• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Christ Myth Theory



--Richard Carrier (2024) "Jesus did not Exist". YouTube. @BillZebubproductions. 5 December 2024.



--Jordan Peterson (2024) "The Birth of Christ | Biblical Series: The Gospels". YouTube. @JordanBPeterson. 3 February 2025.

The Hebrew noun דבר (davar, Strong's #1697) is translated as "word." It is derived from the parent root דר (DR), which means "order." The verb form of דבר (davar) is דבר (D.B.R, Strong's #1696) and is commonly found in the Biblical text meaning to "speak," as in the phrase vayidaber YHWH el moshe l'mor (and YHWH spoke to Moses saying). The ancient Hebrew understanding of "speaking," or a "speech," is an ordered arrangement of words.

The noun דבר (davar) is a masculine noun. The feminine form of this word is דברה (devorah) and is the name Deborah, but also means "bee." A bee hive is a colony of insects that live in a perfectly ordered society.

Another common word derived from the noun דבר (davar) is מדבר (midvar, Strong's #4057) meaning a "wilderness". In the ancient Hebrew mind the wilderness, in contrast to the cities, is a place of order. Many people today live in the cities, a place of hurrying, rushing and high crime. The city can easily be seen as a place of chaos.

On the other hand, when we want to "get away from it all" and slow down and really rest we go out to the "wilderness" to camp, take walks or sit by a lake. The wilderness is a place of order where all of nature is in a perfect balance of harmony.

The verb דבר (D.B.R) may better be translated as "order" as in the phrase "And YHWH gave orders to Moses saying". A commanding officer has formulated his action plans and has determined the best means to have these plans carried out. Once all of this is determined, he gives his "orders" to his troops. These orders are "an ordered arrangement".

The phrase "Ten Commandments" does not actually appear in the Hebrew Bible; instead it is aseret hadevariym and is literally translated as "the ten orders". The "Ten Commandments" are our orders from God (the general). They are an ordered arrangement of ideas that, if followed, will bring about peace and harmony.

The Hebrew word דבר (davar, Strong’s #1697) demonstrates an interesting aspect of Hebrew thought. This Hebrew word is also frequently translated as “thing,” such as we can see in Numbers 18:7 where it says, “all the things of the altar.” In the Hebrew mind, “words” are “things,” they have just as much substance as any other “thing.” This helps us with understanding a few things in the Bible. When Jacob stole his brother’s birthright in Genesis 27 he took the “words” from his father Isaac that was meant for his brother. When his brother Esau came for his blessing, his father said that he had already given it to Jacob. I often wondered why Isaac couldn’t just tell Jacob that the blessing he gave him didn’t count as he stole it and then just give it to his brother. But in the Hebrew mind words cannot be taken back as they have already been spoken. It is the same as if Isaac had given Jacob something physical, say a glass of water. Once Jacob drank from the glass it cannot be taken back. We should keep this in mind when we speak. Your words have an effect on others just as we see in Proverbs 12:8; “A rash speaker is like piercings of a sword, and the tongue of the wise is healing.”

--"Hebrew Definition: davar | AHRC". www.ancient-hebrew.org.


qqq
Screenshot 2025-02-09 7.07.38 PM.png

--Carrier (01 February 2021). "Diarmaid MacCulloch's BBC Series on the History of Christianity". Richard Carrier Blogs.
--Carrier (18 February 2021). "Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Hundred Years". Richard Carrier Blogs.
Holland gives no examples of anything Christianity uniquely brought to the West that was any good. Everything he even implies as such, was already Western before Christianity came along, was developed without it, or arose in opposition to it. He then ignores everything it brought that was bad. And then claims we ought therefore glorify Christ.

--Carrier (19 April 2019). "No, Tom Holland, It Wasn't Christian Values That Saved the West". Richard Carrier Blogs.
  • Peterson wants to be a cult leader/prophet
[8:35]
Godless Engineer >>> Obviously for a discussion on the resurrection of Jesus. I don't mind starting at a dude existed. I think this is a perfectly fine position—to start from this [premise]—for this particular part of the conversation.

