ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags historical jesus , jesus

Reply
Old 5th November 2020, 04:56 AM   #2761
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Nevertheless, my claim that the mythicist theory (with a few notable exceptions) is a largely discarded 19th century notion still stands. This applies to Volney and Dupuis The notable exceptions, as you note, are the likes of Richard Carrier and Robert Price et al.
That is totally non sequqitor as the early mythicist theories were on the Volney side of the fence ie the man existed but the Gospels are largely fiction.

David Strauss who accepted Jesus existed was a Volney mythicist - The Times (February 06, 1910). Sir James George Frazer was a Volney mythicist but was called a Dupuis mythicist so many times he had to spell it out in 1913 - "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" and even then Albert Schweitzer didn't get the memo as he put poor Frazer in the groups of people "who contested the historical existence of Jesus" in 1933.

The generalize term Remsburg used (pulled from Strauss) for what amounted to Volney mythicism was is historical myth - "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical."

One of the best example of a historical myth was that Christopher Columbus sailed west to prove the world was round. The reality is no one back then believed the earth was flat. That story is a historical myth.

Another historical myth is that Lincoln was a beloved president when in reality per the actual records of the time he comes off as one the most hated presidents.

Yet another historical myth is sound film didn't exist until 1927 with the Jazz Singer - the reality there were sound film all the way back to 1900 as demonstrated by Little Titch y sus Big Boots (1900) and Cyrano de Bergerac (1900 film) for which the sound cylinders still exist.

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing, 2004 spends a whole freaking chapter ("A Question of Definition") regarding what is meant by the term "Historical Jesus" and even he states that the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist ie a Volney mythist.

Volney mythism didn't get "largely discarded" but went main stream a long time ago.

Personally I go with the Volney mythist John M. Robertson who effectively had the Gospel Jesus a composite character formed out of
1) The Jesus of the Talmud
2) A Jesus who "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and thereby met his death"
3) A Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation that been slain at some time of social tumult

As Archibald Robertson summed up in his 1946 Jesus: Myth Or History : "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a man]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

It is a good Occam's Razor to explain all the historical hiccups without going all ad hoc. The are just too many irregularities in the Gospel account to say it is anything but historical myth.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your baseless claim does not stand at all. It is actually the reverse. HJ arguments have been discarded over and over since the 19th century. This is now the the third quest for an historical Jesus.

The multiple quests for an historical Jesus have failed. For hundreds of years Scholars have not been able to present any historical evidence for an HJ and simply make up their own Jesus based on their imagination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_...storical_Jesus
As I said more and more of Volney for from being "discarded" went main stream. As I have said when we can cross check the Gospel narrative it just doesn't fit.

Last edited by maximara; 5th November 2020 at 05:05 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2020, 03:42 PM   #2762
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,254
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
That is totally non sequqitor as the early mythicist theories were on the Volney side of the fence ie the man existed but the Gospels are largely fiction.
...
As I said more and more of Volney for from being "discarded" went main stream. As I have said when we can cross check the Gospel narrative it just doesn't fit.
Volney was the Acharya S of his time. He proposed that the Jesus story shared similarities with myths around the region. His landmark book, "The Ruins", is available on-line. Here is a snippet:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1397/1397-h/1397-h.htm
Finally, these traditions went so far as to mention even his astrological and mythological names, and inform us that he was called sometimes Chris, that is to say, preserver,* and from that, ye Indians, you have made your god Chrish-en or Chrish-na; and, ye Greek and Western Christians, your Chris-tos, son of Mary, is the same; sometimes he is called Yes, by the union of three letters, which by their numerical value form the number 608, one of the solar periods.** And this, Europeans, is the name which, with the Latin termination, is become your Yes-us or Jesus, the ancient and cabalistic name attributed to young Bacchus, the clandestine son (nocturnal) of the Virgin Minerva, who, in the history of his whole life, and even of his death, brings to mind the history of the god of the Christians, that is, of the star of day, of which they are each of them the emblems.
This kind of nonsense was popular in the 19th Century, and is the same that Acharya S used more recently in her books. In no way or form has this become more popular among scholars. "Krishna" comes from "Chris-na"? "Jesus" comes from "Yes-us", based on one of the solar periods? Really?

The idea that there was a historical Jesus whose origin is now obscured is certainly more mainstream. But to call Volney's ideas about what the origin of the story was as more mainstream is not correct.

I recommend reading through Volney's book though. He is scathing about the influence of priests and the religion of his time.

