Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out

[Learner]

-

The highest-scoring attributes are being rescued and being targeted in infancy. For some reason, lots of people have it in for baby heroes. Pharaoh vs. Moses, King Kamsa vs. Krishna, King Amulius vs. Romulus, King Laius vs. Oedipus, King Acrisius vs. Perseus, Pelias vs. Jason, Tantalus vs. Pelops, Hera vs. Hercules, Hera vs. Dionysus, Hera vs. Apollo, Kronos vs. Zeus, ... so King Herod vs. Jesus Christ is far from unusual.

The list seems to be of some very high statuses (to come into, at birth) attributed to these characters. All predictable to be future heirs to Kingdoms or great power and importance,which would seriously conflict with the opposing future statuses of their enemies in the future

Child and "babies" sacrifices at the alters etc.. may have some correlation with the above i.e. killing babies ethic as these particular traditions in ancient times was not unusual around the world.

So why isn't there any of these? Southern plantation owners vs. Abraham Lincoln, fundamentalists vs. Charles Darwin, rabbis, Jewish bankers, and Jewish Marxists vs. Adolf Hitler, psychiatrists vs. L. Ron Hubbard, oil-company executives vs. Muammar Gaddafi, ...

Probably by the time of the Southern plantation owners; Infanticide was then illegal and obviously seen to be immoral (at least- in some places around the world that made laws against such things).

It seems the most logical as to "why this doesn't happen to these" is: being able to predict the future of these people (unlike the ancients above)which would obviously be "unknown" to their opponents of the future - and to not knowing themselves that they would become those leaders or rulers we know in history.

 

[Learner]

Will checkout those vids too JD, glad you reminded me.

(After having a little sleep first )

 

[lpetrich]

The highest-scoring attributes are being rescued and being targeted in infancy. For some reason, lots of people have it in for baby heroes. Pharaoh vs. Moses, King Kamsa vs. Krishna, King Amulius vs. Romulus, King Laius vs. Oedipus, King Acrisius vs. Perseus, Pelias vs. Jason, Tantalus vs. Pelops, Hera vs. Hercules, Hera vs. Dionysus, Hera vs. Apollo, Kronos vs. Zeus, ... so King Herod vs. Jesus Christ is far from unusual.

The list seems to be of some very high statuses (to come into, at birth) attributed to these characters. All predictable to be future heirs to Kingdoms or great power and importance,which would seriously conflict with the opposing future statuses of their enemies in the future

But is that typical for well-documented people? You have not even tried to demonstrate that. You have especially not tried to demonstrate that singling out some baby is typical, just because that baby is likely to grow up to become a great leader. Let alone that his doing so will fulfill a prophecy.

So why isn't there any of these? Southern plantation owners vs. Abraham Lincoln, fundamentalists vs. Charles Darwin, rabbis, Jewish bankers, and Jewish Marxists vs. Adolf Hitler, psychiatrists vs. L. Ron Hubbard, oil-company executives vs. Muammar Gaddafi, ...

Probably by the time of the Southern plantation owners; Infanticide was then illegal and obviously seen to be immoral (at least- in some places around the world that made laws against such things).

They'd call it self-defense, and they'd claim that it was very justified. They'd say that Abraham Lincoln would lead a war of aggression against them, and destroy their way of life by freeing their slaves. They would turn lazy, criminal, and lecherous, and the South would become ruled by vulgar tradesmen, just like the North.

It seems the most logical as to "why this doesn't happen to these" is: being able to predict the future of these people (unlike the ancients above)which would obviously be "unknown" to their opponents of the future - and to not knowing themselves that they would become those leaders or rulers we know in history.

So are you claiming that prophecies happened in past centuries but do not happen in recent centuries? What a remarkable shyness effect.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Will checkout those vids too JD, glad you reminded me.

(After having a little sleep first )

Watch them all but the fourth one brings things together. It's pretty obvious Paul was talking about a Jesus of Scripture he knew from visions, and not the one in Mark's story.

Paul, quite clearly, was a person who hallucinated. Definitely a guy with a mental condition.