Alex isn't trying to question what can we know about the historical Jesus—he's just wanting to know about [the historicity of] the resurrection. Does Peterson think that Jesus literally walked out of the Tomb resurrected!
[...]

[18:58] Peterson >>> I believe the accounts, but I have no idea what they mean…

--"Jordan Peterson Attempts to Explain a Historical Resurrection! of Jesus". YouTube. @godlessengineer. 30 December 2024. 8:35 / 36:21


original:

“Navigating Belief, Skepticism, and the Afterlife | Alex O’Connor @CosmicSkeptic | EP 451”. YouTube. @JordanBPeterson. 23 May 2024. “[24:56] …I believe the accounts, but I have no idea what they mean…”
 
Last edited:



Rick Van de Water, a widely published expert in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism, in “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16.1 (2006), pp. 75–86, concludes that 11Q13 does mean the messiah in verses 25 and 26 are intended to be the same; and “that he is said to be the Anointed One ‘cut off (Dan. 9.26), moreover, implies his death” and “since the ‘cutting off’ of Daniel’s Messiah is associated with ‘atonement for sin’ … it is not inconceivable that the death of Melchizedek was taken to be the act of expiation delivering ‘those of his lot’ from” an ill end and therefore “the elaborate collage of biblical images in 11 QMelch argues that its full text presented Melchizedek, not only as a heavenly priestly Messiah, but also as a human suffering Messiah” (p. 83), just as I suggested (though I don’t assume this dying messiah had to be Melchizedek himself).
[...]
John Bergsma, professor of Theology . . . also makes an argument that this is the messiah Melchizedek himself (pp. 289–90; which I didn’t presume, since my working definition of “messiah” doesn’t require that it be). He cites Lim on this, approvingly (on 11Q13 linking “the dying prince/messiah of Dan. 9 to the herald of Isa. 52:7,” p. 283, n. 80).

--Carrier (30 August 2023). "Some Controversial Ideas That Now Have Wide Scholarly Support". Richard Carrier Blogs.
 
I remain interested in understanding the mythicist stance but linking, with no comment whatsoever, to 27 different YouTubes isn't helpful. Have you watched all 27 @dbz ? Are you paid an hourly wage to do so?

We've seen LOTS and LOTS of words from you lately -- or rather words from Carrier et al which you post, usually with ZERO comment or context -- BUT you've provided ZERO rebuttal to the recent objections posted in this or a nearby thread.

Sound arguments that Luke was written BEFORE Marcion? ZERO response from you, just useless irrelevant quotes from Carrier and links to half a dozen YouTubes.

Chrestus vs Christus? THERE you did provide (probably unwittingly) something useful: An uncommented list of pseudo-spellings from one source that implies the two forms are indeed just spelling variations!

The fact that (part of) Q-source was written in Aramaic? You, as a fanatic Carrierist, can no more admit that than a Christian Fundie could admit that the Earth wasn't created in six days.

James "the Brother" was the brother of Ben Damneus the High Priest? You are unable to acknowledge the utter absurdity of that claim until Richard Carrier tells you to.

At least the Fundies cling to a faith that might help them cope with life's trials. Trump's MAGA fans have found a way to vent their frustrations and inchoate anger. But what's the motive for the delusions of Carrierism?
 
Luke was written BEFORE Marcion...



--"Marcionite priority and the Irenaean myth of apostolic Christianity: rough draft of a hypothesis". YouTube. @drstevennemes. 23 August 2024.

Some scholars argue the Gospel of Marcion predates the version of Luke present today. Judith Lieu argues that Marcion had access and edited a work extremely similar to the Canonical Gospel of Luke, though this older work would have lacked certain passages. As such the currently extant Gospel of Luke would have appeared after the Gospel of Marcion.[8]

Gospel of Marcion as the first of all gospels

In his 2013 book, The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon, Jason BeDuhn said he considers that the gospel of Marcion was not produced or adapted by Marcion, but instead that the Gospel of Marcion was a preexisting gospel adopted by Marcion and his movement.[9] He believes that: "On the whole, the differences between Luke and the Evangelion [i.e. the Gospel of Marcion] resist explanation on ideological grounds, and point instead toward Semler's original suggestion 250 years ago: the two gospels could be alternative versions adapted for primarily Jewish and primarily Gentile readers, respectively. In other words, the differences served practical, mission-related purposes rather than ideological, sectarian ones. Under such a scenario, the Evangelion would be transmitted within exactly the wing of emerging Christianity in which we can best situate Marcion’s own religious background". Semler's hypothesis being that "the Evangelion and Luke are both pre-Marcionite versions going back to a common original".

In his 2014 book Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, Markus Vinzent proposed, based on his interpretation of aspects of Tertullian's Against Marcion (and other works of Tertullian), that the Marcionite Evangelion was first written as a document "for his classroom (without Antitheses and perhaps without Paul's letters)," ie. not meant for publication, but which was circulated and plagiarized by the four canonical gospels authors; and that, in response to that plagiarism, Marcion wrote an Antitheses and published it along with his gospel and a ten letter collection of the Pauline epistles.[10][11][12] That is, a first edition of a Euangelion Marcion had (or even wrote) preceded the four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and that it influenced the four canonical gospel writers and hence the four canonical gospels they wrote (and that Marcion produced a second edition of his Euangelion along with his response).

In a study published in a 2015 book in German,[13] Matthias Klinghardt had changed his mind comparing to his 2008 article in which he had said that the Marcionite gospel was based on the Gospel of Mark, that the Gospel of Matthew was an expansion of the Gospel of Mark with reference to the Gospel of Marcion, and that the Gospel of Luke was an expansion of the Gospel of Marcion with reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.[14]: 21–22, 26  In that 2015 book (subsequently published in English), Klinghardt shared the same opinion as BeDuhn and Vinzent on the priority and influence of the Marcionite gospel.[10] Like Vinzent, he proposed that the Gospel of Marcion preceded and influenced the four canonical gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.[15] Klinghardt and BeDuhn reaffirmed their opinions in two 2017 articles.[16]

The Marcion priority hyposthesis implies the dating of the New Testament Gospels to the mid 2nd century – a thesis that goes back to David Trobisch, who, in 1996 in his habilitation thesis accepted in Heidelberg,[17] presented a thesis of an early, uniform final editing of the New Testament canon in the 2nd century.[18]

--"Priority of the Gospel of Marcion". Wikipedia. Retrieved 12 February 2025.

Marcion Priority.png

--"The Implications of Marcion Priority". YouTube. @History-Valley. 8 August 2024.
 
Last edited:
"I’m more inclined to think Christianity was born among intellectual circles in the time of Trajan, primarily in some kind of response to the uprisings and massacres of Jews. But I may have a different inclination next week." --Neil Godfrey 2025-02-12
But how does any of that explain the Christianity we recognize today?

It doesn’t. If that’s all we had, no doubt those negative teachings of Marcion, of Valentinus and others would have fallen by the wayside in time.
But something happened after Marcion released his story of Jesus, a Jesus who was an “antithesis” of the best that the god of the Jews could offer.

Another school, perhaps one associated with the “church father” Justin, or with Basilides in Alexandria (I don’t know and can only surmise), responded with an opposing narrative about a Jesus who was less an “antithesis” of the Jewish god than a “fulfilment” of all that the Jewish god had hoped for but had failed to achieve hitherto.

If that happened, we have a revolutionary moment. We no longer have a negative response to “the Jewish religion and scriptures”; rather, we have a way of capturing and finding new and enriched meaning in that old religion and its hoary sacred writings.

--Godfrey, Neil (14 February 2025). "Not Finding the First Jesus? Look for the Last ..." Vridar.
 