Last edited by GDon; 5th November 2020 at 03:46 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 12:31 AM   #2763
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
This kind of nonsense was popular in the 19th Century, and is the same that Acharya S used more recently in her books. In no way or form has this become more popular among scholars. "Krishna" comes from "Chris-na"? "Jesus" comes from "Yes-us", based on one of the solar periods? Really? The idea that there was a historical Jesus whose origin is now obscured is certainly more mainstream. But to call Volney's ideas about what the origin of the story was as more mainstream is not correct.
Is was talking about the "Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology." part Volney. Let's face it interpretation of the ancient world in the 19th century was so off in lala land that it comes off as them doing some really heavy drugs.

Its like Alfred Wegener - his mechanic was way off (centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation) but his core idea that the continents moved was correct. This is what I mean about Volney becoming main stream. His general conclusion of an obscure historical figure being plugged into an already existing mythology has become mainstream even if his interpretation of how it happed was off in lala land.

Regarding Acharya S, I found that the raw information she gave was reliable given what existed at that time. It was when she tried to interpret that information that things promptly went off the rails into tinfoil pear shape land.

Digging around I think I found something regarding Drews "in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus" comment. On the surface this makes no sense as Gerardus Vossius didn't become a formal new testament scholar unto the seventeenth century.

The problem with this reference to Vossius' Josephus is that "According to the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled ("CMU"), this Vossius mentioned by a number of writers as having possessed a copy of Josephus's Antiquities lacking the TF is "I. Vossius," whose works appeared in Latin. Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius's works. Moreover, the Vossius in question seems to be Gerardus, rather than his son, Isaac, who was born in the seventeenth century."

However, "The letters i and j: In the Roman alphabet, i and j were two forms of the same letter, but in the 16th and 17th centuries, i was used instead of j, both initially and medially, either vowel or consonant. As a consonant, the letter was pronounced as we pronounce j, as in jury, but written iury" So the "I. Vossius" could have been the father of Gerardus Vossius, Johannes Vossius. Sadly, material this old is full of partial references (if they exist at all) so little is known about where the material they cite originally came from. - Josephus (Rationalwiki)

Last edited by maximara; 6th November 2020 at 12:35 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 04:10 AM   #2764
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,254
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
I was talking about the "Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology" part Volney.
True, but that particular idea was in the air during the Age of Enlightenment. In Volney's time, atheists and deists like Thomas Paine had questioned the historical basis of the Bible (though not questioning the existence of a historical Jesus).

Here is Thomas Paine (~1736 – 1809):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions...
Anyway, that is a LONG way away from your earlier statement: "Volney mythism didn't get 'largely discarded' but went main stream a long time ago." Do you have some other part of Volney's mythicism in mind that has gone mainstream?
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2020, 04:41 AM   #2765
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Do you have some other part of Volney's mythicism in mind that has gone mainstream?
"Volney suggested in his work, “ Les Ruines”, that the Jesus figure was an obscure historical character whose life was integrated into a solar mythology" - Roberts, Geoff (2011) Jesus 888 Troubador Publishing pg 144

Perhaps you have heard of Sol Invictus whose December 25 celebration became Jesus birthday by Emperor Edict? as pointed out in Jesus myth theory (Rationalwiki):

Luke tells us that shepherds were tending their sheep in the fields when Jesus was born, something that shepherds did June until November.[242][243]

In fact, before the decree there was much debate regarding when Jesus was born. Tertullian (c 160–220 CE) and Hippolytus (c 170-235 CE) said March 25; Clement (c 150-215 CE) gave 25th day of Pachon (May 20) and the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi (April 19 or 20),[244] while others were saying January 6 (the birthday of Osiris), and still others pointed to the Essenes whose couples had sex in December so their child would be born September (the holy month of Atonement).[245]

This means any argument that Jesus was a myth or historical based on the December 25 date is doomed from the start because that part of the story isn't even in the Bible and didn't appear until well into the 4th century.

--

Note the very carful wording there used by Geoff Roberts. So while Volney may have got the details wrong as far as his conclusion was concerned to quote a certain character "it was true ...from a certain point of view."

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Here is Thomas Paine (~1736 – 1809):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions...
And this is different from Remsburg who seems to be the go to for every armchair Christ Myther how?

"The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth. [...] It is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology [...] Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist".

Heck, John Remsburg's The Christ is now being republished as The Christ Myth.

