Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by toejam »

According to Carrier, the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Seriously? That is ridiculous!
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by ghost »

Bernard Muller wrote:And that .0008% can go up to 33 % :banghead: :consternation:
toejam wrote:According to Carrier, the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Seriously? That is ridiculous!
The third is when "generosity" (towards historicists) is taken into account. That's not a problem. The problem is Carrier doesn't tell the Jesus myth is based on the Divus Iulius myth. The probability of Divus Iulius's existence is next to zero. But the probability of Caesar's existence is next to one. I recommend you compare your Jesuses to both Caesar bios and the Divus Iulius myths.
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Hawthorne »

toejam wrote:According to Carrier, the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Seriously? That is ridiculous!
Returning to the issue of conspiracy...

wouldn't the historicist position be in greater need of a conspiracy? After all, unless one believes that Jesus really did come back to life (or maybe was mistakenly declared dead), then someone had to make up the lie that he did come back and met with his closest disciples. The resurrection had to be invented and passed along by what, it seems to me, would be a group of charlatans, who knew that, in fact, Jesus was dead in a shallow grave somewhere. It seems that any such claims would have been easily refuted, the followers shown to be liars and fools. On the other hand, the resurrection of a man who never existed in history is more difficult to deny.

I do have Carrier's book, but at over 600 pages, it will be some time before I can digest it. I do think this book will the standard for some time against which the mythicist position will be measured, and rightly so. Anyone maintaining that mythicism is undeniably false, will have to deal with Carrier's arguments.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller »

I will address the last point though. Do you think archons in Romans 13 has the same connotations as archons in 1 Cor 2:8? That the same archons that crucified Jesus of Nazareth can be held in such high esteem by Paul?

To me, these passages make sense only if the archons in 1 Cor 2:8 are not considered by Paul to be the archons in Romans 13. And, in fact, I think the Paul uses the terms "rulers of this age" 1 Cor 2:8 to mean something different than Romans or Sanhedrin, such as his use in Romans 13. We agree on what he means in Romans 13. Are these the same archons in 1 Cor 2:8? Doesn't seem likely to me.
Paul had reason to revere the Roman authorities. If not, he would be considered a rebel, and so his followers.
And 1 Cor 2:8 does not say these "archon" were bad, just that they did not know about God's plan at work and Jesus' identity as Son of God/Christ/Lord/etc. There is no sign Paul considered the crucifixion as an unjustifiable act of cruelty.
So I do not see any problem about the "archon" of Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 2 being both Roman authorities.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller »

I know that you are aware of the arguments against these being references to Jesus of Nazareth, crucified under Pilate.
So to whom these references would apply to?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
ghost
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by ghost »

Hawthorne wrote:The resurrection had to be invented and passed along by what, it seems to me, would be a group of charlatans, who knew that, in fact, Jesus was dead in a shallow grave somewhere.
He was cremated the third day. They converted the cremation into a resurrection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Fire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_candle
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Hawthorne »

Bernard Muller wrote:
I know that you are aware of the arguments against these being references to Jesus of Nazareth, crucified under Pilate.
So to whom these references would apply to?

Cordially, Bernard
Some "Jesus Christ" crucified by unknown agents ("rulers of the age") at an undefined time.

As to the contradiction inherent in Romans 13 vs. 1 Cor 2:8, I will let our disagreement stand and others can judge for themselves if it is reasonable for the Jesus cult to view Romans who crucified Jesus, allegedly after a sham trial, as being agents of God who hold no terror for those who do right (it seems to me that Crucifixion, itself, would be terrifying to any man, whether proclaimed to be the Christ or not).
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by MrMacSon »

Hawthorne wrote: ... someone had to make up the lie that he [Jesus] did come back and met with his closest disciples. The resurrection had to be invented and passed along by what, it seems to me, would be a group of charlatans, who knew that, in fact, Jesus was dead in a shallow grave somewhere. It seems that any such claims would have been easily refuted, the followers shown to be liars and fools.
I think the narrative was cemented by it's inter-generational telling.

A subsequent generation could not refute it. They would have taken it as "gospel-truth".

On the other hand, the resurrection of a man who never existed in history is more difficult to deny.
Exactly.

I do think this book will the standard for some time against which the mythicist position will be measured, and rightly so. Anyone maintaining that mythicism is undeniably false, will have to deal with Carrier's arguments.
I agree. It was easy for people to misprepresent Earl Doherty's arguments. Partly b/c Earl referred to Jesus as if he was more real than Earl actually intended.
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Carrier's Minimalist Mythicist Theory

Post by Hawthorne »

Carrier lays out the theory he is defending on page 53 of OHOJ:

"1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions, and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).

3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus as originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection in a supernatural realm.

4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.

5. Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical)."
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

Post by Bernard Muller »

After all, unless one believes that Jesus really did come back to life (or maybe was mistakenly declared dead), then someone had to make up the lie that he did come back and met with his closest disciples. The resurrection had to be invented and passed along by what, it seems to me, would be a group of charlatans, who knew that, in fact, Jesus was dead in a shallow grave somewhere. It seems that any such claims would have been easily refuted, the followers shown to be liars and fools.
The bodily resurrection was invented some 40 to 50 years after Jesus' death. Even gMark initially did not have "met with his closest disciples". Therefore the so-called resurrection was first thought to be about the spirit of Jesus being saved in heaven.
Jesus was dead in a shallow grave somewhere
Jesus' body could have been also burnt or put on the garbage pile in order to be devoured by dogs and wild animals. Probably none of Jesus' followers knew for sure what happened to the corpse.
On the other hand, the resurrection of a man who never existed in history is more difficult to deny.
A real man who never existed in history cannot die and (allegedly) resurrect.
So that man had to be fictitious. But was he? Not as described by Paul (see my initial post on this thread).
Furthermore, Paul gave enough details about that Jesus to identify him as only one individual among the (about) 4 millions Jews living then.
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... -b1-p9.htm

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply