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

[lpetrich]

Although it must be noted that Jesus Christ was hardly alone in prophecy fulfillment. Several other legendary heroes have fulfilled prophecies, heroes like Zeus, Oedipus, Perseus, Romulus, Krishna, the Buddha, and King Arthur. But well-documented people seldom if ever fulfill prophecies. Especially for people in recent centuries, nobody has the faintest idea that they are coming.

I wish I even had half a clue what you were saying or what point you were making during any part of that.

It's "Where did all the prophecies go?"

Where are all the prophecies of great heroes who will emerge? Why don't such prophecies ever happen nowadays? Is it something like where all the miracles went? Some 250 years ago, David Hume noted that miracles have a shyness effect, preferring to occur away from good documentation. His observation is still correct.

 

[ruby sparks]

Although it must be noted that Jesus Christ was hardly alone in prophecy fulfillment. Several other legendary heroes have fulfilled prophecies, heroes like Zeus, Oedipus, Perseus, Romulus, Krishna, the Buddha, and King Arthur. But well-documented people seldom if ever fulfill prophecies. Especially for people in recent centuries, nobody has the faintest idea that they are coming.

I wish I even had half a clue what you were saying or what point you were making during any part of that.

It's "Where did all the prophecies go?"

Where are all the prophecies of great heroes who will emerge? Why don't such prophecies ever happen nowadays? Is it something like where all the miracles went? Some 250 years ago, David Hume noted that miracles have a shyness effect, preferring to occur away from good documentation. His observation is still correct.

But how is that relevant to whether Jesus, or anyone else ever attributed with doing miracles or fulfilling prophecies, is likely to have existed or not? The number of alleged miracles and prophecy fulfillments and the degree to which they are given credence are a function of how superstitious the culture surrounding the figure is or was. And in Jesus' case, I think we can safely say the context was 'very superstitious indeed', so claims of miracles and prophecies surrounding certain people were more likely to be accepted. It's largely irrelevant whether the miracles and prophecies were genuine, and this is still the case today.

Because you have to be talking about alleged miracles and prophecies, not actual ones. Otherwise, how could there actually have been prophecies predicting the arrival of, say, Zeus, Oedipus, Perseus, Romulus, Krishna, the Buddha, and King Arthur? There weren't.

Alleged miracles are two-a-penny in religions. Heck, there are TV channels in America, I believe, dedicated to the demonstration of them. Go to India for similar claims about modern-day gurus, or Africa for 21st Century witch doctors. Or almost anywhere where ancient beliefs in woo still persist.

As to modern prophecies, google 'Trump prophecy'. Nostredamus (allegedly) prophecied Hitler, Napoleon, George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Charles de Gaulle, JF Kennedy and Loius Pasteur, among others. The further back in history you go, the more often prophecy was attached to religious and political leaders. Vespasian, for example, and many Chinese Emperors.

Interestingly, all messianic claimants, from any religion, around the world, right up to modern times, have claimed to be the fulfilment of prophecy.

Whether the miracles and prophecies are a load of bollocks or not is separate to when or why certain figures are associated with them. The reasons for the latter have to do with the level of cultural acceptance of woo in the societal context of the figure.

If a figure like Jesus were alive today, he'd be rumbled pretty quickly in certain contexts. In others, he might be given his own TV show.

 

[ruby sparks]

Wovoka. (1856-1932). Native American Messiah (allegedly). Did magic (allegedly).

 

[ruby sparks]

Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad (1835 – 1908). Claimed to have been divinely appointed as the promised Mahdi in fulfillment of Islamic messianic prophecies

 

[ruby sparks]

Bahá'u'lláh. (1817-1892). Founder of the Bahá'í Faith. He claimed to be the prophetic fulfilment of Bábism.

 

[ruby sparks]

Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia (1892–1975). Alleged Messiah of the Rastafari movement.



André Grenard Matsoua (1899–1942). Self-proclaimed Messiah of the Congolese Matsouanism cult, which he founded.