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing, 2004 summed it perfectly: [W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about

Like I said before, it seems like any scholar that publishes via Eerdmans seems to believe in the "water-walking, transfiguring, son of a ghost without a human father, who resurrected and ascended in a cloud after appearing to his disciples" Jesus. "This view [Christ Myth theory] states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." New Flash there Eerdmans, but Troy actually existed and the Norse's Vinland actually existed.

For the TL;DR crowd: The historical Jesus is a range of ideas which means its counterpoint mythisim is also a range of ideas.

Last edited by maximara; 6th November 2020 at 05:07 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2020, 10:01 AM   #2766
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,766
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
....."The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being......
Supernatural beings do not exist.

NT Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 11:30 PM   #2767
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,117
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Supernatural beings do not exist.
Indeed.

Quote:
NT Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.
Strawman argument. No-one here is arguing that the figure most scholars agree is at the core of the X'tian religion, was the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 11:36 PM   #2768
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Supernatural beings do not exist.

NT Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.
You're confusing/mixing the terms as Remsburg used/defined them:

*Jesus of Bethlehem is the supernatural being

*Jesus of Nazareth is "the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed"

A perfect example of what I am talking about is John Frum.

"Jesus Frum a.k.a. John Christ" in Ratinalwiki's Jesus Myth theory article goes into detail on how Jesus could have been both supernatural being and actual flesh and blood man:

However, if you examine the John Frum cargo cult in detail one can see possibly of one or more inspired believers deciding to become Jesus even if Jesus originally started out as nothing more than a celestial being. So it is well within reason as John Robertson implied in 1900 that one or more people inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, preached their own view of Paul's message, and possibly got killed for it. It is one way to read Paul's 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warning of minds being "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by "another Jesus, whom we have not preached," "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted".

(...)

As you can see from Guiart's 1952 article, a mere 11 years after the John Frum movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun (the High god of the region), a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult, or the name of some other person who inspired the cult perhaps as much as 30 years previously. If to confuse things further it has been suggested that Tom Navy, a companion to John Frum, is based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war

==
This is what you keep missing. Yes, the NT Jesus didn't exist but that doesn't mean there wasn't some relatively obscure preacher named Jesus in the 1st century BC to 1st century CE period around whom the NT version was built. THis is what John M. Robertson building from the Volney side of the Christ Myth came up with - the NT Jesus didn't exist because he was a composite character formed out of pre-existing myth and various actual flesh and blood preachers.

Last edited by maximara; 11th November 2020 at 11:41 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 08:03 PM   #2769
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,766
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Indeed.



Strawman argument. No-one here is arguing that the figure most scholars agree is at the core of the X'tian religion, was the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.
Your statement does not make sense. People here are arguing that NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 08:11 PM   #2770
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,766
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
You're confusing/mixing the terms as Remsburg used/defined them:

*Jesus of Bethlehem is the supernatural being

*Jesus of Nazareth is "the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed"

A perfect example of what I am talking about is John Frum.

"Jesus Frum a.k.a. John Christ" in Ratinalwiki's Jesus Myth theory article goes into detail on how Jesus could have been both supernatural being and actual flesh and blood man:

However, if you examine the John Frum cargo cult in detail one can see possibly of one or more inspired believers deciding to become Jesus even if Jesus originally started out as nothing more than a celestial being. So it is well within reason as John Robertson implied in 1900 that one or more people inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, preached their own view of Paul's message, and possibly got killed for it. It is one way to read Paul's 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warning of minds being "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by "another Jesus, whom we have not preached," "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted".

(...)

As you can see from Guiart's 1952 article, a mere 11 years after the John Frum movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun (the High god of the region), a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult, or the name of some other person who inspired the cult perhaps as much as 30 years previously. If to confuse things further it has been suggested that Tom Navy, a companion to John Frum, is based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war

==
This is what you keep missing. Yes, the NT Jesus didn't exist but that doesn't mean there wasn't some relatively obscure preacher named Jesus in the 1st century BC to 1st century CE period around whom the NT version was built. THis is what John M. Robertson building from the Volney side of the Christ Myth came up with - the NT Jesus didn't exist because he was a composite character formed out of pre-existing myth and various actual flesh and blood preachers.
What you say doesn't mean NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

You seem confused.

There are two fundamental opposing arguments.

1. NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

2. NT Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of history.

I am arguing that NT Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of history based on existing evidence.

