The Christ Myth Theory

[No Robots]

 

[ideologyhunter]

You might be well advised to look at Harry Waton's work, The True Shakespeare Revealed. The upshot: Shakespeare, like Jesus, was a Jew.

True, true. Also Jewish: Aesop, Julius Caesar, Henry VIII, Paul Bunyan, and John Wayne (see Waton's Patriarchal Catenation: The Lineage and Heritage, 1950.)
I have some reservations about Henry VIII, but the case for the others is ironclad.

 

[Learner]

Swami, you argue like a theist, and ridicule atheists, what exactly do you believe or derive from Jesus? And why,.

I would have thought it obvious.

He is 'plain am simple' challenging the mythicist particular reasons/explanation for their argument.

He is not a 'closet believer' people!!

You are all sounding like: a fellow atheist brother has "betrayed" the atheist brotherhood.

 

[Tharmas]

My this thread went pretty far off the rails pretty fast!

 

[steve_bank]

Swami, you argue like a theist, and ridicule atheists, what exactly do you believe or derive from Jesus? And why,.

I would have thought it obvious.

He is 'plain am simple' challenging the mythicist particular reasons/explanation for their argument.

He is not a 'closet believer' people!!

You are all sounding like: a fellow atheist brother has "betrayed" the atheist brotherhood.

Not really. Swami has appeared to be defensive about Jesus in the past. I'd like to know what his religious beliefs are regarding the gospel Jesus. Or secular briefs on Jesus,.

All atheists are not my 'bothers'. If you are trying to be clever or profou8nd it is not working.

 

[Tharmas]

1. The “crucified messiah” problem (aka: no one would make this up).

Holland’s favorite point.
In the 1st-century Roman world, crucifixion was:
reserved for rebels, slaves, and traitors
deliberately humiliating
designed to erase honour

A crucified Jewish messiah is basically a theological faceplant.
If early Christians were inventing a founder, they picked the worst possible option.

You don’t invent a god who:
gets arrested
tortured
executed naked

by imperial authorities

That only makes sense if something like that actually happened, and the followers were stuck explaining it afterward.

I disagree with this argument. Paul makes a point of emphasizing this degradation: "I preach Christ crucified!" (I'm quoting from memory. Many of the Gospel stories deal with Jesus degrading himself - hanging with prostitutes and drinkers, and lower class individuals, That's a big part of what made Christianity appealing to so many - "He's one of us." I'm not necessarily claiming that Jesus, or at least a major figure in the Jesus movement, wasn't crucified. I just don't think it's a very strong argument for his historicity.

Many folk stories and myths involve Kings or gods who disguise themselves as ordinary men, only to produce a big reveal.

I think you're going about this completely backwards. First off, prophets and messiah figures, before Jesus are all aristocracy. I mean... Darius I is called a messiah. Before the age of Jesus Judaism is just another form of paganism. And as such their holy figures (for all cults and religions all around the Mediteranian) follow a pattern. It's basically might makes right. If you are successful in the secular world, it means you are also blessed by the sacred world.

Isn't it more likely that Jesus came as a successful but standard pagan-style prophet, who (as most of them did) failed, and then Jesus followers started to change the backstory to make Jesus into a more humble character than he really was. A bit like, Jesus once helped carry a plank, and after some Chinese whispers, now Jesus is a carpenter. Or Jesus, using his wealth, to show up with loads of fish and wine to impress the peasants, and this gets, over time, changed to him miraculously turning water into wine and making bread and fish apear from thin air.

Bart Ehrman makes a good case for that Jesus most likely was a rabbi, ie aristocratic. Around the time of Jesus there was a project to agree on a single agreed upon Tanakh. In Judaism Jews never stop adding Biblical books to it. A result of this is that Jewish theology, at the time of Jesus, is all over the place and the Sanhedron thinks this is a problem. So there's a project to remove the books that are a bit out there. We know this took place.

Bart Ehrman's theory is that the Jesus movement, and the New Testament, is one of the sides in this debate that lost. All the leaders of the sides in that debate who lost were executed. I'm not saying Ehrman is right. It's speculative. But it's more likely that Jesus was a prophet, who followed the standard pattern of prophets, got humiliatingly executed, and then his followers, over time, changed the story to that Jesus was a more humble figure than previously thought.