Samael Aun Weor (1917–1977). Messiah claimant. Colombia. Predicted his own death and resurrection for 1978.



Nirmala Srivastava (1923–2011), guru and goddess of Sahaja Yoga, proclaimed herself to be the incarnation of the Holy Ghost.



Interesting one. Claimed to be both the Messiah and the antichrist. José Luis de Jesús Miranda (1946–2013).



Claude Maurice Marcel Vorilhon. (1946-present ). Claimed he met an extraterrestrial being in 1973 and became the Messiah.



Ryuho Okawa (1956 -present). Founder of Happy Science in Japan. Okawa claims to channel the spirits of Buddha and Confucius and claims to be the incarnation of the supreme spiritual being called El Cantare.



Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (1941-present). Has been declared the Kalki (Hinduism) Avatar.

Note that avatar has a meaning in Hinduism fairly closely related to Christian Doectism.



These, and the ones posted on the previous page (The Deadraisers and Sai Baba of Shirdi) illustrate how there's nothing implausible in principle about someone being considered a 'Magic Man' of the Jesus sort or of being associated with alleged miracles or prophecies, even when we restrict ourselves to modern examples that we can get photos of. In ancient times, it was considered even more plausible.

By and large, cults which are said, within relatively close temporal proximity to events, to have had a leader/founder (very often with magic powers or prophetic fulfilment) generally have had. Exceptions might include the John Frum Cargo Cult, though even there it isn't clear there wasn't an imposter.

So what Hume said about 'actual' miracles seems largely irrelevant, unless you are mixing up the the question, 'does woo exist?' with, 'do people who believe in or practice it exist?' Which to some extent, I think you were. Otherwise, why cite Hume?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not surprised. We're still trying to figure out what planet you are from.

Use of the Royal 'we' I see. Who's 'we', hollygoats?

If you mean 'we here in this forum' I'm not sure you speak for everyone, at least I hope not. But this being about the 5th or 6th forum I've posted on regarding this topic, I should not be surprised, because somehow, and I'm not sure how or why it came to be, if one posts in such a thread, whether one is an atheist or not, and no matter what case one makes, it's taken by the main participants to be so odd to merely say one thinks it more likely than not that Jesus existed, that one must be an alien or something.

Anyhows, your fascination with outer space is noted.

 

[whollygoats]

I think Kolob is a good guess.

 

[whollygoats]

I think ruby needs to learn the distinction between an alien and an angel. I suspect he thinks he's making mileage with it, when what it does is make him look even more ignorant and duplicitous than he actually might be.

It seems as though ruby is completely ignorant of the Enochian traditions still widely present amongst the fractious Hebrews of Judea in the early years of the first millenium CE. Being sure that one sets a place at the Seder table for Elijah is not an invitation to space aliens...that is a willful and exceedingly ignorant misinterpretation. Margaret Barker's work, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God (London, 1992) will introduce readers to a better understanding of the belief system of the Judeans of first century Judea than this bullshit about 'space aliens'.

And, while we're at it, perhaps ruby, because he is so knowledgeable, can tell us about that third heaven thing that Paul imparted to everybody. (2 Cor 12:2) And maybe ruby can tell us how many heavens Paul actually thought there were? At least three heavens, but, jeebus...there might be more.

Of course, in 2 Cor 11:4, we find Paul writing about other preachers preaching other Jesuses...not christs, Jesuses...and warning his followers to ignore them. How many forking Jesuses did they have to draw upon? It sounds like the countryside was crawling with teaching Jeebi. I mean, how can we be sure that Paul got the 'right' Jesus? Especially if this Paul is babbling about 'visiting the third heaven'? Perhaps ruby can let us in on all these secrets that he knows?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As to whether Jesus (if he existed) returned from the dead, is that a serious question? The answer is almost certainly not ...

Almost? That's why I asked the question.

I take it you mean that there is no way a man rises from the dead or that any of the miracle silliness happened as described in the stories told about the protagonist.