The argument for an HJ is baseless since there is no existing historical evidence to support such an argument.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 10:31 PM   #2771
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,117
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your statement does not make sense. People here are arguing that NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction.
What I said was that most scholars agree an historical figure is at the core of the X'tian religion. Albeit it NOT the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.

"Lack of support for mythicism:

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357] However, more attention has been given to mythicism in recent years due to it recurring when people ask scholars like Bart Ehrman about it.[358] According to him, nearly all scholars who study the early Christian period believe that he did exist and Ehrman observes that mythicist writings are generally of poor quality because they are usually authored by amateurs and non-scholars who have no academic credentials or have never taught at academic institutions.[358] Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ..._for_mythicism
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2020, 06:48 AM   #2772
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,766
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
What I said was that most scholars agree an historical figure is at the core of the X'tian religion....
We already know that billions of people say NT Jesus of Nazareth existed without a shred of historical evidence.



Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
.........Albeit it NOT the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.

"Lack of support for mythicism:

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357] However, more attention has been given to mythicism in recent years due to it recurring when people ask scholars like Bart Ehrman about it.[358] According to him, nearly all scholars who study the early Christian period believe that he did exist and Ehrman observes that mythicist writings are generally of poor quality because they are usually authored by amateurs and non-scholars who have no academic credentials or have never taught at academic institutions.[358] Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ..._for_mythicism
The opinion of people (scholars or not) that NT Jesus existed without any supporting historical evidence is completely irrelevant.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is complete fiction as described by Christians writings of antiquity in and out the NT.

In addition, there is no historical evidence of his family, his disciples/apostles, Saul/Paul and no evidence whatsoever of Jews worshipping a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God anytime in the 1st century.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is a 2nd century fabrication.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2020, 08:54 PM   #2773
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
What I said was that most scholars agree an historical figure is at the core of the X'tian religion. Albeit it NOT the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.

"Lack of support for mythicism:

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357] However, more attention has been given to mythicism in recent years due to it recurring when people ask scholars like Bart Ehrman about it.[358] According to him, nearly all scholars who study the early Christian period believe that he did exist and Ehrman observes that mythicist writings are generally of poor quality because they are usually authored by amateurs and non-scholars who have no academic credentials or have never taught at academic institutions.[358] Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ..._for_mythicism
As pointed out before that is not correct as not all mythism entirely throws the historical Jesus baby out with the Gospel's mythical bathwater.

Meanings of "Christ myth theory"
“[W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." —New Testament scholar Ian Howard MarshallWikipedia, I Believe in the Historical Jesus[6]

*Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community. (Effectively Dupuis' position)

*The Christ myth may be a form of modern docetism.[7]

*Jesus agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.[8]

*Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.[9][10] (Effectively Volney's position)

*The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.[11][12]

*Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.[13][14]

*The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this.[15] Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price and Eddy-Boyd,[16] while Richard Carrier has used them as examples of an ahistorical Jesus.[17]

*Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."[18] A Jesus who died of old age, only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups, or was killed outside the 26-36 CE reign of Pontius Pilate[note 1] would fit under this version.

*The Christ myth is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.[19] For Ehrman a Jesus who existed but didn't found Christianity would be a "mythical" Jesus.[20] (This would make Remsburg's position "mythic" even though he accepted Jesus existed as a human being because Remsburg believed Jesus preached a form of Judaism which was turned into Christianity by his followers. It would also make Isræl Knohl's Jesus who used ideas and the followers from a previous 1st BCE messiah "mythical".)

*"This view [Christ Myth theory] states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."[21][22] Remsburg held to the idea that Jesus the man existed (in some manner) but the various accounts that survive tell us nothing truly historical about that person. There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" -- George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories, as told, are almost certainly fictional in nature.

*Christ myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."[23]

*Jesus actually existed "but had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"[24] In other words Jesus either took over an already existing Christian movement or his movement was turned into Christianity after he died. Michael O. Wise, points to a messiah in 72 BCE[25] while Israel Knohl points to a messiah who died 4 BCE[26] who could have left movements in their wake that Jesus directed into what became Christianity by the 2nd century.

Anyone claiming all that "is a fringe theory" is either ignorant, dishonest, or intentionally using a straw man version of what the Christ Myth theory really is. Heck, that last one is from Ehrman 2012, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 9780062206442. pp. 12 and the "historical but insignificant figure" comes from a Cambridge University Press work. The "story of Jesus is mythical" is still being presented by scholars who use Eerdmans even today. Ignoring these other definitions is not going to make them go away.

Last edited by maximara; 13th November 2020 at 09:07 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2020, 09:29 PM   #2774
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
What you say doesn't mean NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history..
Never said he was.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You seem confused.
.
No you are the one who is confused.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
There are two fundamental opposing arguments.

1. NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

2. NT Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of history.
.
As explained by others it is NOT that simple. Take Troy, for example. Certainly the Trojan War of the Iliad with deities getting involved is a mythic battle but we found the real Troy and its fall seems to be part of the whole Bronze Age collapse.

The George Washington who chopped down a cherry tree is not a figure of history but that doesn't mean there wasn't an actual George Washington.

You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of composite character. It is within reason to supposed some relatively obscure preacher named Jesus around whom elements of other historical preachers were used to flesh out a fictional version of the man.

From rationalwioi's Josehus article:

===Length and a host of holy men===
Josephus gives far more space and-or detail to the following would-be 'Messiahs'. 'Sons of Man', 'the Righ*teous Ones', and 'the Elect [or Chosen] Ones' (i.e. "christs") that were showing up all over first century CE Palestine<ref>''Jewish Antiquities'' 17.269-270</ref>{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=67-73}} then to Jesus (who got a measly one (maybe two) paragraphs):

* Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE).{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=26-30}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.57-59}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.273-277}}

* Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.271-272}}

* Matthias, son of Margalothus (during the time of Herod the Great){{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.147-150}} - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

* Athronges (c 3 CE) - who "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." {{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.278-284}}

* Judas of Galilee (6 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.1, 20.5.2}}<ref>{{bible|Acts|5|47}}</ref>

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.97-98}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. <ref>[http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upl...t-12.11.25.pdf Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting]</ref>

* An anonymous prophet (59 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=20.188}}

* Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.433-434}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.442-448}}

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover section of "Mark"{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

* Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE).

* John of Giscala (d c70 CE).<ref>appears periodically in Book IV, V, and VII of ''The Jewish War''.</ref>

* Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.26-32}}

* Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.437-450}}

==
Odds are the NT Jesus is formed out of several of the above. The Samaritan prophet for when NT Jesus was killed and elements from Egyptian Jew Messiah (Matthew's coming out of Egypt narrative), and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] in altered from for part of Mark's narrative.

Last edited by maximara; 13th November 2020 at 09:34 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2020, 04:07 AM   #2775
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,766
Originally Posted by maximara View Post

The George Washington who chopped down a cherry tree is not a figure of history but that doesn't mean there wasn't an actual George Washington...
You are confused.

Never said George Washington did not exist.



Originally Posted by maximara View Post
You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of composite character. It is within reason to supposed some relatively obscure preacher named Jesus around whom elements of other historical preachers were used to flesh out a fictional version of the man.....
You seem to have no idea that a composite character is still fictional [a fabricated character]

Originally Posted by maximara

From rationalwioi's Josehus article:

===Length and a host of holy men===
Josephus gives far more space and-or detail to the following would-be 'Messiahs'. 'Sons of Man', 'the Righ*teous Ones', and 'the Elect [or Chosen] Ones' (i.e. "christs") that were showing up all over first century CE Palestine<ref>''Jewish Antiquities'' 17.269-270</ref>{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=67-73}} then to Jesus (who got a measly one (maybe two) paragraphs):

* Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE).{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=26-30}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.57-59}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.273-277}}

* Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.271-272}}

* Matthias, son of Margalothus (during the time of Herod the Great){{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.147-150}} - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

* Athronges (c 3 CE) - who "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." {{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.278-284}}

* Judas of Galilee (6 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.1, 20.5.2}}<ref>{{bible|Acts|5|47}}</ref>

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.97-98}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. <ref>[http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upl...t-12.11.25.pdf Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting]</ref>

* An anonymous prophet (59 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=20.188}}

* Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.433-434}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.442-448}}

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover section of "Mark"{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

* Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE).

* John of Giscala (d c70 CE).<ref>appears periodically in Book IV, V, and VII of ''The Jewish War''.</ref>

* Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.26-32}}

* Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.437-450}}

==
Odds are the NT Jesus is formed out of several of the above. The Samaritan prophet for when NT Jesus was killed and elements from Egyptian Jew Messiah (Matthew's coming out of Egypt narrative), and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] in altered from for part of Mark's narrative.
You have confirmed your confusion.

Since you claim that it is likely that NT Jesus was formed using multiple characters then you are supporting my argument that NT Jesus was fabricated.

