Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Minimalist]

Wow are you serious? Have you seen the way that Min talks to me - I don't stoop down to his level. And Nestor's comment is rather polite when compared to Min's manner. Not to mention it's hardly out of place considering the comments that Min was making.

You can stop bullshitting any time you like, Danny.  But as long as you reject anything which does not support your horseshit you are not going to gain any respect at all.  You cannot simply ignore history and accept only your bible stories and expect to be taken seriously.

BTW, how was old 'paul' going to kidnap xtians from "Damascus" under the nose of the Roman magistrates all by himself?  Let's see you redeem yourself with an answer.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You're a cunt Wyrd; a particularly uninformed, ignorant and incredibly stupid cunt; there's simply no point in trying to talk sense to you.

Well, we each have our special cross to bear in this cruel and unforgiving world that's full of toil and constant trouble.  

Your cross seems to be that you are extremely gullible and believe in BS.  You can set yourself free but only if you really want to be free.  Otherwise you will continue to fall victim to all kinds of outrageous lies cooked up by con men.  Use your mind.  This is the year 2015 in modern America and not the year 30 in some Middle Eastern dust bucket.  Come into the light and leave your superstitions in the dark.  Free yourself.

[Aractus]

He may have "persecuted" the early church, Min, although I'm sure that fact is up for debate. He might actually be referring to persecuting Samaritans or some other sect, or it may just be a general part of the creed he was taught and he has adopted the collective responsibility. Acts 9 does give a more detailed account, however it is either second hand (if the author is Luke) or third-hand (if the author is one of Luke's close associates) information. It reads as if he was involved in the stoning of Jews who opposed the then-contemporary Palestinian Jewish authorities. Acts 9 does not imply that he is acting "alone". He may have been willing to suffer persecution at the hands of the Roman authorities to follow through with his zeal for the Jewish authorities.

But as I said that's quite speculative, I don't know and I'm not pretending to know whether Paul in fact did go as far as Acts 9 says in persecuting the "enemies" of the Palestinian Jews.

[Minimalist]

Ok.  You took the time to give an honest answer so I'll tone it down.

Here's the problem.  You are speculating.  We both know what the book says.  It is right there for everyone to read if they so desire.  Just like the absurd census of Augustus serving as the need for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem it is a literary construct to get Paul to go to Damascus where he has his "flash" in the road.  But there is no source that says other than that Paul was going to Damascus to drag recalcitrant jews back to jerusalem to be punished by the Sanheddrin.  Remember, this is the same bunch of schmucks who just a few years earlier couldn't even punish a blasphemer without Pilate's permission....or so the story goes.  You need to face the fact that anything other than what is on the page is something which you just invented.  We can call it the Gospel of Danny, for short.  Who knows?  In 2,000 years they may make you a saint.

I have the same problem with Josephus.  In 250 AD we have Origen quoting from Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews and he does not know shit about the Testimonium Flavianum.  Never mentions it in spite of the fact that it would have nailed the point he was trying to make.  C. 325 we have the TF in Eusebius in all its glory.  In fact, not one to waste a good thing Eusebius used the TF in two other works of his.  Understandable, Handel was especially known for taking a rollicking good tune from one opera/oratorio and inserting in to another.  But.  Between Origen's conspicuous silence and Eusebius' over-the-top bullshit we have a vast chasm and this is not lost even on modern apologists who can't pretend that Eusebius' oeuvre could have been written by a first century jewish aristocrat.  So they try to scale it down so that it does not look like such an obvious forgery but the basic problem remains.  We do not have it - or a reference to it - from any xtian or pagan writer prior to Eusebius.  And, as noted, when it appears it is with trumpets blasting in all its 4th century xtian panoply of all things jesus.

This is a fairly good lecture by Ehrman.  It is an hour and 20 minutes long but that includes about a half hour of questions at the end.  It's not a bad hour but do note that at the 9:00 minute mark he tries a lawyer trick by slipping in facts that are not in evidence.  Were I opposing counsel I would object on those grounds and expect to be sustained.  Also at the 56 minute mark he deals with the fact that historians do not consider the gospels to be "disinterested descriptions of what jesus said or did."  He then goes on trash Habermas and his miracle claims but that's more for that nut, Randy, than you.

[Aractus]

Ok.  You took the time to give an honest answer so I'll tone it down.

