Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural " only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[Kapyong]

Gday OpenYourEyes and all

My argument is that he is in the minority position to claim that Jesus was entirely made up. That point of mine is still very valid. I'm sure you agree with me on this, and if not I can back it up.

In fact, your argument was that Dr Carrier would not even CONSIDER whether Jesus might have been historical.

I pointed out that Dr Carrier wrote an entire book specifically on this subject.
A book you have NOT read.

Your claim was obviously and demonstrably false.
Along with many other claims you made recently.

Furthermore, Dr Carrier does NOT claim Jesus was 'entirely made up' - nor do I.

In fact I specifically pointed out that the JM theory says the OPPOSITE - that the Jesus story was crafted from previous sources.

Clearly - you still have NO IDEA what the JM theory says :
you have NOT read Dr Carrier's book,
you have NOT responded on my thread on a Spiritual Jesus,
you have NOT really responded on my many other threads with evidence against an HJ.

From your posts recently OpenYourEyes, a reasonable man might conclude that :

*) you have no knowledge of the JM theory

*) and you have no interest in learning any

*) you have a rigid belief in a historical Jesus

*) you cannot admit your own errors on the internet

Would that be correct ?


Kapyong

[OpenYourEyes]

Gday OpenYourEyes and all

My argument is that he is in the minority position to claim that Jesus was entirely made up. That point of mine is still very valid. I'm sure you agree with me on this, and if not I can back it up.

In fact, your argument was that Dr Carrier would not even CONSIDER whether Jesus might have been historical.

Yes, that was a point in my post, but that was not my argument. My view involved there being other literal messiah type people from the 1st century and that the majority of scholars accept that Jesus fits those type of historical figures, with added legendary accretions. Not sure why you bypassed that point which was the bulk of my post, to focus on ONE minor point which I've already acknowledged was inaccurate.

The FACTs are that Richard Carrier views Jesus as being completely made up. If you want evidence for that then I will be more than happy to provide it. If not, then I can only assume that you agree with me on that point.

G'day.

[OpenYourEyes]

Yet another Messianic-type figure from the 1st century...

Acts chapter 8:

9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.

Not too far-fetched for some Jesus fella to come along and be viewed the same way.

[Kapyong]

G'morning all

With Jesus threads here, there, and everywhere, I'll use this thread for all historicity of Jesus posts OK ?

I am pleased to announce that after three days in the virtual tomb, my web-site has risen again ! (Well, it wasn't really three days, but around here 'three days' can be squashed down to 1.8 earth days like the Gospels, so I figure I can stretch it out to my 4-5 days.)

I have even splashed out and bought the domain kapyong.info

I'll probably have to cut down my weekly shopping to two, maybe three cans of dog-food - but I'll be OK no no, don't worry 'bout me

Actually all surprisingly cheap

So now I can again easily and quickly present evidence for a spiritual/mythical Jesus.

But the thing is -
we all have the same evidence - the NT, Jos, Tac, Pl, Suet, JewScr, Gnostics, Apocrypha, Philo, Greek myths, Homer,

However, I think Dr Carrier, and JMers like me, use MORE of the evidence than the hyperbelievers -

How about the Nag Hammadi library ? Which hyperbeliever has researched that ?
Who has read what Paul's contemporary Philo said about the Holy Spirit and the Logos ?
What about all the apocrypha ? All those OTHER Gospels ?
The Didakhe ?
The CRUCIAL work 'The Vision of Isaiah' ?
What about another CRUCIAL work 'The Book of Adam' ?
Which hyperbeliever has read McDonalds work about G.Mark being based on Homer ?
Who has read Homer ?

AFAICS the hyperbelievers read the Bible, and passages which support the bible which they find on web-sites of hyperbelievers.

So then, here my first example of the EVIDENCE FOR Jesus being a mythical being :


(The orange box pickes out the specific example of the 'Empty Tomb'.)

Note well - before Justin c.150, no Christian writer had his hands on a Gospel.

Note especially - mentions of the details of a historical Jesus always follow ON or AFTER mention of the Gospels.

Clear conclusion :
knowledge OF the historical Jesus came only FROM the Gospels,
NOT from any historical or oral tradition

Possible objection :
They didn't mention it because everyone already knew it.

Answer :
Have a look at what happened AFTER about 150 :


(Again the orange box focusses on mentions of 'Empty Tomb'.)

Almost every later Christian writer DOES mention them, in detail, many many times - but they also obviously knew, AND still mentioned them.

That objection is obvious nonsense.

It's quite clear -

*) no Christian writer mentions anything historical about Jesus until he had received a written Gospel

*) all the details of the historical Jesus came from the Gospels

*) all the Gospels are derived from G.Mark


Our ENTIRE source base for the alleged historical Jesus came from ONE book, which spread into four versions.

Those written Gospels remained hidden in their communities until about c.150, when they started to become available to Christians. No Christian, then or now, knew who or where the Gospels came from, nor any of the epistles etc.

