Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Cyberman]

WTF is with this spattering of bullshit recently?

It comes when there are too many jesus freak assholes in one place.

How do you flush this forum?

[Atom]

If you're going to "challenge" the mythicist's criticisms then you can present the evidence. WTF is with this spattering of bullshit recently?

It comes when there are too many jesus freak assholes in one place.

I don't normally consider people challenging my views to be offensive. If there is a social moray against challenging certain people's beliefs I apologize for the infringement.

I'm confused by this reference to "the mythicist's". It isn't a term I've heard before. Is this referring to a person, a proper name, or a group of people with a common belief. Could you please explain what the term means?

[The Grand Nudger]

Folks who have more than a sneaking suspicion that the character of christ is an invention..whole cloth.

[Cyberman]

@ Atom:

This is a moray:



To the best of my (limited) knowledge, they are not necessarily a social animal; though apparently certain coral-dwelling species of fish are known to recruit morays into co-operative hunting.

Sorry to be such a pedant but the phrase for which you were searching is "social more". It's pronounced "moray" I grant you, so the confusion is understandable and astonishingly popular. Either you were going for the pun, in which case well played sir, or maybe it's a word you never saw in print before.

[Atom]

The two names were Richard Carrier, and Robert M. Price. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

I'm wondering if I'm not understanding what a mythicist is (as my previous question said).

The Wikipedia reference you gave said Price is a member of the Jesus Seminar. I'll grant that Wikipedia often gets things wrong, but how can a guy who is casting his vote with colored beads to decide what Jesus actually said and didn't say believe that Jesus didn't exist?

Also, Richard Carrier is noted for writing on the internet on a variety of anti-Christian topics with most outside his area of expertise. He also self-published a book for lay audiences, which I assume was not peer reviewed before publication.

Have any of Carrier's writings alleging the non-existence of Jesus been peer reviewed and published in a professional journal? The list of publications on Wikipedia makes him sound more like an anti-Christian ideologue than an objective scholar. I'm having trouble justifying him as a credible source for the same reason I reject many Christian author's claims until I can find a skeptic that agrees. Hence the reason I take Bart Ehrman's opinion on historical consensus, but disregarded the same claims from Christian sources for quite some time (I was an atheist and hard-core naturalist for 25+ years before becoming a Christian).

Please take my questions as sincere inquiry, not as a challenge or dismissal. I'm seeking to understand the credibility of the sources provided by asking questions. I am a skeptical person and naturally question a lot of things. As I said, Wikipedia often gets things wrong.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It comes when there are too many jesus freak assholes in one place.

How do you flush this forum?

We have Min.


or is that a riddle if so, I give up.

---

The list of publications on Wikipedia makes him sound more like an anti-Christian ideologue than an objective scholar.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I suggest not getting your panties in a bunch over the issue. Arguments for the existence or non existence of an historical Jesus are speculation. That there is no credible evidence for his existence implies (suggests) but does not prove there was no such person.

All I am wiling to assert is; based on the mythology,legend and superstition which seems to have formed Christianity, Yoshua bar Yusuf may or may not have existed. Although and absence of evidence does not prove absence in and of itself,it is often a reliable indicator.

[Cyberman]

How do you flush this forum?

We have Min.


or is that a riddle if so, I give up.

Min is one of our resident experts, I suppose.

No, not a riddle, merely an amusing observation of sorts. I do hope I'm not all that obscure! Well, not always anyway. Actually, I first heard it used in an early episode of M*A*S*H - a visiting officer to the 4077th is shown into the VIP tent, takes one look around and says "How do you flush this room?" It must have just stuck in my mind.

[Lion IRC]

You have failed the challenge teaearlgreyhot.

Show me where I said...Jesus mythers are wrong SOLELY by virtue of the fact that they are in the minority.

Please be sure to use "quotation marks".

Can ya do that for me?

You made a claim. Now prove it. (Hint - use evidence)

Here's what Atom (whom you defended) said that really set me off:

Well, I asked you to prove your claim that I had committed a logical fallacy. And you went straight to someone elses posts. Look at me. I'm over here. HELLO!

But Atom didnt assert a fallacy either.

I think I'm on more solid ground appealing to a near unanimity of peer reviewed academic scholars on the testimony of Bart Ehrman as a hostile witness than you are citing yourself as your own authority.

Nothing in this post suggests Jesus mythers are wrong SOLELY by virtue of the fact that they are in the minority. Atom said ''more solid ground''. He did not say I am "right''. There is no logical fallacy because there is no claim of necessary inference.

