Did Jesus exist? (Poll)

[Subsymbolic]

The theory of evolution started with the idea of current living organisms as more complex, better and superior than older living organisms which were simpler, worst and inferior. Kant and others who projected the idea of evolution stated with firm words that humans descended from chimpanzees and orangutans. So, how in the world you say that this theory has been proved to be true? Lol

It didn't. It really didn't.

It started with the idea of fitness for an environment. Not better, not superior, simply better designed to survive. Kant died in 1804 five years before Darwin was even born. No one who understands evolution is claiming, nor has ever claimed, that man is descended from Chimpanzees. The claim is that we have a common ancestor.

As for evolution being proven. The process of descent and selection is simple common sense. Creatures vary. Sometimes that variation improves or degrades the chances of survival. Take giraffes. Mummy giraffe has two babies: lofty and shorty. The only place there is food is the leaves at the top of the tree. Who is more likely to survive? lofty or shorty? Rinse and repeat for evolution.

 

[ruby sparks]

I do like the midrash argument.

Got a good case for the epistles as Midrash? Didn't think so.

How about....a Midrash creation myth intentionally written as literary fiction by followers of an outer space* entity named Chrestus. There I think that covers most of your bases.

(* To use Richard Carrier's term)

II still prefer the Chrestian vs Christian argument. These are two very separate Greek root words. The change from Chrestian to Christian is documented and can be viewed even today in early christian documents both secular and religious. Chrestus was a common name and title. There really were Chrestians who followed a personification of goodness, not a flesh and blood person that made magic tricks or was some militant guru.

Christian apologists and Jesus historicists have no response to this argument, only emotional dismissal, and the claim that it was merely a manifestation of Greek language, a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal.

Lol. That is funny.

That Jesus is not an historical human being, but rather just another god like Apollo is a fairly new proposition. The ancients argued over this this very subject and not until the 4th century when the religion was made the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire and then for a brief time the Unified Roman Empire were these disagreements suppressed.

Double lol.

Seriously. Don't even ask. Nice talking to you. Merry xmas. Maybe make a New Year resolution to do more research on this topic, or something.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Got a good case for the epistles as Midrash? Didn't think so.

How about....a Midrash creation myth intentionally written as literary fiction by followers of an outer space* entity named Chrestus. There I think that covers most of your bases.

(* To use Richard Carrier's term)



Lol. That is funny.

That Jesus is not an historical human being, but rather just another god like Apollo is a fairly new proposition. The ancients argued over this this very subject and not until the 4th century when the religion was made the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire and then for a brief time the Unified Roman Empire were these disagreements suppressed.

Double lol.

Seriously. Don't even ask. Nice talking to you. Merry xmas. Maybe make a New Year resolution to do more research on this topic, or something.

What's with the troll response?

 

[ruby sparks]

Because I'm bored of hearing you alight on a wide selection of bitty hypotheses that you show no sign of ever having investigated thoroughly, or made a case for here, that's why. It's not as if I haven't given you the chance or asked you specific questions, most notably about the epistles and how they don't seem to readily fit into any of the categories you have suggested. But not just that. You skip on to the next hypotheses without a blink. I doubt you have looked much into the Chrestian thing, the Midrash thing or the 'Jesus was not human' thing, just as you haven't for the literary fiction hypothesis, the outer space entity explanation or the creation myth thing, and given your tendency to just skip over counter-arguments and switch tack I'm no longer much up for discussing it with you. No offense. I have enjoyed talking with you about it, but I think we're mostly finished, not least because of the hiolidays.

Whollygoats and I might disagree when it comes to our preferred final position, but at least he knows his onions and could make an informed case if he wanted to. Plus, at least he understands the historicist position, even if he rejects it.

Not wishing to end on a negative note, I'll just say good decision in not engaging with humbleman.

Look, you might very well be correct. I think I'd just like an argument I can get my teeth into properly, that's all.

 

[whollygoats]

Got a good case for the epistles as Midrash? Didn't think so.

Care to explain why the epistles could not be used in midrash? Father Brodie seems to think quite strongly that the epistles were used in the midrash and pesher which resulted in the Jesus tales.

Hallucinations fit right in. Oh...that 'end of the world situation' that Paul was always screaming about....y'know, about how the Kingdom of God was to remake the world? Damned soon, too. So....How'd that come out?

And, the Paul of Acts doesn't seem to be quite the same Paul as in the epistles.....why do you think that is?

 

[ruby sparks]

The possibility of the epistles being used in a Midrash is not the same as the epistles being the product of Midrash or being Midrash themselves. Any text can be used in a Midrash/hermeneutic/Pesher/Exegesis, in theory.

 

[ruby sparks]

And, the Paul of Acts doesn't seem to be quite the same Paul as in the epistles.....why do you think that is?

There are many possibilities. Acts is apparently later. As you know, I'm far from averse to thinking it very possible that Paul was not as he has been handed down to us in the NT.