NT Jesus did not exist but was manufactured from events written decades after the time of Pilate.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2020, 10:14 AM   #2776
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,796
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
*The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.[11][12]
This is why I don't like the description of "mythical Jesus" and prefer "Legendary Jesus."

I put Jesus right up there with Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2020, 02:26 PM   #2777
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,419
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
This is why I don't like the description of "mythical Jesus" and prefer "Legendary Jesus."

I put Jesus right up there with Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.



Given that any degree of historical fact is not needed to believe in legends, we might as well throw Batman, Zorro, and Fred Flintstone into the group as well.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2020, 06:05 AM   #2778
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You are confused.

Never said George Washington did not exist.
Are you being serious! You do this all the time. When someone uses an analogy to counter your claims you say "but I never said that [analogy]".
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2020, 02:21 PM   #2779
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,158
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
This is why I don't like the description of "mythical Jesus" and prefer "Legendary Jesus."

I put Jesus right up there with Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
And Chuck Norris.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2020, 05:39 PM   #2780
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
This is why I don't like the description of "mythical Jesus" and prefer "Legendary Jesus."

I put Jesus right up there with Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
But all three of those fall into the Jesus agnosticism par of the Christ Myth theory ie 'the story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the character described can be shown to be historical (in any meaningful way).

John Henry is in much the same spot.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2020, 10:53 AM   #2781
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,796
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
But all three of those fall into the Jesus agnosticism par of the Christ Myth theory ie 'the story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the character described can be shown to be historical (in any meaningful way).

John Henry is in much the same spot.
Sure, that's the nature of a legend. That's why I think Legend is a better descriptor of Jesus than Myth.

If you have to clarify what you mean by Myth, or have subsets of different types of myths, it's ripe for confusion, or, even to the point of bait-and-switch (which is largely what happens).

So just call it a Legend, which means that "nothing about it including the very existence of the character described can be shown to be historical (in any meaningful way)."
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2020, 11:02 AM   #2782
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,237
There is an enduring myth of the young Jesus's penchant for adventure sports, a vestige of which legend is the phrase 'Jesus Christ on a pogo stick'.

Given that pogo sticks do exist, is it the view of experts that there may be some truth at the core of the Jesus myth after all?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2020, 11:44 AM   #2783
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,796
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
There is an enduring myth of the young Jesus's penchant for adventure sports, a vestige of which legend is the phrase 'Jesus Christ on a pogo stick'.

Given that pogo sticks do exist, is it the view of experts that there may be some truth at the core of the Jesus myth after all?
As I sign of how bad COVID isolation is, we watched pogo championships on ESPN a couple of days ago. I don't remember any competitors named Jesus, though.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 09:35 AM   #2784
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Sure, that's the nature of a legend. That's why I think Legend is a better descriptor of Jesus than Myth.

If you have to clarify what you mean by Myth, or have subsets of different types of myths, it's ripe for confusion, or, even to the point of bait-and-switch (which is largely what happens).

So just call it a Legend, which means that "nothing about it including the very existence of the character described can be shown to be historical (in any meaningful way)."
Remburg (author of The Christ) had such definitions (pulled from David Strauss):

A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, are historical myths. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. “Nothing great has been established,” says Renan, “which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived.”

A Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the dress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and heroes of antiquity are pure myths. John Fiske refers to a myth as “a piece of unscientific philosophizing,” and this is a fairly good definition of the philosophical myth.

A Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks, and the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and foster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, belong to this class.

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?

==

Jesus falls into that historical and philosophical myth boundary and historical myth's "The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." is the real issue especially that "the narrative is essentially false" part.

A classic case is the "legend" of the Bermuda Triangle - thanks to distortion and omission of relevent facts. One could say that it does fit into the "myth" category very well as some incidence have no evidence as every happening.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 10:13 PM   #2785
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,766
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Remburg (author of The Christ) had such definitions (pulled from David Strauss):

A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, are historical myths. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. “Nothing great has been established,” says Renan, “which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived.”

A Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the dress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and heroes of antiquity are pure myths. John Fiske refers to a myth as “a piece of unscientific philosophizing,” and this is a fairly good definition of the philosophical myth.

A Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks, and the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and foster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, belong to this class.

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?

==

Jesus falls into that historical and philosophical myth boundary and historical myth's "The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." is the real issue especially that "the narrative is essentially false" part.