Making the case for Jesus' historical existence is an involved topic that starts with the presentation of data supported by the academic consensus. If the significance or existence of the academic consensus on all such data is denied, there is no point in presenting more such data.

Nothing in this post suggests Jesus mythers are wrong SOLELY by virtue of the fact that they are in the minority.

Nothing in this post suggests Jesus mythers are wrong SOLELY by virtue of the fact that they are in the minority. It's a clap smiley.

"Jesus mythers and holocaust deniers and fake moon landing folk are interesting and quaint."

Nothing in this post suggests Jesus mythers are wrong SOLELY by virtue of the fact that they are in the minority.

In fact, if 99% of experts on a given subject agreed, then ignoring that fact would make YOU the person acting illogically for rejecting their expertise.

Nothing in this post suggests Jesus mythers are wrong SOLELY by virtue of the fact that they are in the minority. It certainly IS illogical to ignore the fact that they are experts and peers.

[Minimalist]

Nothing in this post suggests Jesus mythers are wrong SOLELY by virtue of the fact that they are in the minority.

Yet we keep waiting for actual evidence that your godboy was walking around turning water into wine and healing lepers and all we get are the same..."all real scholars think so.... and then there are the gospels!"

Well, one of those scholars is Ehrman and he shits all over those gospels.

Surely, even you can see that your case is exceptionally shitty? It's built on air and guesswork.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

In fact, if 99% of experts on a given subject agreed, then ignoring that fact would make YOU the person acting illogically for rejecting their expertise.

Nothing in this post suggests Jesus mythers are wrong SOLELY by virtue of the fact that they are in the minority. It certainly IS illogical to ignore the fact that they are experts and peers.

Then you should be more clear. I never thought you meant "ignore" as in "not take into consideration" before. Why would I? I never suggested we should not take into consideration the opinion majority, just that ultimately you cannot say "x is true" simply because the majority says so.

---

The two names were Richard Carrier, and Robert M. Price. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

I'm wondering if I'm not understanding what a mythicist is (as my previous question said).

The Wikipedia reference you gave said Price is a member of the Jesus Seminar. I'll grant that Wikipedia often gets things wrong, but how can a guy who is casting his vote with colored beads to decide what Jesus actually said and didn't say believe that Jesus didn't exist?

Also, Richard Carrier is noted for writing on the internet on a variety of anti-Christian topics with most outside his area of expertise. He also self-published a book for lay audiences, which I assume was not peer reviewed before publication.

Have any of Carrier's writings alleging the non-existence of Jesus been peer reviewed and published in a professional journal? The list of publications on Wikipedia makes him sound more like an anti-Christian ideologue than an objective scholar. I'm having trouble justifying him as a credible source for the same reason I reject many Christian author's claims until I can find a skeptic that agrees. Hence the reason I take Bart Ehrman's opinion on historical consensus, but disregarded the same claims from Christian sources for quite some time (I was an atheist and hard-core naturalist for 25+ years before becoming a Christian).

Please take my questions as sincere inquiry, not as a challenge or dismissal. I'm seeking to understand the credibility of the sources provided by asking questions. I am a skeptical person and naturally question a lot of things. As I said, Wikipedia often gets things wrong.

The Jesus Seminar was a relatively mainstream group led by many dozens of scholars in the 90's. They established certain criteria and used those criteria to determine what sayings of Jesus in the canonical and non-canonical gospels were likely authentic sayings of Jesus. I'm not sure what the beads were but they had a color system I think for different levels of certainty regarding what we can know Jesus said and didn't say.

Carrier's latest book "Proving History" was peer-reviewed.

Have any of Carrier's writings alleging the non-existence of Jesus been peer reviewed and published in a professional journal?

He has a book coming next year on Jesus that's suppose to be for the academic community.

The books he has out now (except for his latest one "proving history") all assume historicity. They're not arguing for the mythicist position. And as far as I can tell, they're not arguing anything that's very controversial. I doubt they're peer reviewed since they seem to be just for lay men, but they have extensive references and you can read what they reference.

And again, I'd like to point out, I'm not a mythicist. I'm undecided. And I'm not interested in mythicism because it may supposedly debunk Christianity. The historicist position of Ehrman and other more mainstream scholars can do that just fine. And even supposed in the unlikely event that mythicism comes mainstream in the next few decades, Christians will still just deny it or just adopt an even more allegorical interpretation.