody gives a shit about the historical Jesus.  He's just a prop used to shore up crappy arguments about miracle Jesus.  If Jesus was just a man, I'm happy to embrace that possibility.  But that's not what I'm actually being asked to embrace.  The historical Jesus argument is just a moronic bait and switch.

You don't have to care. The debate is about the historical existence of a figure we know as Jesus of Nazareth. Since the mythicists have denied this on a very weak foundation, I am citing actual qualified and accredited historians and scholars in the field who have debated and refuted those mythicists like Robert Price.

---

(December 3, 2018 at 1:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(December 3, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: I suppose you think the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom of Israel in the mid 8th century BCE under the historic Assyrian rulers Sargon II and then Sennacherib was a legend too?

And then the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in the late 6th century BCE under the historic Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzer was a legend?

And then the conquest of Babylon by the Persians under Cyrus the Great, and the subsequent return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland?

And then the rise of the Seleucids and Antiochus Epiphanes, then the Jewish revolt of the Maccabees which freed their country and restored the Jewish monarchy?

All of this was mythology and never happened?

I can't help but notice that all of your "examples" are relatively late.... late 8th century BC or later. 

The difference between these 4 events and the supposed earlier exodus, patriarchs, conquest bullshit is that we have actual archaeological and or historical evidence for them. 

So what you have are historical events but in one way or another the priest class of Judah who later cobbled all this folklore together embellished these events to give their fucking god a starring role.  The "return of the exiles" is one in particular that does not stand up well to scrutiny.  Perhaps when I get time I'll get back to this and tell you how.  Even though you clearly do not want to hear anything that upsets your holy little apple cart.   Sadly, your feelings on this matter of no concern to me.

I deliberately didn't mention the stories in Genesis and Exodus because as you rightly point out they lack sufficient historical evidence. But to dismiss the entire Bible and its narrative because some things in it are apparently "mythological" is simply an incorrect approach. The epistles of Paul were written within decades of Jesus's death. They are very early written source that is considered with regard to the existence of a historical Jesus. There is no evidence that a bunch of Jews decided to get together and fabricate the existence of someone named Jesus believing him to be the Messiah.

If so, they would never have agreed that he was crucified at the hands of the Romans (the Jewish Messiah is to be victorious not defeated), or that he came from Nazareth (and had to concoct an elaborate story to get his birth in Bethlehem). If you want to invent a Messiah out of thin air you wouldn't go about it this way. But if you wanted to turn a historical figure that really existed into a Messiah, you would have to concoct these elaborate stories about it. These are one of the strong proofs that there was an historic Jesus of Nazareth.

(December 3, 2018 at 1:05 pm)Cherub786 Wrote:

(December 3, 2018 at 1:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What's the point?  If Jesus the miracle man didn't exist, but Jesus the apocalyptic preacher did, why would we care?  Nobody gives a shit about the historical Jesus.  He's just a prop used to shore up crappy arguments about miracle Jesus.  If Jesus was just a man, I'm happy to embrace that possibility.  But that's not what I'm actually being asked to embrace.  The historical Jesus argument is just a moronic bait and switch.

You don't have to care. The debate is about the historical existence of a figure we know as Jesus of Nazareth. Since the mythicists have denied this on a very weak foundation, I am citing actual qualified and accredited historians and scholars in the field who have debated and refuted those mythicists like Robert Price.

I care because the historical Jesus is being used as a stalking horse for claims about the miracle man by the same people who are supporting the existence of an actual historical Jesus, and who have a vested interest in promoting the historical Jesus for that very reason. That conflict of interest pretty thoroughly undermines the credibility of those "scholars." What were you saying about a weak case?

(December 3, 2018 at 1:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 3, 2018 at 1:05 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: You don't have to care. The debate is about the historical existence of a figure we know as Jesus of Nazareth. Since the mythicists have denied this on a very weak foundation, I am citing actual qualified and accredited historians and scholars in the field who have debated and refuted those mythicists like Robert Price.

I care because the historical Jesus is being used as a stalking horse for claims about the miracle man by the same people who are supporting the existence of an actual historical Jesus, and who have a vested interest in promoting the historical Jesus for that very reason.  That conflict of interest pretty thoroughly undermines the credibility of those "scholars."  What were you saying about a weak case?

Wrong, its actually the mythicists like Robert Price that have an agenda and a vested interest in proving that no such person as Jesus existed in history. Price is a member of the Council for Secular Humanism and its Center for Inquiry Institute.

But as Ehrman pointed out in his famous debate with Price 2 years ago, the debate has to be plainly about the historicity of Jesus and put aside all vested interests and political agendas, just look at the evidence - meaning the standard of evidence that is used in and acceptable for historical studies and scholarship.

(December 3, 2018 at 1:22 pm)Cherub786 Wrote:

(December 3, 2018 at 1:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I care because the historical Jesus is being used as a stalking horse for claims about the miracle man by the same people who are supporting the existence of an actual historical Jesus, and who have a vested interest in promoting the historical Jesus for that very reason.  That conflict of interest pretty thoroughly undermines the credibility of those "scholars."  What were you saying about a weak case?

Wrong, its actually the mythicists like Robert Price that have an agenda and a vested interest in proving that no such person as Jesus existed in history. Price is a member of the Council for Secular Humanism and its Center for Inquiry Institute.

But as Ehrman pointed out in his famous debate with Price 2 years ago, the debate has to be plainly about the historicity of Jesus and put aside all vested interests and political agendas, just look at the evidence - meaning the standard of evidence that is used in and acceptable for historical studies and scholarship.

The existence of an agenda on the part of the Mythicists, even if true, doesn't eliminate the problem of having an agenda among the historical Jesus scholars. This is nothing more than a tu quoque argument, which I'm sure you know is a fallacy.

Now look, I challenge all you mythicists here to watch the full debate between Ehrman and Price. Now it is 2 hours and 45 minutes, but all you really need to see is the initial presentations, and then the counter questions, you can skip the audience's Q and A, although you should watch that too and see how Ehrman further exposes Price and the mythicists as "quacks" that have no real academic qualifications in the field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIxxDfkaXVY

If you fully watch this debate and don't change your mind I will genuinely be shocked.

---

(December 3, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 3, 2018 at 1:22 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: Wrong, its actually the mythicists like Robert Price that have an agenda and a vested interest in proving that no such person as Jesus existed in history. Price is a member of the Council for Secular Humanism and its Center for Inquiry Institute.

But as Ehrman pointed out in his famous debate with Price 2 years ago, the debate has to be plainly about the historicity of Jesus and put aside all vested interests and political agendas, just look at the evidence - meaning the standard of evidence that is used in and acceptable for historical studies and scholarship.

The existence of an agenda on the part of the Mythicists, even if true, doesn't eliminate the problem of having an agenda among the historical Jesus scholars.  This is nothing more than a tu quoque argument, which I'm sure you know is a fallacy.

Hey you're the one who brought up the agenda accusation not me. The fallacy is yours and yours alone

Bart Ehrman is a self described agnostic leaning toward atheism. What agenda could he possibly have?

Let me add that Robert Price is really the best guy to present the mythicist point of view. Don't think just because he was trashed in the debate there is someone else out there who can present a stronger argument. He's the best your side has to offer.

It;s interesting, Cherub, that you point out assyrian captivity directly after stating that we should not think of semetic religions like we do of pagan mythologies.

We know that this captivity is part of why and how "pagan" mythology became a part of the mythology of judeo-christian religion.  Wasn't done, there, either, muslims had to write their sequel and incorporate their own pagan mythologies.

"Paul", btw, didn't know shit about a historical jesus. He saw a vision of a christ on a road. He received his gospel from no man...member? Or is that part not in your magic book?

Ultimately, you're just imploring with us not to consider your myths like everyone else's myths because those guys myths are mythical but yours are.................?

(December 3, 2018 at 1:46 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: It;s interesting, Cherub, that you point out assyrian captivity directly after stating that we should not think of semitic religions like we do of pagan mythologies.

We know that this captivity is part of why and how "pagan" mythology became a part of the mytholgy of judea-christian religion.  Wasn't done, there, either, muslims had to write their sequel and incorporate their own pagan mythologies.

"Paul", btw, didn't know shit about a historical jesus.  He saw a vision of a christ on a road.  He received his gospel from no man...member?  Or is that part not in your magic book?

Explain how Assyrian mythology became part of the mythology of "Judeo-Christian" religion.

Paul didn't meet Jesus, but he knew Jesus's disciples and even his brother James.

Paul even disagreed with those disciples, especially Peter, over issues like circumcision and eating with Gentiles.

Now if all these guys just invented Jesus why were they never on the same page?