Jesus--Fact or Fiction??

[Mike Cl]

Thanks for raising this thread from the dead.  Carrier's 48 elements from his book, are foundational for any who want to study the subject of Jesus, real or myth.  If you want even more detail, read all the footnotes attached to those 48 elements---there are many of those. 

Element 2 provided a little surprise for me when I read it--it states that early Jewish beliefs were not uniform nor universally accepted--there was at least 10 mainstream beliefs, with as many as 30 or more possible.  I had thought from what most bible-thumpers said, that there was only one Jewish belief system in Jesus' time and that he pretty much upset the apple cart.  But that is clearly not the case; yet most christians of today believe like I did.  As usual, they are wrong. 

[Baruch]

People love to oversimplify.

[Cavebear]

And sometimes it is worth undersimplifying.  The basic idea shown in the video above was something I understood as a matter of mere rational thought as a teenager, noting that most people had demonstrably "imaginations" about reality. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that I could ever have presented it as well as he did.  But I didn't need to.  I was only concerned with my own conclusions about reality and how some people misunderstood it through fears and hopes and social-teachings.

I came to my own conclusions as a teen and I've never seen any evidence that did or should have changed my mind.  No originator or scribe writing down what became religious texts had any rational or inspired basis for doing so, and none ever will.  The whole idea is complete nonsense.

[Baruch]

And sometimes it is worth undersimplifying.  The basic idea shown in the video above was something I understood as a matter of mere rational thought as a teenager, noting that most people had demonstrably "imaginations" about reality. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that I could ever have presented it as well as he did.  But I didn't need to.  I was only concerned with my own conclusions about reality and how some people misunderstood it through fears and hopes and social-teachings.

I came to my own conclusions as a teen and I've never seen any evidence that did or should have changed my mind.  No originator or scribe writing down what became religious texts had any rational or inspired basis for doing so, and none ever will.  The whole idea is complete nonsense.

1+1=2 per Pythagoras, that is all the maths you need to know ;-)

[Unbeliever]

Well, in my case, Carrier's preaching to the choir - I sing bass, by the way.

[Cavebear]

1+1=2 per Pythagoras, that is all the maths you need to know ;-)

I seriously doubt that Pythagoras was the first to realize that 1+1=2.  I don't know how far back we go though when that was intuited and then sort of proven when some hominid handed a fellow 1 nut (gra) and a second (gra) and pointed to both (grat). 

[Cavebear]

Well, in my case, Carrier's preaching to the choir - I sing bass, by the way.

You don't want hear me sing in any fashion.  I'm one of those convinced I had a good voice until I heard myself on a tape recorder.  Compared to what I heard internally through my skull and ear canal, dying rabbits are musical.  Even recording a voice mail message, I have to forcibly drop my pitch a couple octaves to avoid offending sensitive ears.  Let's just say I could ratttle a tin can...

[fredd47]

  I would like to recommend two books by former Christian biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman

"Misquoting Jesus" which explains why claiming inerrancy  for the New Testament is not supportable. Hint:  until the fifteenth century and Gutenberg's printing press, all books were 'published' by being copied by hand. Simple errors occurred, plus some scribes would deliberately leave out bits or insert bits. I was astounded to learn, that in those times, it was common that a scribe would be illiterate.IE he could copy what  he saw, but could not read or understand it.

The other is " Did Jesus Exist?" . I've only just started reading this book, but it's promising. Ehrman argues the affirmative .

My own position is;   First century Judea was neck deep in wandering Rabbis. The Romans crucified literally thousands of Jews during Roman occupation. So, it's possible, even likely, that there was a rabbi called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf, that he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified for sedition. For the sake of argument I accept that Jesus existed.

What became the New Testament, and the religion called "Christianity" has little or nothing to do with poor Yeshua bar Yusuf . The book is the mythology of Christianity. Virtually all revered holy books are mythology, not history, imo.

Reference ; "Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle' A N Wilson.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Bart Denton Ehrman (/bÉ'ːrt ˈɜːrmÉ™n/; born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

[Mike Cl]

  I would like to recommend two books by former Christian biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman

"Misquoting Jesus" which explains why claiming inerrancy  for the New Testament is not supportable. Hint:  until the fifteenth century and Gutenberg's printing press, all books were 'published' by being copied by hand. Simple errors occurred, plus some scribes would deliberately leave out bits or insert bits. I was astounded to learn, that in those times, it was common that a scribe would be illiterate.IE he could copy what  he saw, but could not read or understand it.

The other is " Did Jesus Exist?" . I've only just started reading this book, but it's promising. Ehrman argues the affirmative .

My own position is;   First century Judea was neck deep in wandering Rabbis. The Romans crucified literally thousands of Jews during Roman occupation. So, it's possible, even likely, that there was a rabbi called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf, that he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified for sedition. For the sake of argument I accept that Jesus existed.

What became the New Testament, and the religion called "Christianity" has little or nothing to do with poor Yeshua bar Yusuf . The book is the mythology of Christianity. Virtually all revered holy books are mythology, not history, imo.