The term to describe Christianity is synchretic.

Syncretism (/ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm, ˈsɪn-/)[1] is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. While syncretism in art and culture is sometimes likened to eclecticism, in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system.


The halo associated with images of Jesus.


A halo (from Ancient Greek ἅλως, hálōs, 'threshing floor, disk'),[1][2] also called a nimbus, aureole, glory or gloriole (Latin: gloriola, lit. 'little glory'), is a crown of light rays, circle or disk of light[3] that surrounds a person in works of art. The halo occurs in the iconography of many religions to indicate holy or sacred figures, and has at various periods also been used in images of rulers and heroes. In the religious art of Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism (among other religions), sacred persons may be depicted with a halo in the form of a circular glow, or flames in Asian art, around the head or around the whole body—this last form is often called a mandorla.

The western European image of Jesus is blonde hared and blue eyed.

Little if any of Christianity has anything in common with what may have a flesh and blood man with Jewish followers.


As Christianity spread throughout the Hellenic world, an increasing number of church leaders were educated in Greek philosophy. The dominant philosophical traditions of the Greco-Roman world then were Stoicism, Platonism, Epicureanism, and, to a lesser extent, the skeptic traditions of Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism. Stoicism and, particularly, Platonism were often integrated into Christian ethics and Christian theology.


The Christian tradition of the Three Wise Man.

 
  • Like
Reactions: dbz
The term to describe Christianity is synchretic.
Yes, absolutely correct 💡
And also there were many variant competing synchretic teachings. Some of them came to be dismissed as a consequence of being labelled as “gnostic”. But they were there from the beginning — at least if by “the beginning” we insist on appealing only to independently verifiable sources. Unlike the rabid apologetic (Old Yeller with hydrophobia) historicity fanatic.

“[47:10] The Gnostics [i.e. Chrestians NOT proto-orthodox Christians] were dying in that amphitheater as bravely as members of his own congregation . . . Irenaeus believed that true Christianity, was his Christianity [pseudo-orthodox Christianity]—he thought that the Gnostics were holy anarchists. He wanted to show the world an organized and universal Church, not a secret sect. [47:51]” –TESTAMENT with John Romer. Part 4 – Gospel Truth?”. YouTube @
  • The gospel of Marcion priority puts into the spotlight Lord Chrest…
    “No text in the entire world ever says Christ – although plenty of them say Chrest.” –Martijn Linssen1
    1. “Gospels, Epistles, Old Testament: the order of books according to Jesus Chri st” Amazon Kindle Edition @ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKFD5J98
 
Last edited:
If you want to be like what early Jewish followers of a Jewish rabbi would have been keep kosher and go to synagogue on Saturday.
 
  • I Agree
Reactions: dbz
Neil Godfrey said:
Old Yeller with hydrophobia (rabid apologetic historicity fanatic) said:
Neil Godfrey said:
“As for the survival of Paul’s letters, I can’t see that they would have survived at all if they did not come with the gospels. They are a rather painful and scarcely coherent read on their own, don’t you think?”
  • Paul’s letters are hardly a “rather painful and scarcely coherent read on their own”
If the people that Paul was writing to already had “background info” concerning what Paul was writing about. Now, if I didn’t know anything at all about somebody named “Jesus” who died by crucificixion, and was believed to have been raised from the dead, then, yeh, reading Paul’s letters could prove to be difficult to comprehend. It would be like stepping into the middle of someone else’s conversation about something I know nothing about in the first place.
But, if Paul was writing to already-established “churches” that had formed around the belief that there was a “real Jesus” who died and was raised from the dead, then, no, those letters wouldn’t, by any necessity, be difficult for those recipients to understand.
  • I have to confess: I find it a lot easier to believe there was an historical Jesus who died by crucifixion, and that some came to believe he’d been raised from the dead, and that this series of events happened in the early first century, and it was this Jesus that Paul was writing about in (roughly) the 50s CE.
Then what happened? Same thing that happens today, same thing that is happening in this thread: As time goes on, people start “revamping” an existing story so it says something they’d like it to say. I mean, in this thread alone, how many different ideas are we seeing?
  1. Unfortunately it goes against all we know about how stories about historical persons grow.
Further, the view you present asks us to believe the most unlikely: that Jews would over time come to believe that a crucified prophet was god incarnate. Further, it goes against all the norms we have for determining this or that person or event was historical: the story is not independently confirmed until a century after the time of Jesus and it provides no assurances of its historicity. This is not how we determine the historicity of any other event or person in ancient (or modern) times.