A rational person looks for an explanation as to why someone behaves in a certain less rational way, such as relating a fabulous story with apparent sincerity.

We look far an answer as to why tens of millions of people, for example, believe with utmost conviction and sincerity that a gentleman named Santa flies with his sleigh and reindeer to their homes and leaves them presents every year at a certain time. We look for a rational explanation as to why they think this gentleman is magically watching them.

So, no, there is no "almost" about it. But there are answers as to why someone might insist otherwise.

If someone is arguing for a historical Jesus based on these fabulous stories, and insisting that there's a chance this person really did come back to life and perform other impossible feats, I don't think that person has credibility.

 

[whollygoats]

I'm not surprised. We're still trying to figure out what planet you are from.

Use of the Royal 'we' I see. Who's 'we', hollygoats?

If you mean 'we here in this forum' I'm not sure you speak for everyone, at least I hope not. But this being about the 5th or 6th forum I've posted on regarding this topic, I should not be surprised, because somehow, and I'm not sure how or why it came to be, if one posts in such a thread, whether one is an atheist or not, and no matter what case one makes, it's taken by the main participants to be so odd to merely say one thinks it more likely than not that Jesus existed, that one must be an alien or something.

Anyhows, your fascination with outer space is noted.

"We", as in "those of us who have a clue as to what it is lpetrich is referencing".

You have openly admitted that you do not and speculation is as to whether this is because you are figuratively 'from some other planet'. You provided the metaphor, I just followed your lead.

I suppose we could try a show of hands, if you'd like?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But how is that relevant to whether Jesus, or anyone else ever attributed with doing miracles or fulfilling prophecies, is likely to have existed or not? The number of alleged miracles and prophecy fulfillments and the degree to which they are given credence are a function of how superstitious the culture surrounding the figure is or was. And in Jesus' case, I think we can safely say the context was 'very superstitious indeed', so claims of miracles and prophecies surrounding certain people were more likely to be accepted. It's largely irrelevant whether the miracles and prophecies were genuine, and this is still the case today.

So what you are suggesting is that a person existed who was Jesus and he had a remarkable marketing campaign that:

• invented his direct numeric connection with Abraham, David, and the Exile
• invented the virgin birth
• invented the resurrection, if not crucifixion
• invented the miracles

So what is left of Jesus? Are we left with wondering about the person Paul Bunyon was based on? You know, they exaggerated his size, adventures, and his ox, but the guy did exist. So what? Merely existing has to have something behind it that is real.

What then is the difference between a real historical Jesus with nothing to document him and the biblical Jesus?

 

[ruby sparks]

So what you are suggesting is that a person existed who was Jesus and he had a remarkable marketing campaign that:

• invented his direct numeric connection with Abraham, David, and the Exile
• invented the virgin birth
• invented the resurrection, if not crucifixion
• invented the miracles

I'd go along with that, but I wouldn't call it a marketing campaign. Well, I might. I know what you mean, but I'm not sure it extended to the resurrection. I rather think that a lot of people actually believed that happened (see below). As to the miracles, I've already commented. It's plausible he was a faith healer. It's also possible the guys doing the genealogies foolishly believed in what they were doing just as much as the ones who might have believed what they wrote in the genealogies in Genesis. Or maybe they didn't believe it.

Are we left with wondering about the person Paul Bunyon was based on? You know, they exaggerated his size, adventures, and his ox, but the guy did exist.

Do you mean Fabian Fournier? In that case, sort of, yes, a bit like that.

What then is the difference between a real historical Jesus with nothing to document him and the biblical Jesus?

Imo, a minimal amount of plausible items which might reasonably be taken to be probably historical are that some Judean messianic claimant more likely than not got killed by the Romans. He probably said some things and did some things before that, possibly of a millenarian nature. He was probably just another deluded, failed messianic claimant like all the others. Beyond that I'm not especially interested, necessarily.

I think it's reasonable to believe that some of the epistles were probably written not long afterwards, and the whole initial fuss seems to have been largely based on the deluded notion that his death hadn't entirely been the end of him.

Not at all unusual. Sai Baba of Shardi's followers believed it about him. Ditto other 'messiahs'. See also: ghosts/apparitions in general.


Incidentally, a guru's mode of passing away doesn't have to be at all like what was expected for followers or converts to adjust to. Some of Sabbati Zevi's modern-day Jewish followers still cling to the idea that he really was the Jewish messiah even though he converted to Islam before he died in 1676. They reckon it was all part of the messianic scheme (and are still waiting). Some of his leading followers at the time encouraged this explanation after his death and it was bought into, similar to the way some people bought into the 'stumbling blocks' about a reported messiah supposedly being hung off a 'tree' by the authorities, or indeed the way cults revise the expected date of the end times after the first one has passed and nothing happened.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No offense but you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whollygoats]

 

[whollygoats]

hmmm....is there a way for the poster to delete a duplicate post?

 

[ruby sparks]

No offense but you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

No offense taken.

Not easy to reply though, since I'm not sure in what way you think I'm doing that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'd go along with that, but I wouldn't call it a marketing campaign. Well, I might. I know what you mean, but I'm not sure it extended to the resurrection. I rather think that a lot of people actually believed that happened (see below). As to the miracles, I've already commented. It's plausible he was a faith healer. It's also possible the guys doing the genealogies foolishly believed in what they were doing just as much as the ones who might have believed what they wrote in the genealogies in Genesis. Or maybe they didn't believe it.




Do you mean Fabian Fournier? In that case, sort of, yes, a bit like that.

What then is the difference between a real historical Jesus with nothing to document him and the biblical Jesus?

Imo, a minimal amount of plausible items which might reasonably be taken to be probably historical are that some Judean messianic claimant more likely than not got killed by the Romans. He probably said some things and did some things before that, possibly of a millenarian nature. He was probably just another deluded, failed messianic claimant like all the others. Beyond that I'm not especially interested, necessarily.

I think it's reasonable to believe that some of the epistles were probably written not long afterwards, and the whole initial fuss seems to have been largely based on the deluded notion that his death hadn't entirely been the end of him.

Not at all unusual. Sai Baba of Shardi's followers believed it about him. Ditto other 'messiahs'. See also: ghosts/apparitions in general.


Incidentally, a guru's mode of passing away doesn't have to be at all like what was expected for followers or converts to adjust to. Some of Sabbati Zevi's modern-day Jewish followers still cling to the idea that he really was the Jewish messiah even though he converted to Islam before he died in 1676. They reckon it was all part of the messianic scheme (and are still waiting). Some of his leading followers at the time encouraged this explanation after his death and it was bought into, similar to the way some people bought into the 'stumbling blocks' about a reported messiah supposedly being hung off a 'tree' by the authorities, or indeed the way cults revise the expected date of the end times after the first one has passed and nothing happened.

So if I authored a character who was a combination of John Brown, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas that person would be historical?

 

[ruby sparks]

So if I authored a character who was a combination of John Brown, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas that person would be historical?

Not enough to be considered an historical person, no, imo. Might be at least a bit closer to it if your combination was, say, 90% one of them, but even then, I'd say no.

But assuming you're referring there to 4 actual people, it wouldn't make any of them ahistorical of themselves. You'd just have made an amalgam of 4 historical people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if I authored a character who was a combination of John Brown, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas that person would be historical?

Not enough to be considered an historical person, no, imo. Might be at least a bit closer to it if your combination was, say, 90% one of them, but even then, I'd say no.

But assuming you're referring there to 4 actual people, it wouldn't make any of them ahistorical of themselves. You'd just have made an amalgam of 4 historical people.

What is the gain here? Let's parallel.

joedad: The film Braveheart tells us about William Wallace, but most of the stuff in the film is fictional and should not be referenced as being accurate historically regarding William Wallace, his actions and the consequences of them.

ruby sparks: But there was at least a William Wallace.