 

[ruby sparks]

What a remarkable shyness effect.

The mind boggles as to what your point is.

 

[ruby sparks]

There were definitely two distinct spellings and two distinct meanings with two different words.

No, there were at least 4 spellings. How I can post that one page back and you can come in and say there were two spellings is quite incredible.

Also, the various spellings were being used by Christians themselves, up to the 5th Century.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok guys, have fun. I'm out, at least for a while.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There were definitely two distinct spellings and two distinct meanings with two different words.

No, there were at least 4 spellings. How I can post that one page back and you can come in and say there were two spellings is quite incredible.

Also, the various spellings were being used by Christians themselves, up to the 5th Century.

There were two distinct root words with two distinct meanings, so I suppose spelling could be an issue to some degree but why did an incorrect root spelling and usage persist for centuries?

Some have opined that what we think of as christian today were originally chrestian. But that would mean there were no chrestians in the early going, but there were certainly chrestians around and people titled chrestus. You seem to be saying they were all the same thing, christian. That's just not so.

The simplest explanation is that there were christians and chrestians existing contemporaneously, chrestians being the older community. Then christians came along at some point.

It is possible that copyists mistakenly referred to christians as chrestians for many centuries because it was a word they were more familiar with. But these were supposedly christian copyists making these records so how could they all make the same glaring identical mistake for so long, a mistake that exists in the oldest records to this day?

My take is much simpler, namely that these copyists thought of themselves as chrestian, not christian, and made records accordingly.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Will checkout those vids too JD, glad you reminded me.

(After having a little sleep first )

Please check them out. If I had any reservations about Paul's Jesus being scriptural and not Markan, the discussion about 'Cephas and the 12 and James and over five-hundred' removed any doubt.

 

[ruby sparks]

My take is much simpler, namely that these copyists thought of themselves as chrestian, not christian, and made records accordingly.

In the 3rd, 4th and 5th Century? Seriously?

By the way, we're not talking about copyists, because they (the ones I refer to above) are letters from people calling themselves chrestians, not bible texts.

Also, there were 4 spellings (at least) so...why not suggest 4 separate groups, one for each spelling?

Chreistians (4th C) would have been a hybrid, presumably, given that it combines 'both' root words.

Anyhows, if you still think there was more than one Chrestian/Christian/Cresian/Chreistian group....tell me about the non-christian ones (or one if you insist). What did they get up to? Start with Tacitus, noting his chrestianos and his christus.

But that would mean there were no chrestians in the early going, but there were certainly chrestians around and people titled chrestus. You seem to be saying they were all the same thing, christian. That's just not so.

Sometimes it's just your apparent certainty about things which are far, far from certain and about which you don't really know much and haven't rally delved into that worries me.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My take is much simpler, namely that these copyists thought of themselves as chrestian, not christian, and made records accordingly.

In the 3rd, 4th and 5th Century? Seriously?

By the way, we're not talking about copyists, because they (the ones I refer to above) are letters from people calling themselves chrestians, not bible texts.

Also, there were 4 spellings (at least) so...why not suggest 4 separate groups, one for each spelling?

Chreistians (4th C) would have been a hybrid, presumably, given that it combines 'both' root words.

Anyhows, if you still think there was more than one Chrestian/Christian/Cresian/Chreistian group....tell me about the non-christian ones (or one if you insist). What did they get up to? Start with Tacitus, noting his chrestianos and his christus.

But that would mean there were no chrestians in the early going, but there were certainly chrestians around and people titled chrestus. You seem to be saying they were all the same thing, christian. That's just not so.

Sometimes it's just your apparent certainty about things which are far, far from certain and about which you don't really know much and haven't rally delved into that worries me.

Worry not! And Hey, You're supposed to be gone for a while!

What I think would be helpful in this discussion is to take other words from the same texts and see how many different spellings of allegedly the same word are conveying the same meaning. If it can be demonstrated that this happens regularly it would weaken my argument.