Finally, only in the 180s did the Gospels receive their names - from the speculation and guessing of Irenaeus.

One and a half centuries after the alleged death of Jesus the anonymous Gospels were given the names 'According to' : Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

What vast sand-castles have been built on beliefs in ancient anonymous religious literature.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday OpenYourEyes and all,

The FACTs are that Richard Carrier views Jesus as being completely made up. If you want evidence for that then I will be more than happy to provide it. If not, then I can only assume that you agree with me on that point.

I think you are just quibbling over word meanings now.

Dr Carrier DOES argue that Jesus was mythical and based on earlier written sources, that he was NOT historical.

Dr Carrier does NOT argue he was made up out of thin air.

Will you ever get on with discussing the (lack of) evidence for a historical Jesus ?

Or addressing the many mistakes and falsehoods I keep catching you in ?


Kapyong

[OpenYourEyes]

*) all the Gospels are derived from G.Mark
[/b]
Kapyong

This is clearly false. The Gospel of John is from a different source. I can agree with you that the synoptic Gospels are mostly reliant on Mark, while there's also a Q source which may contain Jesus's sayings in oral and written form. This view is referred to as Marcan priority (or four source hypothesis), and it is used to explain the synoptic problem which again does not involve John's Gospel.

G'day

[Kapyong]

Gday all

For all hyperbelievers who think Paul's phrase "born of woman" is evidence for a historical Jesus, consider the context :

Paul tells us in Galatians 4:1 "I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father! So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. "

Does he name Mary ? Or place the mother in history ?
Hint: Nope.

Paul then goes on to describe an allegory of mothers and sons :

Gal 4:22 ' For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

"Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman. So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. '

Here we see explicit allegory about two mothers :

*) Hagar, born under the slavery of the law, who is an allegory of Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem

*) Jerusalem above, an allegory who is free, and she is our mother.

Paul is apparently saying :

*) Jesus Christ the son-of-God was born allegorically to Hagar, under the law, in the earthly Jerusalem.

*) Christians are re-born allegorically in Jerusalem above.

It's an allegory, and nothing to do with history.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday OpenYourEyes and all

The Gospel of John is from a different source. ...
Q.

Well, present your argument for another source to G.John.

Q ?
Do you have any evidence for Q ?
Or just speculative conclusions of others that it may have existed ?


Kapyong

[historia]

Whenever this question comes up, people tend to barrel straight into discussing the various historical sources (witness the conversation above and the previous threads), but I think it's important to first set out a few epistemological and methodological concerns before examining the available data, or else we talk in circles.

First, we can never 'prove' what happened in the past. We cannot recreate the past, and therefore can never know (in some absolute sense) what actually happened. Historians only speak of what probably or most likely happened.

Second, the historical method proceeds like any other area of human inquiry: we make observations, form a hypothesis, and then critically examine the available data to assess our hypothesis. In particular, we are looking to provide an argument to the best explanation.

Third, it is not enough simply to doubt the existence of Jesus. If someone wishes to maintain that Jesus didn't exist, they need to provide an alternative hypothesis that better explains the available historical evidence in light of our background knowledge than the hypothesis that Jesus did exist. The best hypothesis will have greater explanatory scope and explanatory power than the others, and will be more plausible and less ad hoc.

Finally, there is no "neutral" position here. A consensus of qualified experts on any topic meets the initial burden of evidence. And we have that here in the case of the historical Jesus: the consensus is he existed. So the burden of proof lies with anyone who would challenge such a consensus.

Criticizing the hypothesis that Jesus existed on the grounds that (a) we cannot prove it, or (b) that it requires we make judgments based on incomplete data, or that (c) you are personally unconvinced but unable to advance any alternative hypothesis, is a poor argument. If anyone directs such arguments at me in this thread, I will simply refer you back to this post and suggest you provide a better one.

[historia]

Having laid out the above concerns, let's come back to the original question.

Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

Yes, I think Jesus of Nazareth existed, because that hypothesis best explains the available data.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept

First, let's make some observations: Christianity exists, and is a religious movement (that much I assume no one doubts). Looking at other religious movements, we might note that they often (although not always) trace their origin back to a single (often charismatic) individual. Mormons trace their movement back to Joseph Smith, for example, Lutherans trace theirs back to Martin Luther, Muslims to Muhammad, and so on.

Some more observations: All of the documents we posses from the ancient world that discuss Christianity, both by Christians themselves and from Jewish and pagan sources critical of the faith, implicitly or explicitly say that Jesus of Nazareth started the movement. There is no alternative tradition naming someone else (e.g., Paul or Peter) as the originator of the movement.

Based on this, then, the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed seems entirely reasonable. This is not a radical claim; in fact, to some extent, we would expect to find a charismatic Jew at the origin of this movement based on Judaism.

What remains then is to see if this hypothesis really does explain the data better than competing hypotheses, by comparing it to the alternative "mythicist" hypothesis. There is a lot of ground to cover here, and each data point could be its own thread. But I'll offer a few up for discussion and maybe a few more if the discussion goes well and I have time.