Reference ; "Paul; The Mind Of The Apostle' A N Wilson.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Bart Denton Ehrman (/bÉ'ːrt ˈɜːrmÉ™n/; born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

I actually have read a couple of Ehrman's books--its been awhile since I've read them and I'd have to look the titles up in my library.  Jesus was a very common name during the first 2 centuries; in Hebrew and Aramaic, Jesus and Joshua mean the same--saviour.  And that was what the Jews were desperately searching for.  Remember Moses (likely a fiction as well) led them into the promised land, but never set foot in it.  Joshua was the one who conquered the promised land.  So, the search was on for Jesus/Joshua to be a saviour once again--they were hoping for a messiah.  They actually found one in 132 ad, Bar Kokbah.  He defeated the Romans and even had coins minted with his likeness and labeled as messiah.  That lasted 3 years until the Romans became tired of it and smashed him.  Anyway, Jesus as a name was very common.  I find it telling that there was not one single writer nor historian alive in the first 1/3 of the AD's who mentioned him or anything he did.  It is only much later that Paul wrote his material (50's at the earliest) and he mixes in the title of Christ quite a bit along with the name of Jesus.  Christ is not a name, but a title, so he was referring to the title Jesus was to have held.  And I think it is clear that Paul indicated that Christ was not of this world. Anyway, I hold that the Jesus of the bible is a construct of much later writers who drew from many many writings most of which have since been destroyed. 

One of my first books on this subject was Robert M. Price's, The Incredible Shrinking Man.  Daughtery--don't remember the title off hand, also published a very good book dealing with the historicity of Jesus.  I have several more books on my shelves, just can't recall their titles.  My current favorite is Richard Carrier, who published, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.  It is a huge book, well documented and footnoted.  It makes it clear to me that Jesus is a myth and not real. 

While I have a decent library, with books from all camps, I kind of look a little askance at those who are ministers or christians or teachers of christianity because they have a heavy stake in making sure Jesus was real.  I like to read material from all camps, though, so I can make up my own mind and I think I've done well with that.  So, I for the sake of argument, as accept that Jesus was a myth.

[Mike Cl]

Textual criticism I find of interest.  At one point I read all I could get my hands on---years and years ago.  Anyway, my two favorite sites were:

TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism.
http://jbtc.org/#page=home

And a huge one:
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/
The Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism

My computer skills are not the best--hope these links work for you.

[Minimalist]

My biggest issue with On The Historicity of Jesus was Carrier's constant use of that Bayes Theorem nonsense.  It may work in math but trying to apply it to history is just silly.  First off, he freely admits that when he assigns an arbitrary probability score to historicist bullshit he bends over backwards to give them the highest possible score.  This gives away the game in the first inning. 

Forgetting the math nonsense the rest of it is a well reasoned and researched effort which examines ALL of the evidence for jesus  and finds much of it wanting.

[Baruch]

Watched a good Ehrman lecture in the past year.  But he is a liberal Christian apologist.  He is not as objective as Dr Carrier.

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=13403.0

[Mike Cl]

My biggest issue with On The Historicity of Jesus was Carrier's constant use of that Bayes Theorem nonsense.  It may work in math but trying to apply it to history is just silly.  First off, he freely admits that when he assigns an arbitrary probability score to historicist bullshit he bends over backwards to give them the highest possible score.  This gives away the game in the first inning. 

Forgetting the math nonsense the rest of it is a well reasoned and researched effort which examines ALL of the evidence for jesus  and finds much of it wanting.

Yes, the Bayes Theorem did puzzle me.  He wrote an earlier book dealing only with that--I promised myself that I would circle back, later, a read it.  I guess I don't always keep promises to myself, for I've not read it yet.  So, early on, I ignored it.  The rest of the book is very solid.  And his footnotes are so extensive one can use this book as the center of a deep study of the issue from all sides, if one wanted to.  I find much of the Jesus was real evidence wanting.  I am convinced Jesus was a myth.

[Baruch]

Yes, the Bayes Theorem did puzzle me.  He wrote an earlier book dealing only with that--I promised myself that I would circle back, later, a read it.  I guess I don't always keep promises to myself, for I've not read it yet.  So, early on, I ignored it.  The rest of the book is very solid.  And his footnotes are so extensive one can use this book as the center of a deep study of the issue from all sides, if one wanted to.  I find much of the Jesus was real evidence wanting.  I am convinced Jesus was a myth.

Post hoc analysis.  Beysian analysis, gives him a method, other than Hercule Poirot twisting his mustache.  Crossan had the same problem with the Jesus Seminar.  He felt their method wasn't defined enough.  So he did his own analysis, using his own defined method, consistently aka it is reproducible.  Jesus Seminar meetings are not easily reproducible.  One can argue one definite method or other, but at least there is a definite method.

The Historical Jesus and ...

The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus is were he outlines his method in detail.  The results ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Yf6a4rzK0

[Mike Cl]

Post hoc analysis.  Beysian analysis, gives him a method, other than Hercule Poirot twisting his mustache.  Crossan had the same problem with the Jesus Seminar.  He felt their method wasn't defined enough.  So he did his own analysis, using his own defined method, consistently aka it is reproducible.  Jesus Seminar meetings are not easily reproducible.  One can argue one definite method or other, but at least there is a definite method.

The Historical Jesus and ...

The Birth of Christianity : Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus is were he outlines his method in detail.  The results ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Yf6a4rzK0

One day I really will have to read Carrier's description of it.