 

[Learner]

But is that typical for well-documented people? You have not even tried to demonstrate that. You have especially not tried to demonstrate that singling out some baby is typical, just because that baby is likely to grow up to become a great leader. Let alone that his doing so will fulfill a prophecy.

I was just replying to your post direct, from what I could understand of it at hand from a personal opinion.

They'd call it self-defense, and they'd claim that it was very justified. They'd say that Abraham Lincoln would lead a war of aggression against them, and destroy their way of life by freeing their slaves. They would turn lazy, criminal, and lecherous, and the South would become ruled by vulgar tradesmen, just like the North.

Sounds like these could be valid reasons for these people. I was not too far off maybe? e.g. suggesting something similar in my previous post with the ancients having their reasons .

So are you claiming that prophecies happened in past centuries but do not happen in recent centuries? What a remarkable shyness effect.

Not 'prophecies' (my bad for non clarity) I mean't : Threats to the mentioned ancients;who were "reigning" kingdoms e.g. as Jesus was a threat to Herod . Being a possible foreseeable threat that would have future consequences to a line of dynasties of various types, bloodlines or most favourable potential successors of a sect,order or group.

This would obviously happen in recent centuries- although the other way round in this example regarding Royalty , like the Russian Romanov royal family;who were murdered in 1918 : All the children included (No heirs - future threats to new rulers).

 

[lpetrich]

So are you claiming that prophecies happened in past centuries but do not happen in recent centuries? What a remarkable shyness effect.

Not 'prophecies' (my bad for non clarity) I mean't : Threats to the mentioned ancients;who were "reigning" kingdoms e.g. as Jesus was a threat to Herod . Being a possible foreseeable threat that would have future consequences to a line of dynasties of various types, bloodlines or most favourable potential successors of a sect,order or group.

So a bunch of astrologers travel some long distance to tell some minor king that they predict that some nobodies' baby will grow up to become a rival king. That seems more like a fairy tale than real history.

This would obviously happen in recent centuries- although the other way round in this example regarding Royalty , like the Russian Romanov royal family;who were murdered in 1918 : All the children included (No heirs - future threats to new rulers).

The Bolsheviks had much better acquaintance with the Romanovs than King Herod had with those astrologers or the baby Jesus Christ. They also killed the whole family rather than only some baby.

 

[Learner]

So a bunch of astrologers travel some long distance to tell some minor king that they predict that some nobodies' baby will grow up to become a rival king. That seems more like a fairy tale than real history.

As you know ...many cultures did go by astrology or what astrologers told them; like the Mayans for example which was common- as even today. (Just thinking about those people that were checking their horoscopes everyday in the papers (now with apps) and a few I knew were actually paying premium rates talking to astrologers, obviously not in the same serious level in context).

It may sound like a fairy tale but it does also sound like the "right reaction" of someone with that King character of the time period - when hearing about an "unkown" child from nowhere who suddenly seems more majestically important when talked about.

The Bolsheviks had much better acquaintance with the Romanovs than King Herod had with those astrologers or the baby Jesus Christ. They also killed the whole family rather than only some baby.

It is good point .. the other way round ; there are inheritors in a Royal family. No-one else could or did inherit the Christ title "King of Kings" after Jesus's death, let alone his own relatives.

 

[Juma]

So a bunch of astrologers travel some long distance to tell some minor king that they predict that some nobodies' baby will grow up to become a rival king. That seems more like a fairy tale than real history.

As you know ...many cultures did go by astrology or what astrologers told them; like the Mayans for example which was common- as even today. (Just thinking about those people that were checking their horoscopes everyday in the papers (now with apps) and a few I knew were actually paying premium rates talking to astrologers, obviously not in the same serious level in context).

It may sound like a fairy tale but it does also sound like the "right reaction" of someone with that King character of the time period - when hearing about an "unkown" child from nowhere who suddenly seems more majestically important when talked about.

The Bolsheviks had much better acquaintance with the Romanovs than King Herod had with those astrologers or the baby Jesus Christ. They also killed the whole family rather than only some baby.

It is good point .. the other way round ; there are inheritors in a Royal family. No-one else could or did inherit the Christ title "King of Kings" after Jesus's death, let alone his own relatives.

”King of Kings” isnt a proper title. Its just a superlative that really just means ”my king is bigger than yours”.

 

[lpetrich]

It may sound like a fairy tale but it does also sound like the "right reaction" of someone with that King character of the time period - when hearing about an "unkown" child from nowhere who suddenly seems more majestically important when talked about.

Can you point to ANY evidence that this was typical? I mean actual evidence, not supposition. Evidence like targeting babies without also targeting related adults.

The Bolsheviks had much better acquaintance with the Romanovs than King Herod had with those astrologers or the baby Jesus Christ. They also killed the whole family rather than only some baby.

It is good point .. the other way round ; there are inheritors in a Royal family. No-one else could or did inherit the Christ title "King of Kings" after Jesus's death, let alone his own relatives.

That's crudely literal-minded. Where is that title supposed to come from?

 

[Learner]

Can you point to ANY evidence that this was typical? I mean actual evidence, not supposition. Evidence like targeting babies without also targeting related adults.

Like that of Herod against Jesus ? Perhaps not so "typical" - because of the uniqueness in this regard of who Jesus was said to be (as according to the bible). One of a kind.

... It is "typical" of a person with jealousy and hatred for anyone who pose threats against his or her wealthy possessions and positional status (Attributes like that of Herod). Just as those in modern times who ARE willing to kill their "own" kin (not neccessarily babies) to gain by inhertance etc....

It was typical to kill babies in human sacrifices without killing the parents (I know you don't mean this particular aspect)

That's crudely literal-minded. Where is that title supposed to come from?

”King of Kings” isnt a proper title. Its just a superlative that really just means ”my king is bigger than yours”.

The point I was making is that ; the position of being the "Messiah" could not be transferable to anyone else and therefore there was only one.

 

[lpetrich]

Like that of Herod against Jesus ? Perhaps not so "typical" - because of the uniqueness in this regard of who Jesus was said to be (as according to the bible). One of a kind.

Everybody is unique in some way or other.

... It is "typical" of a person with jealousy and hatred for anyone who pose threats against his or her wealthy possessions and positional status (Attributes like that of Herod). Just as those in modern times who ARE willing to kill their "own" kin (not neccessarily babies) to gain by inhertance etc....

But is this a common motivation for mass killings of babies? Are mass killings of babies common? I mean of babies and not also of other parts of a population.

The point I was making is that ; the position of being the "Messiah" could not be transferable to anyone else and therefore there was only one.

The same can also be said of "dynasty founder". But that is not usually considered to invalidate succession from dynasty founders.

 

[whollygoats]

The point I was making is that ; the position of being the "Messiah" could not be transferable to anyone else and therefore there was only one.

Really? How is it you know this? IIRC, the War Scrolls found in Qumran, as part of what we know as the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicate that some sectarians believed in the rise of dual messiahs, one martial and one priestly, who would deliver the salvation of the Jewish people from bondage and drive out the kittim from the Promised Land. But then, the usage of the term 'messiah' seems to be a bit broader than what you indicate. According to Jacob Neusner and his associates, in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge University Press, 1987), the title of 'messiah' (the anointed one) seems to have been a bit more common than modern Christians give out. IIRC, all kings and high priests were 'messiahs'.

 

[Jobar]

Re 'Christian' vs. 'Chrestian'- Ruby is right that spelling in ancient texts is all over the place, with no sort of standardization. So it could be that the different spellings are of no real significance, and the change of 'e' to 'i' in so many of the texts only denotes the attempt of scribes to correct what they saw as a slight error.

But I do find it interesting that 'Chrestos' and 'Christos' were both Greek words, with quite different meanings. If I were a Greek scholar with access to many ancient texts, I would look into the uses of the two terms, looking at when and where they varied, and if perhaps different sects used one or the other in the earliest centuries. It might be that 'Jesus the Good' was the object of worship of groups the Catholic Church named heretics. I'd be interested to read the reports of such a scholar, if anyone runs across such a work.