There's also the pharisees vs sephardic conflict going on around the time of Jesus. Since Jesus, in the Bible, got condemned by pharisees. It's not hard to imagine that Jesus was aligned with the sephardic side. Ie, liberal, wealthy, cosmopolitan. Totally the type of Jew who is more open to association with gentiles.

Most of the theology of Christianity comes from Paul and S:t Augustine. People who never knew Jesus and people who spent most of their life mingling with gentiles. S:t Augustine was a gentile.

I can recommend Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, which explains the general problem with Chinese whispers in manual book copying.

To sum up. It's more likely that Jesus was made into a humble character after the fact of a humiliating death, rather than that he started as a humble character who then had a death that fit his movements marketting strategy. Remember, the Roman authorities picked a type of death designed to kill hi movement.

Early Christianity offered:
persecution
no political power
no wealth
no military backing
social stigma
Yet it spreads anyway.

And it offered the promise of eternal life to those who already were persecuted, had no power, no wealth, and no military backing, which included vast swaths of the population. No wonder it spread.

I think the main reason it spread was because it, uniquely, was open to poor people. Christianity is the first religion that actively tries to convert poor people. Every religion before it, in all of world history, had focused conversion on those with status, power and wealth. And actively trying to exclude those further down the status hierarchy. I think that's a better explanation to why is spread explosively and obliterated every other religion in it's path. And the fact that it also preached intolerance towards other religions.

People often forget the unique selling point of Christianity.

DrZoid, I don't know if you're still following this thread, but I'd like to make a few comments regarding the post of yours. quoted above.

First, as I said above, the "embarrassment criterion," as it is known ("no one would make this up") (popularized by John Meier in his multi-volume biography of Jesus, A Marginal Jew), is, in my opinion, a very weak argument. From my knowledge of writers and literature, and as a published author myself, I understand that writers do make things up, all kinds of things, for all kinds of reasons, all the time. In any case, your second argument, quoting Ehrman (whom I haven't read), claims that most of the humiliating and degrading aspects of Jesus' life as portrayed in the Gospels, was in fact made up. I would ask why? To make the followers feel better about themselves? To make a religion that could be marketed to the masses? It doesn't make any sense to me. As for prophets being of the upper classes, it is noteworthy that many Jewish prophets, not to mention Greek Cynics, intentionally debased themselves and divested themselves of titles and possessions, to hang with the "common people.".

Personally, I am agnostic on the crucifixion argument, as presented in the passion narratives of Mark et al. I read the Gospels from a literary point of view, and I see three or more separate narratives intertwined in the synoptics. There is Jesus as a Cynic-like teacher speaking in aphorisms and koans. There is a moralist with parables and examples. There is an apocalyptic preacher predicting fire and brimstone. Etc.
Were these all one person? Were there different groups of followers who morphed in different directions? Did the original Jesus get crucified, or was it a prominent follower? It's all speculation. And then there's Mark. How much was he a creative writer who made up a good deal, "based on a true story," as they say in the movies.

What fascinates me about the topic is the transformation of fact into myth. It's a useful study for examining contemporary popular beliefs as well. As a Texan, I am well aware of how the history of the Alamo battle, and the entire Texas Revolution, are mythologized. There is great public consternation when anybody challenges the established narrative with alternatives.

As for your final point about Christianity appealing to the underclasses, I think we are in agreement.

 

[steve_bank]

Thomas

If not from human imagination where did Pantheism come from with all its variations?

In Greek and Roman mythology Jesus is a demigod. A god for a father and a human mother. Some but not all the power if the god father. Dies in act of saving the people and goes to be with god frather up there somewhere.

There was lengthy debate on the Greek influence on the gospels and Paul. Greek was the majorr cultral infunce.

In the day a Jew born of god woud be blasphemy. The sujpernatuiral gospels would not have been wrten for Jews.

 

[DrZoidberg]

1. The “crucified messiah” problem (aka: no one would make this up).

Holland’s favorite point.
In the 1st-century Roman world, crucifixion was:
reserved for rebels, slaves, and traitors
deliberately humiliating
designed to erase honour

A crucified Jewish messiah is basically a theological faceplant.
If early Christians were inventing a founder, they picked the worst possible option.

You don’t invent a god who:
gets arrested
tortured
executed naked

by imperial authorities

That only makes sense if something like that actually happened, and the followers were stuck explaining it afterward.