Here's the problem.  You are speculating.  We both know what the book says.  It is right there for everyone to read if they so desire.  Just like the absurd census of Augustus serving as the need for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem it is a literary construct to get Paul to go to Damascus where he has his "flash" in the road.

No that's not accurate. You're comparing apples with oranges. Think of it this way, if I told you a story about my childhood and my friends told you the same thing you could be inclined to believe it. But actually I made it all up. It's very hard to corroborate childhood events, which is what the nativity is speaking of, whereas Paul's conversion is something contemporary and the author of acts either knew Paul personally or was a close associate of Luke who did know Paul personally.

But there is no source that says other than that Paul was going to Damascus to drag recalcitrant jews back to jerusalem to be punished by the Sanheddrin.  Remember, this is the same bunch of schmucks who just a few years earlier couldn't even punish a blasphemer without Pilate's permission....or so the story goes.  You need to face the fact that anything other than what is on the page is something which you just invented.  We can call it the Gospel of Danny, for short.  Who knows?  In 2,000 years they may make you a saint.

No, they did practise stonings etc. According to the gospels the Jewish authorities couldn't stone Jesus to death because he hadn't breached a law that required it - it had nothing to do with whether they were capable of doing it. However, as you would well know, I don't agree that the Jews were responsible and neither do most scholars.

You need to face the fact that anything other than what is on the page is something which you just invented.  We can call it the Gospel of Danny, for short.  Who knows?  In 2,000 years they may make you a saint.

Well that's not true, there is other evidence that suggests that in some respects the gospel accounts of the death of Jesus are not entirely accurate. That doesn't alter the fact however that most scholars agree the overwhelming evidence shows that Jesus was killed by Roman crucifixion. Every ancient text contains at least some factual errors in it, that doesn't mean none of them are useful for understanding history.

I have the same problem with Josephus.  In 250 AD we have Origen quoting from Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews and he does not know shit about the Testimonium Flavianum.  Never mentions it in spite of the fact that it would have nailed the point he was trying to make.  C. 325 we have the TF in Eusebius in all its glory.  In fact, not one to waste a good thing Eusebius used the TF in two other works of his.  Understandable, Handel was especially known for taking a rollicking good tune from one opera/oratorio and inserting in to another.  But.  Between Origen's conspicuous silence and Eusebius' over-the-top bullshit we have a vast chasm and this is not lost even on modern apologists who can't pretend that Eusebius' oeuvre could have been written by a first century jewish aristocrat.  So they try to scale it down so that it does not look like such an obvious forgery but the basic problem remains.  We do not have it - or a reference to it - from any xtian or pagan writer prior to Eusebius.  And, as noted, when it appears it is with trumpets blasting in all its 4th century xtian panoply of all things jesus.

Testimonium Flavianum refers only to Ant.18.3.3. Ant.20.9 and Ant.18.5 are viewed as genuine by most historians. Again just because 18.3.3 specifically is a fraud doesn't automatically make any other part of it fraud Min. I don't think we can distil absolute truth from 18.5 and 20.9 but at least they do corroborate the facts that Jesus had lived and that James the Just and John the Baptist were martyred (killed as a result of their religious beliefs). I'm sure you would agree that a person's religious beliefs are not a reason to persecute and kill them.

Note that 18.5 and 20.9 both contradict the early church (2nd cent. accounts) to some extent. Not entirely but in the details. If it was a Christian alteration you would expect it to agree completely with the Christian accounts. In particular the death of John the Baptist's death is quite different and if it was a Christian alteration it would have been more in-line with the Christian account. But the facts that are the same are the time-frame he was killed in and the reason.

[Minimalist]

Think of it this way, if I told you a story about my childhood and my friends told you the same thing you could be inclined to believe it.

But he didn't "tell" a story.  Someone wrote a story which we can all look at and, in my case at least, dismiss as a crock.  What we are dealing with is the written word not some nebulous rumor.  The story, as written, is ridiculous.

No, they did practise stonings etc.

Yet, you cite Josephus XX in your next paragraph in which they supposedly "stoned" James.  You have to make up your mind, here.  Oh, and there was some other guy named "Stephen" who they supposedly stoned.  

That doesn't alter the fact however that most scholars agree the overwhelming evidence shows that Jesus was killed by Roman crucifixion. Every ancient text contains at least some factual errors in it, that doesn't mean none of them are useful for understanding history.