As for Paul’s letters having some meaning for their original audiences, of course they would be meaningful for them (but see the posts on Livesey’s book). But my point is that they would not be preserved and held in esteem to anyone else without the context of the gospel stories — and Acts.
 
If we grant that Jesus existed, what difference does it make, if any? The Gospels were written long after he died. Few, if any, courts would place much credence on things he supposedly said, or did, based on such weakly accredited testimony. Certainly not any 'miracles'.
 
Peter Kirby said:
Old Yeller with hydrophobia (rabid apologetic historicity fanatic) said:
Without any big-picture assumptions about what Marcion's Gospel looks like, we can simply place each testimony next to a plausible reconstruction (not necessarily the only plausible reconstruction) based only on that testimony, including as many of the words that are found in the testimony as seems plausible:

Irenaeus... in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar ... he appeared in Judea as a thirty-year-old man ... was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea ...In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being procurator of Judea, Jesus [highlight=yellow]appeared[/highlight] in Judea as a man about thirty years of age, when he began his ministry.appeared, Judea
Origenthey ... say that he appeared in Judea as a thirty-year-old manIn the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ... Jesus [highlight=yellow]appeared[/highlight] in Judea as a man about thirty years of age, when he began his ministry.appeared, Judea
Ps-Hippolytus... descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ...In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ... Jesus [highlight=yellow]came down from above[/highlight] (κατεληλυθότα ἄνωθεν) ...came down, from above
Ps-Ephrem... appeared at those times, in the years of Pontius Pilate ...In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being procurator of Judea, Jesus ... [highlight=yellow]appeared[/highlight] ...appeared
MS 17215... came down and appeared for the first time between Jerusalem and Jericho, like a human being in form ...... Jesus came down and [highlight=yellow]appeared[/highlight] as a man ... between Jerusalem and Jericho ...came down, appeared, Jerusalem and Jericho
Adamantius... in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in the days of Pilate ... appear in Capernaum ...In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being procurator of Judea, Jesus ... [highlight=yellow]appeared[/highlight] in Capernaum ...appear, Capernaum
Epiphanius'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,' and so on.In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ......
Tertullian... in the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius ... he came down ... into Capernaum, a city of Galilee ... [if somewhere the word 'appeared' is used?] ...In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ... Jesus came down ... into Capernaum, a city of Galilee ... and [highlight=yellow]appeared[/highlight][?] ...came down, appeared[?], Capernaum

This is an assumption, it is just a table with two columns, setting statements in the Gospel against statements in the Old Testament. Or a less-structured version of the same limited set of statements. But this assumption is not known to be "probable." The contents of Marcion's Antitheses could obviously involve more than that. Without saying necessarily what that additional content is, it's just not reasonable to assume that it would have been limited in the way that you claim it was.
 
Last edited:
Few, if any, courts would place much credence on things he supposedly said, or did, based on such weakly accredited testimony. Certainly not any 'miracles'.

By that logic you also believe the gospel accounts attest something that the courts can evaluate.

[8:35]
Godless Engineer >>> Obviously for a discussion on the resurrection of Jesus. I don't mind starting at a dude existed. I think this is a perfectly fine position—to start from this [premise]—for this particular part of the conversation.

Alex isn't trying to question what can we know about the historical Jesus—he's just wanting to know about [the historicity of] the resurrection. Does Peterson think that Jesus literally walked out of the Tomb resurrected!
[...]