I disagree with this argument. Paul makes a point of emphasizing this degradation: "I preach Christ crucified!" (I'm quoting from memory. Many of the Gospel stories deal with Jesus degrading himself - hanging with prostitutes and drinkers, and lower class individuals, That's a big part of what made Christianity appealing to so many - "He's one of us." I'm not necessarily claiming that Jesus, or at least a major figure in the Jesus movement, wasn't crucified. I just don't think it's a very strong argument for his historicity.

Many folk stories and myths involve Kings or gods who disguise themselves as ordinary men, only to produce a big reveal.

I think you're going about this completely backwards. First off, prophets and messiah figures, before Jesus are all aristocracy. I mean... Darius I is called a messiah. Before the age of Jesus Judaism is just another form of paganism. And as such their holy figures (for all cults and religions all around the Mediteranian) follow a pattern. It's basically might makes right. If you are successful in the secular world, it means you are also blessed by the sacred world.

Isn't it more likely that Jesus came as a successful but standard pagan-style prophet, who (as most of them did) failed, and then Jesus followers started to change the backstory to make Jesus into a more humble character than he really was. A bit like, Jesus once helped carry a plank, and after some Chinese whispers, now Jesus is a carpenter. Or Jesus, using his wealth, to show up with loads of fish and wine to impress the peasants, and this gets, over time, changed to him miraculously turning water into wine and making bread and fish apear from thin air.

Bart Ehrman makes a good case for that Jesus most likely was a rabbi, ie aristocratic. Around the time of Jesus there was a project to agree on a single agreed upon Tanakh. In Judaism Jews never stop adding Biblical books to it. A result of this is that Jewish theology, at the time of Jesus, is all over the place and the Sanhedron thinks this is a problem. So there's a project to remove the books that are a bit out there. We know this took place.

Bart Ehrman's theory is that the Jesus movement, and the New Testament, is one of the sides in this debate that lost. All the leaders of the sides in that debate who lost were executed. I'm not saying Ehrman is right. It's speculative. But it's more likely that Jesus was a prophet, who followed the standard pattern of prophets, got humiliatingly executed, and then his followers, over time, changed the story to that Jesus was a more humble figure than previously thought.

There's also the pharisees vs sephardic conflict going on around the time of Jesus. Since Jesus, in the Bible, got condemned by pharisees. It's not hard to imagine that Jesus was aligned with the sephardic side. Ie, liberal, wealthy, cosmopolitan. Totally the type of Jew who is more open to association with gentiles.

Most of the theology of Christianity comes from Paul and S:t Augustine. People who never knew Jesus and people who spent most of their life mingling with gentiles. S:t Augustine was a gentile.

I can recommend Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, which explains the general problem with Chinese whispers in manual book copying.

To sum up. It's more likely that Jesus was made into a humble character after the fact of a humiliating death, rather than that he started as a humble character who then had a death that fit his movements marketting strategy. Remember, the Roman authorities picked a type of death designed to kill hi movement.

Early Christianity offered:
persecution
no political power
no wealth
no military backing
social stigma
Yet it spreads anyway.

And it offered the promise of eternal life to those who already were persecuted, had no power, no wealth, and no military backing, which included vast swaths of the population. No wonder it spread.

I think the main reason it spread was because it, uniquely, was open to poor people. Christianity is the first religion that actively tries to convert poor people. Every religion before it, in all of world history, had focused conversion on those with status, power and wealth. And actively trying to exclude those further down the status hierarchy. I think that's a better explanation to why is spread explosively and obliterated every other religion in it's path. And the fact that it also preached intolerance towards other religions.

People often forget the unique selling point of Christianity.

DrZoid, I don't know if you're still following this thread, but I'd like to make a few comments regarding the post of yours. quoted above.

First, as I said above, the "embarrassment criterion," as it is known ("no one would make this up") (popularized by John Meier in his multi-volume biography of Jesus, A Marginal Jew), is, in my opinion, a very weak argument. From my knowledge of writers and literature, and as a published author myself, I understand that writers do make things up, all kinds of things, for all kinds of reasons, all the time. In any case, your second argument, quoting Ehrman (whom I haven't read), claims that most of the humiliating and degrading aspects of Jesus' life as portrayed in the Gospels, was in fact made up. I would ask why? To make the followers feel better about themselves? To make a religion that could be marketed to the masses? It doesn't make any sense to me. As for prophets being of the upper classes, it is noteworthy that many Jewish prophets, not to mention Greek Cynics, intentionally debased themselves and divested themselves of titles and possessions, to hang with the "common people.".