Do you apply that same standard to the Iliad where Apollo came down from Mt. Olympus shooting arrows at the Greeks?  Do you apply it to the Romulus tale wherein he was bodily taken up to heaven after his death?  Do you apply that same standard to Osiris being cut into pieces and reassembled by Isis?  You need to be careful of the special pleading.  Your fairy tales are no more impressive than other ancient literature.

Note that 18.5 and 20.9 both contradict the early church

I'm not sure what you mean by 18.5 - the chapter heading of which is as follows and has nothing to do with jesus.

Chapter 5.

Herod the tetrarch makes war with Aretas, the king of Arabia, and is beaten by him; as also concerning the death of John the Baptist: how Vitellius went up to Jerusalem together with some account of Agrippa, and of the posterity of Herod the Great.

XX.9 is a minor alteration, probably by an excited scribe who saw the word christos and peed his loincloth in joy.  But what did christos mean to Josephus?  It sure as shit did not mean what later xtians wanted it to mean.  Christos referred to the process of anointing a jewish high priest or king.  Virtually everyone in that paragraph except the two Romans was a christos at one time or another. 

Once again, we have the theology-based "historical" point of view which desperately wants to see some vindication for their fairy tales on one hand and the history-based view on the other.  Theologians have lost the ability to dictate the discussion and control the publication of opposing viewpoints.  They are madder than wet hens about this but the genie is out of the bottle and I'm still waiting for any of them to produce actual evidence to refute Carrier's findings against their supposed historical godboy.

Lastly, I'm glad to see that you noted the John the Baptist problem.  To people who can overlook the obvious fallacies in the gospel ( the nativity,the day of the crucifixion, who came out of the tomb, etc.) it is a minor affair.  The biggest problem with Josephus' John story is that it blows the whole xtian timeline out of the water.  I'm curious.  When do you think your boy was nailed up?  (what year and why?).

[Aractus]

I don't know why you keep calling him "my boy". But I will go through this.

Luke gives the year that Jesus is baptised by John as 28-29AD . If his ministry lasted about a year (which is what most scholars think) then he would have been killed in 29-31AD at the latest.

Luke 3:1-2: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

Everything in that verse is accurate to 28-29AD (the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar's reign). Importantly it's also consistent with the given ages of John and Jesus in the gospel accounts, noting that although the nativity is not a historical fact in any sense it does give the time-frame, and even if it didn't under Jewish law neither of them could have began their ministries before their 30th year.

Tiberius Caesar ruled from 14-37 AD. There is some debate about where the fifteenth year falls in particular, but it appears that the Roman's counted from the first year of succession not from the inaugural year, which makes it 29 AD.

Pontius Pilate was governor from 26-36 AD.

Herod's reign as tetrarch of Galilee and Perea was from 6-39 AD.

Philip's reign as tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis was from 4 BC - 34 AD.

Not much is known about the "younger" Lysanias and his reign.

Annas had been high priest from AD 6 to 15, but he still wielded power during Caiaphas's priesthood hence Luke including his name.

Caiaphas was high priest from 18-36 AD.

The April date of the crucifixion (Nisan 14th on the Jewish calendar) is therefore most likely to be in 30 or 31 AD.

This means that John the Baptist either died before that time (which isn't particularly likely but is what the gospel accounts imply) or after the death of Philip in 34 AD (which is what Josephus implies). I don't think that detail is particularly meaningful, changing the date of John's death to fit into the gospel-narrative time-frame is a very minor point. Likewise, Josephus wrote considerably later than Luke and his information may not be correct either.

As I've cited many many times, the only things that scholars are near unanimously agreed upon are that: a. Jesus was a historical person, b. He died by Roman crucifixion, c. He was baptised in the Jordan by John, d. He called disciples, e. He preached sermons. That's about it - I might have forgotten something, but everything else is up for debate. And that includes whether Jesus's ministry was only 1 year or whether it was longer. If it was longer than a date as late as AD 35 is possible for the crucifixion.

[Minimalist]

Okay.  Now I'll go through it.

Josephus recounts in Book XVIII, 4 the various political dealings by the then governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius Veteris against the Parthian king Artabanus who in 35 tried to take Armenia.  In 37, Artabanus concluded a peace treaty with Vitellius.

So we are already, chronologically, at 37 AD when Josephus begins Chapter V by saying, "About this time...." and recounts the sordid affair of Herod Antipas divorcing the daughter of Aretas of Nabatea and marrying one of his half-brother's wives.  He continues by discussing the attack by Aretas on Antipas as retribution for divorcing his daughter.  Antipas complains to Tiberius who writes to Vitellius telling him to go kick Aretas' ass. 

Josephus then discusses the death of JtheB in the next paragraph and notes how some jews thought the defeat of Antipas' army was punishment for the death of JtheB.  As you note, there is nothing in the passage which specifically links the death to the marriage of Herod and Phillip's  wife.  Just that John was influential and Antipas thought it best to get him out of the way.  Nothing really unusual there, happened all the time that a king got rid of a political opponent.

But we are speaking of time and as Josephus makes clear Vitellius obeyed his orders, took two legions and some allied troops and headed south.  He got as far as Jerusalem when:

But when on the fourth day letters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tiberius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius; he also recalled his army, and made them every one go home, and take their winter quarters there, since, upon the devolution of the empire upon Caius, he had not the like authority of making this war which he had before.

So now we have another bona fide historical marker.  Tiberius died in in Mid-March, 37 AD.  Allow 3-4 weeks for the news to reach a jerkwater town like Jerusalem and you have Vitellius calling off the war in April of 37.  A second historical marker concerns Vitellius himself.  Under the military system set up by Augustus and continued by Tiberius a man had to have been an ex-consul in order to qualify for one of the major military commands of the Empire.  The Imperial Legate of Syria was one such command.  Vitellius was consul in 34.  His term of office would have been complete on January 1, 35.  Only then could this figure, who is so prominent in Josephus' tale of these events, have even assumed the office of Imperial Legate and history tells us that he was initially quite busy with the Parthian threat to Armenia.  

So on the one hand we have actual historical figures, who actually did things in the real world, (Antipas, Vitellius, Tiberius, Aretas, Artabanus, perhaps even John, himself) and we find them doing them c 36-37 AD.  Your gospels, OTOH, insist that the godboy's ministry began only after John's death.  But historically we can't place that any earlier than 36 which leaves the gospels at odds with known history.  And it certainly blows your 30/31AD date out of the water.  Obviously I disagree with you.  The dating of these events is critical and I can see why you wish to downgrade them to insignificance.  Gospel v history?

Now I'll let you guess how that works out.

[Aractus]

The gospels insist that Jesus's ministry begins after being baptised in 29 AD. That fact is critical, and a number of scholars say that Jesus was in fact John's disciple originally. The issue with that theory however is that it would push his ministry out to 36-37 AD if we go by the dates that Josephus provides, as you've pointed out. If Jesus was not a follower of John (which is somewhat more consistent with the gospels) then it doesn't matter if John is alive and well for several years after Jesus meets his death.

It is a Christian idea that John came to "prepare the way for he that was to come after him" (see Luke 3, Acts 15) however this tale was formed sometime between the execution of Jesus and the writing of the gospels.

In Luke Jesus begins his ministry in Luke 4, and begins calling disciples in Luke 5. John the Baptist doesn't die until Luke 9.

In Matthew John baptises Jesus in Matthew 3. Jesus begins his ministry and calls disciples in Matthew 4. John is dead in Matthew 14.

So no, Jesus didn't begin his ministry until after John had died, quite clearly they co-existed. The Gospel of John never mentions his death, as far as the author is concerned John is still alive at the end of the gospel.

[Minimalist]

then it doesn't matter if John is alive and well for several years after Jesus meets his death.

Yes...but that is not what the books say.

Mark claims the godboy was baptized  and then hightailed it for the "wilderness."  Then it claims that after John was arrested jesus went into Galilee preaching the gospel.  Before that, he didn't seem to do shit.

Matty makes similar claims.  Jesus gets the holy soaking, goes and plays with the devil for a while and then hears John was arrested and picks up the flag.  Even more clearly than "mark" it notes that "from that time onward, jesus began to preach."

Luke botches the whole story - dealing with it as a flashback of Antipas' after throwing in jesus' genealogy at a particularly questionable place.

Again, this stuff does matter.  If xtians can't get their story straight why should anyone believe anything they say?