 

[whollygoats]

And, the Paul of Acts doesn't seem to be quite the same Paul as in the epistles.....why do you think that is?

There are many possibilities. Acts is apparently later. As you know, I'm far from averse to thinking it very possible that Paul was not as he has been handed down to us in the NT.

Paul, as handed down to us in the NT, is a confusing figure. By the time it got to us, the packet of 'Pauline epistles' had been through the hands of the Marcionites, who made the Pauline epistles the center of their Apostolikon, which set off a crisis in the proto-orthodox whackjobs and set in play the collection, collation, editing, redaction, and ongoing corruption of scriptures, including reclaiming and cleaning up the epistles (and adding more phoney ones) that has come down to us as the NT.

So...Why is it you are intent on being such an asshat?

 

[ruby sparks]

So...Why are you being such an asshat?

Paul not being what he seems, even in very unfavourable ways, does not necessarily point to there being no Jesus. You know that.

And there is no evidence that any invective against any early heretic, including Marcion, included anything about countering a view that Jesus did not exist on earth. Also, if the proto-orthodox were so concerned about this that they dare not even record their own arguments against it (an unlikely scenario, imo) then the easiest tactic would arguably have been to add to the epistles, Josephus, Philo et al, several more clear statements to bolster a case against supposed ahistoricists (of whom we have no record).

Im my opinion, they were just likely not concerned about this. It was, apparently, accepted. That doesn't make it true, of course. But what concerned them, as one faction trying to win out over others, was that their version (mainly regarding the theology) was correct and/or that Jesus didn't just exist, but was 'special', was in fact the Messiah. That was what almost all of their anti-heretical and anti-pagan arguments were about. To say otherwise is to cite apparently non-existent arguments against apparently non-existent early mythicists. This is essentially a conspiracy theory which moves too far away from the actual evidence, imo.

Where are the people who supposedly believed in an outer space, never came to earth Jesus?

Incidentally, I read, a few years ago, in about 20104 I think, that Earl Doherty had conceded that The Ascension of Isiah could reasonably be interpreted as talking about a Jesus who came to earth, at least at some point. You heard about that? I can't say for sure. Maybe just a rumour. I also heard that Carrier moved to citing a version of the A of I that no longer exists, one in which Jesus does not come to earth, and wondered if the two things were connected. A of I is a fairly important part of the Doherty and Carrier Hypotheses, as you know.

As you also know, I have very little time for the Doherty-inspired, Carrier-elaborated outer Space Jesus hypothesis.

 

[Learner]

Well, Burton Mack has a book just for you. It is entitled, Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth (NYC, 1995). I recommend it. Note that Mack is generally catagorized with the 'historicists' regarding Jesus, and is well-known for arguing arch-mythicist G.A. Wells in to accepting a possible historically obscure individual. And yet, Burton repeatedly refers to 'the Christian Myth' and to the Gospel of Mark as a 'Myth of Innocence'. I don't think his exposition shows it to be 'baffling from the psychology perspective' at all. Quite the opposite.

Cheers for that. I will get the book which sounds interesting.

Geez....And here I thought those who arose from their graves were called zombies. Matthew 27: 51-53. Matt was quite the kidder.

No probs calling them zombies if you prefer - if not chrestians, Christians or Saints.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Because I'm bored of hearing you alight on a wide selection of bitty hypotheses that you show no sign of ever having investigated thoroughly, or made a case for here, that's why. It's not as if I haven't given you the chance or asked you specific questions, most notably about the epistles and how they don't seem to readily fit into any of the categories you have suggested. But not just that. You skip on to the next hypotheses without a blink. I doubt you have looked much into the Chrestian thing, the Midrash thing or the 'Jesus was not human' thing, just as you haven't for the literary fiction hypothesis, the outer space entity explanation or the creation myth thing, and given your tendency to just skip over counter-arguments and switch tack I'm no longer much up for discussing it with you. No offense. I have enjoyed talking with you about it, but I think we're mostly finished, not least because of the hiolidays.

Whollygoats and I might disagree when it comes to our preferred final position, but at least he knows his onions and could make an informed case if he wanted to. Plus, at least he understands the historicist position, even if he rejects it.

Not wishing to end on a negative note, I'll just say good decision in not engaging with humbleman.

Look, you might very well be correct. I think I'd just like an argument I can get my teeth into properly, that's all.

Very nice. I applaud the change of decorum, and I'm certainly glad we can have an intelligent chat about Jesus historicity.

 

[whollygoats]

No probs calling them zombies if you prefer - if not chrestians, Christians or Saints.

'K. I think I stumbled across a note that those who worshipped Serapis, in Alexandria, were referred to as 'chrestians'. And that 'Chrestus' was a common nickname applied to slaves in Roman cities.