Personally, I am agnostic on the crucifixion argument, as presented in the passion narratives of Mark et al. I read the Gospels from a literary point of view, and I see three or more separate narratives intertwined in the synoptics. There is Jesus as a Cynic-like teacher speaking in aphorisms and koans. There is a moralist with parables and examples. There is an apocalyptic preacher predicting fire and brimstone. Etc.
Were these all one person? Were there different groups of followers who morphed in different directions? Did the original Jesus get crucified, or was it a prominent follower? It's all speculation. And then there's Mark. How much was he a creative writer who made up a good deal, "based on a true story," as they say in the movies.

What fascinates me about the topic is the transformation of fact into myth. It's a useful study for examining contemporary popular beliefs as well. As a Texan, I am well aware of how the history of the Alamo battle, and the entire Texas Revolution, are mythologized. There is great public consternation when anybody challenges the established narrative with alternatives.

As for your final point about Christianity appealing to the underclasses, I think we are in agreement.

Kings don't get crucified. The old testament is pretty clear on that the Messiah is a conquering king. World peace is attained by conquering everyone else in war. Someone like Mohammed fits the job description. Not Jesus. An earlier Messiah (in the Bible) is the Persian king of kings, Cyrus.

In the ancient world appearance and honour was much more important than it is today.

I think it seems like you are back projecting modern values onto the ancient world. Or rather, letting the later Christian reformulation of the Old Testament messiah myth colour how you now interpret it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The NT is a retrofit. That's pretty much what 90% of those who had the faith, then abandoned it, concluded.

 

[Tharmas]

Kings don't get crucified. The old testament is pretty clear on that the Messiah is a conquering king. World peace is attained by conquering everyone else in war. Someone like Mohammed fits the job description. Not Jesus. An earlier Messiah (in the Bible) is the Persian king of kings, Cyrus.

In the ancient world appearance and honour was much more important than it is today.

I think it seems like you are back projecting modern values onto the ancient world. Or rather, letting the later Christian reformulation of the Old Testament messiah myth colour how you now interpret it.

What you are suggesting is that all four of the canonical gospels, plus many of the non-canonical ones, are entirely invented fictions, with the exception of the fact of the crucifixion. The were invented out of whole cloth to disguise the embarrassment of the followers of a prosperous Jesus that he had been crucified. That argument seems like quite a reach to me. I guess they first hired Mark to have a go at it, then brought in Matthew to embellish the story.

I note that Jesus never calls himself “Messiah” in the Gospels. In fact, the word only appears in the problematic, last written ‘Gospel of John’ which, IIRC, is the only gospel to call him “son of God.” The word Messiah appears in the Greek as “Christos,” which Paul makes a big deal of, “oily,” aka “anointed.”

Jesus never calls himself “King of the Jews.” When Pilate asks him if he is “King of the Jews” Jesus gives an ambiguous reply. All four gospels claim that “King of the Jews” was inscribed on his cross and that’s what the charges against him were. I assume that was meant sarcastically.

Finally, I ask you in all honesty what values do I bring from the 21st century and impose on the people of the 1st century?

 

[Swammerdami]

You are ignoring content by this member.

I would have thought it obvious.

He is 'plain am simple' challenging the mythicist particular reasons/explanation for their argument.

He is not a 'closet believer' people!!

You are all sounding like: a fellow atheist brother has "betrayed" the atheist brotherhood.

At least you get it, Learner! I've explained my perspective over and over, but the others make no attempt to read or believe.

The adamant evidence-free FAITH by which they deny the possibility that this real-life but ordinary preacher existed at all really does resemble the adamant evidence-free FAITH by which some Christians accept the Bible literally.

A difference is that religious nuts have articulate arguments -- stupid and ill-informed arguments, but still articulate -- intended to rebut the anti-Christian view. The faith-driven atheists here refuse to even review any evidence or historical analysis. All they got is trite non sequiturs.

 

[Learner]

You are ignoring content by this member.

I would have thought it obvious.

He is 'plain am simple' challenging the mythicist particular reasons/explanation for their argument.

He is not a 'closet believer' people!!

You are all sounding like: a fellow atheist brother has "betrayed" the atheist brotherhood.

At least you get it, Learner! I've explained my perspective over and over, but the others make no attempt to read or believe.
The adamant evidence-free FAITH by which they deny the possibility that this real-life but ordinary preacher existed at all really does resemble the adamant evidence-free FAITH by which some Christians accept the Bible literally.

Understanding where you're coming from, I've noticed.

As irony would have it... from their own admission, the topic of the conversation they clearly say: is of no interest to them - they don't care about it....and yet....

A difference is that religious nuts have articulate arguments -- stupid and ill-informed arguments, but still articulate -- intended to rebut the anti-Christian view. The faith-driven atheists here refuse to even review any evidence or historical analysis. All they got is trite non sequiturs.

... these particular atheists still engage just to argue (like some theists), which unfortunately: is not for the sake of a genuine good discussion, which you can have, even when posters in the discussion are not in agreement.

 

[steve_bank]

I watched a George Washington bio over the weekend.

After he died not a lot was known about how he grew up. Myths were invented to support his poular image.

I grew up believing the cherry tree myth, which was fabrucated.

George Washington myths, most notably the "cherry tree" story, were primarily created by Mason Locke Weems (often called "Parson Weems"). In his 1806 edition of
The Life of Washington, Weems invented stories to highlight Washington's moral character and boost book sales after the first president's death.

So, written post death the gospel Jesus

1. Rose from the dead.
2. Walked about dispensing wisdom.
3. Raised the dead.
4. Walked on water.
5. A god for a father.

 

[Swammerdami]

I watched a George Washington bio over the weekend.

After he died not a lot was known about how he grew up. Myths were invented to support his poular image.

I grew up believing the cherry tree myth, which was fabrucated.

George Washington myths, most notably the "cherry tree" story, were primarily created by Mason Locke Weems (often called "Parson Weems"). In his 1806 edition of
The Life of Washington, Weems invented stories to highlight Washington's moral character and boost book sales after the first president's death.

So, written post death the gospel Jesus

1. Rose from the dead.
2. Walked about dispensing wisdom.
3. Raised the dead.
4. Walked on water.
5. A god for a father.

???

So what's your stance on thread topic? Is the Historicity Hypothesis as defined by Richard Carrier true or false?

If you answer, please do us a favor and adhere to His Teachings:

Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.

 

[steve_bank]

Ihave sated what I came to believe from reading and what has been said on the forum many ties.

Considering the literacy of the day and communications primarily by word of mouth the gospel Jesus is likely a conflation of multiple people and events.

We do know there was unrest due to occupation by Rome and multiple claimants to pressurized

As to myths, to fit the messiah prophesy Jesus was a said to be in the line of David

The Greek influence on the gospel writers has been well discussed here. The gospel Jesus is a Greek demigod. That would be serious blaphemy to Jews.

My guess is there were several 'Jesus' characters.

That outspoken Jews were crucified would not be surprising.

What do you believe Swami? Personally I don't care what sodden believes.

Gay Christians see a Jesus that embraces gays. If it helps then good for them.

If your image of Jesus helps you, good for you too.

Just don't get bent out of shape if I reject your version of Jesus.

 

[steve_bank]

Hello there Swami!!! Good morning or whatever it is where you are.

I would greatly appreciate it you would say in a few paragraphs what you believe about Jesus and why. In your own words.

 

[Swammerdami]

Hello there Swami!!! Good morning or whatever it is where you are.

I would greatly appreciate it you would say in a few paragraphs what you believe about Jesus and why. In your own words.

I have answered this repeatedly. Looking back through the thread, it appears I answered this question as recently as #1654.

But just for you I will answer One.More.Time.

Please pay attention.

What I believe is what Richard Carrier calls the Minimal Jesus Historicity Hypothesis (hereafter called MJHH).
Here it is:

1. An Actual Human: An actual man named Jesus existed at some point.
2. Active Ministry: He acquired followers during his lifetime.
3. Continued Movement: His followers continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
4. Execution: This same Jesus was executed by Jewish or Roman authorities.
5. Veneration: Some of his followers soon began worshiping him as a living god or demigod

That's it! I think all five points are true. Richard Carrier thinks at least one of the five points is false. Many of the "Infidels" here seem to agree with Dr. Carrier.

What do you think, Steve?
If you deign to answer, can you conform to this (peculiar?) scripture?

Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ ...

The Minimal Jesus Historicity Hypothesis is so "Minimal" that it leaves many logical follow-on questions unanswered. I'll "go the extra mile" and address some of these questions.

• Did Jesus perform supernatural miracles? No.
• Did some of his followers think they witnessed "wonders"? Maybe. I dunno. It's off-topic here: We're debating just the MJHH. Start a new thread if you need help understanding why poorly educated Galileans might think they witnessed a wonder.
• Was he baptized by John the Baptizer as it states in the Gospels? Probably. But it's off-topic here: We're debating just the MJHH.
• Did the historical Jesus preach many or most of the precepts and parables attributed to him in The Gospel of Matthew? This is irrelevant to the thread -- we're discussing just the MJHH here -- but my guess is: Not sure but it is likely. There is some reason this man's ministry attracted so much favorable attention, and the novel preachings found in the Gospel would have made that preacher unique. On the other hand, the ideas could have been borrowed from a contemporary, perhaps John the Baptizer himself.
• Did Judas Iscariot betray Jesus? I dunno. The whole story of Judas might be fiction.
• Did Jesus' corpse go missing from its tomb? I dunno. It's off-topic here: We're debating just the MJHH.
• What is the evidence for MJHH? I've answered this over and over and over and over and more. One of the strongest specific clues is the mentions of Jesus' brother James. (Fictitious men do not have factual brothers.. SEE BELOW.
• Why does Swammi care? Idle curiosity. I spend many hours reading books and articles on science or history -- hours I could spend playing games , or seeking sensual delight. I'm especially attracted to controversies:
  • I've been reading a lot about photosynthesis and thinking of a thread: Show-and-tell, but especially some questions to help me with my confusions. I might have started the thread already but am instead answering you.
  • There are LOTS and LOTS of mysteries of history. Are Habiru and Hebrew cognates? (Note that "cognate" is not synonymous with "synonym.") I think they are, but some are adamant that they are not.
  • There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence that the works of Shakespeare were written by Oxford and not Shaksper.
  • How did the language proto-Germanic evolve? I think the Pitted Ware culture provided an adstratum. perhaps via a pidgin.
  • Etc.
• If the MJHH is just a matter of idle curiosity, why does Swammi seem so obsessed with it? Ha haha! My interest is long-since past the MJHH question. Instead I remain bemused about the stark similarity between fundamentalist Christians and the "hard-core atheists" we see here. Both groups have firm unshakeable beliefs based on FAITH. Neither group has any interest in looking at the evidence!

Jesus' brother James is mentioned by Josephus. Carrier has presented as solution that James was James ben Damneus;
For Steve OR ANYONE: Tell us what you think of Carrier's solution? It is details like this that attract the attention of serious historians.
The mythicism advocates in this thread have paid ZERO attention to ANY actual writings. Nada nada nada nada. ZERO.

... Considering the literacy of the day and communications primarily by word of mouth the gospel Jesus is likely a conflation of multiple people and events.

No. Learn to think like a professional historian if you want to be a good amateur historian.

...
What do you believe Swami? Personally I don't care what sodden believes.

Who is "sodden"?

...
Just don't get bent out of shape if I reject your version of Jesus.

Don't overestimate the impact of your teachings on me!

 

[steve_bank]

'Professional' historians can be all over the place. All are interpretations of scant corroborated evidence, You can pick one that you like.

So it is not what you believe, you take Carrier to be true?

Nobody really knows.

In the day illiteracy, superstition were the norm. Communications was primarily oral subject to intestinal and unintentional errors and additions.

Initially Rome considered the followers heretic Jews and it afforded some protection.


I don't not see the minimalist view very profound. Throughout history back to ancient times there were beliefs, leaders, andfollowers. There were violent disputes between a few Greek philosophical factions.

Pythagoreans were not generally violent in their personal lives, as they adhered to strict principles of non-violence (ahimsa), vegetarianism, and pacifism to maintain spiritual purity. However, the secretive, cult-like group faced violent persecution, and legends suggest they were ruthless in upholding intellectual dogmatism, such as killing Hippasus for discovering irrational numbers.
Key details regarding Pythagorean violence:

I suggest you do some boad reading on history from different authors. Sometimes you need to see the views by several authors to build a picture,.

I read histories on Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and Chinese traditions Egypt of course.
\\
Tyhat Cyrtnity has gbecme such an ioprtnt isse is how hitry payed out. By at east erly 1s cnetry what we callChrtanity was factinalized and tere were disputes.

What became Certainty as we have it started for the Council Of Nicaea which removed distributes, syntesized a common theology, and suppressed congestion ideas.

Who Jesus was and interpreting Jesus was an issue very early on, not just today. There was no definitive Jesus.

As to who a Jesus mkay have been is mostly irrelevant today. We are stuck with Christianity as it is.

I have not read Carrier or anyone like him, IMO they are just the flip side of theists. Both sides feed on the other. It is a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship.

 

[Learner]

Ihave sated what I came to believe from reading and what has been said on the forum many ties.

Considering the literacy of the day and communications primarily by word of mouth the gospel Jesus is likely a conflation of multiple people and events.

What about the idea that....

..there were quite a few Jewish sects about when the 'second temple' existed. All the existing sects back then were all connecting themselves to the Tanahk (Hebrew bible)...

...and after the destruction of the second temple of 70 AD. The two most dominant sects that survived, rivelling each other was Rabbinic Judaism, and yes...Christianity! The contrast here is: Christianity was a Jewish sect like every other sect. Although quite similar in the beliefs of God, yet each group still having their own uniqueness to scriptural understandings and group traditions..but equal claims and heritage rights to the Tanahk!

My guess is there were several 'Jesus' characters.

I am surprised by this "logic", that there aren't people also making suggestions that there were many other Pauls, Lukes or Moses being composited into single characters too.

That outspoken Jews were crucified would not be surprising.

So what happened to Jews when they opposed or spoke out against the Sanhedrin?

What do you believe Swami? Personally I don't care what sodden believes.

Gay Christians see a Jesus that embraces gays. If it helps then good for them.

If your image of Jesus helps you, good for you too.

Just don't get bent out of shape if I reject your version of Jesus.

Regarding Jesus (going back on the topic of the thread):

It may have been mentioned and covered already somewhere on the thread (so pardon me for being behind... I do t know enough, I am just getting into understanding Carriers claims)

I did a quick search and found that Richard Carrier wasn't the only one using the Bayes theorem for his argument, resulting in the likelihood of Jesus's existence... to be low.

Oddly enough, the other user of the Bayes theorem was a fellow called Richard too...

...A 'Richard Swinburne' to be precise, a philosopher of science. He used the Bayes' theorem to argue for the probability of Jesus' resurrection.

(I have to read more to engage in the discussion, it's interesting though )

 

[steve_bank]

From TV and movies one can get the image of a delusional person speaking an endless stream olf nonsense.

I am familiar with Bayesian statistics from my work in readability engineering. It can easily be misapplied as can statistics in general.. There are a number methods that can be used to make an inference on scant data. Risky when you have to make a decision.

Given a well established failure rate of a system given a small change with limed data how is the failure rate affected. Applied judiciously with experience and judgement it can save the cost of having to reevaluate the entire system.

Applying Bayes to historicity of Jesus with its scant factual data does not get around the fact that there is scant data, even though it appears mathematical.

That's philosophy for you.

I look at the issue of an HJ from the perspectyive of the ties, our human nature, and the greatter scope of history of mythology.

Step 1 in problem solving, enumerate the possibilities. Over all the debates and fro readng I have 4 or 5 possibilities for an HJ. The 'mainialist' version is an obvious possibility.

One version. From the gospels Jesus was walking around poking a stick in the eye of the Jewish power elite. The temple in the day was what we would call a corporation today. It was a source of profit serving the faithful. Small business made money supplying the temple. A mega-church today.

I forget the technical term. One method of historical analysis look at what we know and see today projecting back in time. Us humans have not changed all that much in 2000 years.

We know how phenomena like Mormonism and Scientology started and spread globally. We may not know the details of how Christianity formed and spread, but we do know the social mechanisms. There is no mystery or supernatural to it.

Today we know who created George Washington myths after Washington died.