[18:58] Peterson >>> I believe the accounts, but I have no idea what they mean…

--"Jordan Peterson Attempts to Explain a Historical Resurrection! of Jesus". YouTube. @godlessengineer. 30 December 2024. 8:35 / 36:21


original:

“Navigating Belief, Skepticism, and the Afterlife | Alex O’Connor @CosmicSkeptic | EP 451”. YouTube. @JordanBPeterson. 23 May 2024. “[24:56] …I believe the accounts, but I have no idea what they mean…”
 
Few, if any, courts would place much credence on things he supposedly said, or did, based on such weakly accredited testimony. Certainly not any 'miracles'.

By that logic you also believe the gospel accounts attest something that the courts can evaluate.

[8:35]
Godless Engineer >>> Obviously for a discussion on the resurrection of Jesus. I don't mind starting at a dude existed. I think this is a perfectly fine position—to start from this [premise]—for this particular part of the conversation.

Alex isn't trying to question what can we know about the historical Jesus—he's just wanting to know about [the historicity of] the resurrection. Does Peterson think that Jesus literally walked out of the Tomb resurrected!
[...]

[18:58] Peterson >>> I believe the accounts, but I have no idea what they mean…

--"Jordan Peterson Attempts to Explain a Historical Resurrection! of Jesus". YouTube. @godlessengineer. 30 December 2024. 8:35 / 36:21


original:

“Navigating Belief, Skepticism, and the Afterlife | Alex O’Connor @CosmicSkeptic | EP 451”. YouTube. @JordanBPeterson. 23 May 2024. “[24:56] …I believe the accounts, but I have no idea what they mean…”
The courts were just one example of the standards that should be applied. There must be some standards, rigorous standards, applied. Those standards could also be academic or scientific standards.
 
There must be some standards, rigorous standards, applied. Those standards could also be academic or scientific standards.

It is possible Jesus was invented from whole cloth, not as a deliberate synthetic fiction and/or a conspiracy, but as normative human sociological/religious impulses which includes religious syncretism, mimesis, intertextuality.

It is worth taking a closer look at the other forms of Christianity that we can identify in the same time period as the gospels — on the assumption that they are all second century. I doubt many would think that the Jesus in the “non-orthodox” Christianities owed anything to a historical figure.

There were many competing teachings. Some of them came to be dismissed as a consequence of being labelled as “gnostic”. But they were there from the beginning — at least if by “the beginning” we insist on appealing only to independently verifiable sources.

“[47:10] The Gnostics [i.e. Chrestians NOT proto-orthodox Christians] were dying in that amphitheater as bravely as members of his own congregation . . . Irenaeus believed that true Christianity, was his Christianity [pseudo-orthodox Christianity]—he thought that the Gnostics were holy anarchists. He wanted to show the world an organized and universal Church, not a secret sect. [47:51] –TESTAMENT with John Romer. Part 4 – Gospel Truth?”. YouTube @
  • The gospel of Marcion priority puts into the spotlight Lord Jesus Chrest…
“No text in the entire world ever says Christ – although plenty of them say Chrest.” –Martijn Linssen
“Gospels, Epistles, Old Testament: the order of books according to Jesus Chri st” Amazon Kindle Edition @ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKFD5J98
  • It is always easier to assume anything than to demonstrate and argue a case.
Of course it would be easiest to assume that there is some truth to the gospel narratives and that there was a historical preacher by that name who was crucified and whose followers believed he rose from the dead and went to heaven. But then I would be unable to explain why the earliest uncontested and independent evidence we have for that person does not appear until a full hundred years after his time and without a hint about how that life, so rich in allusions to mythical acts and persons, came to be known. Or I could conjure up an explanation that involved ordinary (generally illiterate) persons passing on ever more imaginative “oral reports” about the person but that would be letting my imagination fly in the face of studies that tell us that’s not how fabulous tales about historical persons originate. (They are composed from the creative imaginations of the literati.)