 

[ruby sparks]

Because I'm bored of hearing you alight on a wide selection of bitty hypotheses that you show no sign of ever having investigated thoroughly, or made a case for here, that's why. It's not as if I haven't given you the chance or asked you specific questions, most notably about the epistles and how they don't seem to readily fit into any of the categories you have suggested. But not just that. You skip on to the next hypotheses without a blink. I doubt you have looked much into the Chrestian thing, the Midrash thing or the 'Jesus was not human' thing, just as you haven't for the literary fiction hypothesis, the outer space entity explanation or the creation myth thing, and given your tendency to just skip over counter-arguments and switch tack I'm no longer much up for discussing it with you. No offense. I have enjoyed talking with you about it, but I think we're mostly finished, not least because of the hiolidays.

Whollygoats and I might disagree when it comes to our preferred final position, but at least he knows his onions and could make an informed case if he wanted to. Plus, at least he understands the historicist position, even if he rejects it.

Not wishing to end on a negative note, I'll just say good decision in not engaging with humbleman.

Look, you might very well be correct. I think I'd just like an argument I can get my teeth into properly, that's all.

Very nice. I applaud the change of decorum, and I'm certainly glad we can have an intelligent chat about Jesus historicity.

Ok, no prob. I apologise for responding so ungraciously.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No probs calling them zombies if you prefer - if not chrestians, Christians or Saints.

'K. I think I stumbled across a note that those who worshipped Serapis, in Alexandria, were referred to as 'chrestians'. And that 'Chrestus' was a common nickname applied to slaves in Roman cities.

What's revealing on this subject is to see the changes in these earliest records from an original e to an i. And it doesn't happen just here and there but in every case.

When folks read these documents today they have all been changed to reflect christian, not chrestian, which is clearly incorrect.

The word chrestian/christian appears in only three places in the oldest copies of the new testament and in every case it was originally chrestian, and then changed to christian at some point after having been written. This is visible in the documents today. And yes, worshippers of Serapis were known as chrestians. The oldest Marcionite inscription refers to themselves as chrestian.

It's a very interesting subject primarily because they are two distinct words in Greek and there were plenty of chrestians and people named chrestus. If simple spelling was the problem we should see a mix of usage but we do not see this.

It's another one of those interesting historical tidbits concerning the evolution of the religion.

 

[ruby sparks]

There were those in 2nd century Egypt who apparently worshipped both Jesus Christ and Serapis (according to Hadrian). This doesn't necessarily add to or take away anything much from anyone's case either way.

'Chrestian' was still being used, by followers of Jesus, as late as the 5th Century. There is 'Chreistians' in Christian texts as late as the 6th Century. 'Chresians' in the 3rd Century. The Tacitus reference was originally an 'e'. No strong reason to think there were chrestians, cresians, chreistians and christians floating about at the same time. Most likely a spelling/translation issue.

 

[humbleman]

Well, when people have decided to be obstinate, then they will be obstinate regardless of how strong is the evidence presented in front of them is indeed proving that Jesus (Yeshu) existed.

These same people declare, for example, that Adam didn't exist, Noah didn't exist, Moses didn't exist, and so forth.

But, like the Tractate Sanhedrin shows that Yeshu was indeed judged and sent to death at the eve of Passover, also an enemy of Israel, the historian called Manetho, wrote very bad about Moses.

If this enemy of Israel wrote about Moses in his historical narrations when writing the history of Egypt, isn't this enough evidence that Moses indeed existed as well?

Because by being his enemy, the best way of attacking Israel was simply denying that Moses existed.

Same as well, the priests of Judea, they easily were capable to discard such a court case and state that Yeshu (Jesus) never existed: their best way to end "Christianity".

However, the court case is there, and Yeshu was assumed to be stoned because the charge of "inciting Israel to apostasy", but rather than stoned Yeshu was sent to be hanged. The reason was because Yeshu "was influential with the government of a member of royalty".

The second reason applies, Yeshu belongs to the family of King David.

There is no pressure from Christians about the court case appearance in the Tractate Sanhedrin.

The evidence stands.

Yes, Jesus indeed existed.

 

[ruby sparks]

If I am to be more convinced of your conclusions, I think I'd need to see them in even bigger font size.

 

[whollygoats]

*FACEPALM*


(don't forget bolding, too!)

 

[whollygoats]

What I want to know is who is going to sit humbleman down and tell him about Carpocrates, the Mar Saba Letter, and the Secret Gospel of Mark.

I'll bet he has no idea that a Gospel of Judas even exists.

 

[Underseer]

Did the character described in the Bible exist?

No.

Clearly, the character in the Bible is a blending of several stories, including a number of fictional stories that predate Christianity. Can we say for certain that one of the inspirations for that character was not real rather than fictional? I don't think we can say that. As Hitchens pointed out, certain lies in the New Testament are easier to explain if you assume that the character of Jesus is at least in part based on a real person.