A classic case is the "legend" of the Bermuda Triangle - thanks to distortion and omission of relevent facts. One could say that it does fit into the "myth" category very well as some incidence have no evidence as every happening.
NT Jesus of Nazareth does not fall into the historical myth category at all since there is no historical evidence of his existence.

The historical myth can only refer to characters where historical evidence is known.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is a non-historical character like the Greek/Roman myth Romulus the founder of Rome, born of a phantom and a virgin.

See Plutarch Romulus.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

Pultarch Romulus
Quote:
......... a virgin should give herself to the apparition, and that a son should be born of her, highly renowned, eminent for valour, good fortune, and strength of body. ......
See gLuke
Luke 1.
Quote:
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.....
NT Jesus is even in a far worse position than even Romulus since no well known writer of antiquity mentioned such a character when writing about events in the 1st century.


Even Christian writers admitted their Jesus was no different to Greek mythology.

See Justin's First Apology

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

Justin's First Apology XXI
Quote:
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
NT Jesus is the perfect example of total imaginative fiction/mythology without a shred of reference in any historical writing up to at least 100 CE.

Last edited by dejudge; 17th November 2020 at 10:15 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2020, 10:51 AM   #2786
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
NT Jesus of Nazareth does not fall into the historical myth category at all since there is no historical evidence of his existence.
You are ignoring the "a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" part of Historical Myth.

If we got with he composite character hypothosis and look at Jospehus for our possible components (bolded ones with relevant parts are IMHO the most likely components):

* Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE).{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=26-30}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.57-59}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.273-277}}

* Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.271-272}}

* Matthias, son of Margalothus (during the time of Herod the Great){{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.147-150}} - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

* Athronges (c 3 CE) - who "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." {{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.278-284}}

* Judas of Galilee (6 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.1, 20.5.2}}<ref>{{bible|Acts|5|47}}</ref>

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.97-98}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting

* An anonymous prophet (59 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=20.188}}

* Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.433-434}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.442-448}}

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover sectionof "Mark" {{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

* Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE).

* John of Giscala (d c70 CE).<ref>appears periodically in Book IV, V, and VII of ''The Jewish War''.</ref>

* Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.26-32}}

* Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.437-450}}

for the TL;DR crowd that is: The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate; Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE) for the Jesus came out of Egypt and preached from the Mount of Olives, and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE)(in distorted form) for the Passover section of Mark.

Were any of these people born of a vergin? No, but neither were Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, and Plato and yet we know those were actual historical people. So the "a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" part of Historical Myth cannot be dismissed ergo the NT Jesus for all the supernatural nonsense and being a composite character is a historical myth in the same way Uncle Sam is a historical myth based on Samuel Wilson.

Last edited by maximara; 18th November 2020 at 11:05 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 05:50 AM   #2787
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,766
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
You are ignoring the "a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" part of Historical Myth.`
What small residuum of truth remains? Where is it? Which book? Which manuscript?

There is no reference whatsoever to NT Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his disciples/apostles, Saul/Paul, Jews who worshipped a man as a `God in any non-apologetic extant writing about events up to at least 110 CE.

It is clear to me that your claim of "a small residuum of truth" about NT Jesus of Nazareth is rather baseless and derived from imagination.

The NT Jesus of Nazareth story is fiction fabricated by non-Jews who were not from ancient Judea and were not familiar with Jewish customs.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 12:39 AM   #2788
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
What small residuum of truth remains? Where is it? Which book? Which manuscript?
I clarified what I was doing in the very next line down from the one you quoted:

"If we got with he composite character hypothosis and look at Josephus for our possible components..."

I even provided a TL DR part as to what "small residuum of truth remains" refers to:

For the TL DR crowd that is: The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate; Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE) for the Jesus came out of Egypt and preached from the Mount of Olives, and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE)(in distorted form) for the Passover section of Mark.

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover sectionof "Mark" {{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

Those things in bold are called references. What you ask for was already provided.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
There is no reference whatsoever to NT Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his disciples/apostles, Saul/Paul, Jews who worshipped a man as a `God in any non-apologetic extant writing about events up to at least 110 CE.
It is comments like this one that shows you seem to not fully understand the concept of a composite character when it comes to Jesus. As for Paul the rationalwioi article on him has this:

Moreover recent scholarship suggests Justin Martyr not only knew of Paul but used Paul's ideas and in some cases even quoted or paraphrased him.[17][18]

Similarly the John Frum movement shows just how asinine the idea of a fictional Paul is. Paul Raffaele's February 2006 Smithsonian article "In John They Trust"[19] talks about a schism in the John Frum movement with a Prophet Fred who Raffaele is told broke with the main leader, Chief Isaac, in 1999. Raffaele is also told by a man claiming to be Prophet Fred's brother-in-law that Prophet Fred “raised his wife from the dead two weeks ago.” Yet when Raffaele goes to the village Prophet Fred lives in he is told that Prophet Fred has gone to the island’s northern tip to preach. By the logic (if such a word can even be used for this argument) used by those saying Paul didn't exist then Prophet Fred can't exist:

*We only have believers in John Frum saying Prophet Fred existed just as we only have believers in Jesus saying Paul existed
*No non-believer in John Frum has actually met Prophet Fred just as no non-believer in Jesus had actually met Paul
*Seven epistles appear to be of one hand and based on internal evidence are earlier then other epistles under the name Paul while Prophet Fred as far as we know hasn't written a single thing.
So there is less evidence that Prophet Fred existed in 2005 than for Paul around 50-70 CE, but (and this is the important part) there is no one as far as we know who is claiming Prophet Fred didn't exist.

So where is the consistent logic in saying the Paul who is credited with being the author of seven epistles said to be written-dictated by him didn't exist? That Paul (opposed to the one in Acts which can be shown to be on par with 19th century fictional stories starring real people) doesn't have anything that indicates that any contemporary would notice him. Rather we get a person who is trying to take the movement in a certain direction just as what happened previously with Manehevi, Neloaig, and Iokaeye only Prophet Fred seems to take steps to avoid potential conflict (Raffaele's exact comment regarding Prophet Fred not being in the village he visits is "that he’s gone to the island’s northern tip to preach, most likely to avoid the celebrations")

Epistle Paul comes off as a 1st century John Ballou Newbrough with his effort in taking Christianity in a certain direction being on par with what the Oahspe movement was for its time: nothing more than a curiosity.
--
On a side the only reason anyone even gives a fig about John Ballou Newbrough and his Oahspe today is it is the earliest work to mention "spaceship". Heck, the only reason we even know John Ballou Newbrough actually existed is due to the meticulous record keeping that the printing press allowed and the Yellow Journalism attitude of the time. Otherwise he would likely be on par with John Henry.

Similarly, the only reason someone gave a fig leaf the John Watson in the list of casualties of the Boar War is that people who play The Game (assume Sherlock Holmes actually existed) a little too far use to "prove" Sherlock Holmes really existed.

Last edited by maximara; 22nd November 2020 at 01:15 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 09:11 AM   #2789
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,766
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
I clarified what I was doing in the very next line down from the one you quoted:

"If we got with he composite character hypothosis and look at Josephus for our possible components..."

I even provided a TL DR part as to what "small residuum of truth remains" refers to:

For the TL DR crowd that is: The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate; Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE) for the Jesus came out of Egypt and preached from the Mount of Olives, and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE)(in distorted form) for the Passover section of Mark.

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover sectionof "Mark" {{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

Those things in bold are called references. What you ask for was already provided.
You have not provided any residuum of truth for NT Jesus of Nazareth. You seem not to understand that a composite character is a fabrication.

In the NT Jesus of Nazareth was supposedly crucified under Pilate when Caiaphas was high priest or no later than 36 CE.

You have only shown that NT Jesus of Nazareth was manufactured by using events about characters who lived decades later.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
It is comments like this one that shows you seem to not fully understand the concept of a composite character when it comes to Jesus. As for Paul the rationalwioi article on him has this:

Moreover recent scholarship suggests Justin Martyr not only knew of Paul but used Paul's ideas and in some cases even quoted or paraphrased him.[17][18]...
There is no evidence whatsoever that the writings attributed to Justin Martyr show any knowledge of NT Paul, NT Paul as a early evangelist, NT Pauline Epistles, or used his ideas.

In the extant works of Justin, the writer clearly stated that it was twelve illiterate from Jerusalem who preached the gospel to every race and that it was the books of the prophets and the memoirs of the apostles that were read in the churches - nothing at all about NT Paul, his preaching and his supposed Epistles.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

Justin's First Apology XXXIX
Quote:
For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God...
Justin's First Apology LXVII
Quote:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...
NT Paul and Pauline Epistles must have or most likely were invented after the writings of Justin, at least after c 150 CE.

Last edited by dejudge; 22nd November 2020 at 09:14 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.