--Godfrey, Neil (14 February 2025). "Not Finding the First Jesus? Look for the Last ..." Vridar.
 
Last edited:
“[47:10] The Gnostics [i.e. Chrestians NOT proto-orthodox Christians] were dying in that amphitheater as bravely as members of his own congregation . . . Irenaeus believed that true Christianity, was his Christianity [pseudo-orthodox Christianity]—he thought that the Gnostics were holy anarchists. He wanted to show the world an organized and universal Church, not a secret sect. [47:51] –TESTAMENT with John Romer. Part 4 – Gospel Truth?”. YouTube @


I clicked on this video; found that the narrator sounded like a rational historian rather than an anti-History Carrierist; so I continued.
And sure enough, at 19:40 in this YouTube John Romer informs us that "Jesus was a real historic figure."
Romer is clear that Marcion came AFTER Luke's Gosepl and the Epistles. Contrary to what dbz implies, Romer says nothing about any "Chrestus" or "Chrestians."
Where did @dbz come up with this video? Did he even watch it?

Were there multiple Christian sects? Did different Christians have different beliefs? You betcha!
But for ALL these Christians their faith was based on the same Jesus, the Galilean crucified by order of Pontius Pilate circa 30 AD.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Based on the HUGE emphasis given to the Christ/Chrest "controversy" in this thread with very little other argumentation, the distinction between "Christ" and "Chrestian" seems very dear to the faith of Carrier's anti-History sect. Wikipedia has no problem with the spelling variation:

Wikipedia said:
. . . Tacitus may have used the word "Chrestians" (Chrestianos) for Christians, but then speaks of "Christ" (Christus) as the origin of that name.

And dbz's uncommented quote certainly seems to confirm this. The "larger concise Philip" also uses BOTH spellings, perhaps interchangeably:
mlinssen said:
No text in the entire world ever says Christ - although plenty of them say Chrest. I'll point you to the larger "concise Philip":

4. XS
6. XRηSTIANOS
8. XRS
15. XS XS
20. XRS XRS XS
21. XS
48. XS XS
51. XS XS XRS XS
53. XRηSTIANOS
59. XS
63. XRηSTIANOS
72. XRηSTIANOS XRS
75. XS XS
80. XS
86. XRS
90. XS
101. XRISTIANOS XS
103. XRηSTIANOS
108. XRISTIANOS
124. XS

That's what the text says, literally, objectively, verifiably
 
Jacob Berman and Godless engineer debated the historicity of Jesus tonight regarding Paul and other things:







 
Last edited:

Strongly recommend James Barker talking to Helen Bond and Dave Roos (don't think any of these guys are with us on Bluesky yet) in the Biblical Time Machine podcast. "Ep. 101 How the Gospels Were Actually Written". Biblical Time Machine.

--Mark Goodacre (February 18, 2025)
@goodacre.bsky.social‬
Code:
<blockquote class="bluesky-embed" data-bluesky-uri="at://did:plc:3tyn2jdfjdmnqkynyksnqrzq/app.bsky.feed.post/3liis6yzuzc26" data-bluesky-cid="bafyreihgtijlwriegyoc7ijlmrv2qhhewksi6tziznpffsr7inmbawwfpi"><p lang="en">Strongly recommend James Barker talking to Helen Bond and Dave Roos (don&#x27;t think any of these guys are with us on Bluesky yet) in the Biblical Time Machine podcast.<br><br><a href="https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:3tyn2jdfjdmnqkynyksnqrzq/post/3liis6yzuzc26?ref_src=embed">[image or embed]</a></p>&mdash; Mark Goodacre (<a href="https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:3tyn2jdfjdmnqkynyksnqrzq?ref_src=embed">@goodacre.bsky.social</a>) <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:3tyn2jdfjdmnqkynyksnqrzq/post/3liis6yzuzc26?ref_src=embed">February 18, 2025 at 10:06 PM</a></blockquote><script async src="https://embed.bsky.app/static/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom