The Christ Myth Theory

[steve_bank]

Communism failed. Russian communism collapsed and resulted in Putin.

Chinese communism failed and became a form of capitalism, I heard them call themselves socialist now.

Cuba is quietly giving up communism from reporting.

Modern Israel was based on the kibitz or commune. They became capitalist.

 

[No Robots]

^We are experiencing the transition from egoistic communism to altruistic communism. The whole of ethics is in this: from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. The meek shall inherit the earth. This is the inevitable destiny of mankind.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In the 19th century, almost all relevant scholars agreed that the Works of Shakespeare were written by a certain man from Stratford. I greatly admire thinkers like Mark Twain who deduced that the Stratford Authorship was a hoax long before a huge body of new evidence and intelligent argumentation was available to book readers and Googlers today. This is not the only example where a consensus has proven wrong. Often I form my own opinion by studying the expert opinions on both sides. I can't double-check their research, but I can review their writings for tone, logic, mathematical competence and common-sense.

Extraordinary claims -- e.g. the rejection of a 99+% expert consensus -- require extraordinary thinking. Again: I greatly admire the several 19th century geniuses who rejected the "William Shakespeare" consensus: I wouldn't have the imagination and confidence to dare.

99+% of professional historians believe Jesus was a real person. (I've defined the Historicity yes/no definition many MANY times by now.) This 99+% consensus may NOT be enough to be fully convincing, but expert opinion deserves respect. Relevant experts' knowledge and research is hundreds of times that of myself, and many thousands of times greater than that of some others here. To challenge the experts, I might read the opinions of contrarians and focus my common-sense and, yes, my mathematical intuition on a few key controversies.

I suppose I should ask you to tell me about your Jesus. The reason I ask is because there is a lot of similarity between the Shakespeare Authorship Question (SAQ) and the Jesus Historicity Question (JHQ). You've provided some minimal details about the events in the life of your Jesus but that isn't enough. I want you to tell me about your Jesus in terms of what he allegedly said in the gospels, what he knew, what you think allowed him to acquire such wisdom and presence. What of his life made him what he was in the gospels?

Orthodox Shakespeare Scholars claim that Will of Stratford was simply a genius, a man apart from men. But as we all know, even genius requires knowledge to flower. It requires learning, experiences, exposure, education, etc. There is nothing in the life of Will of Stratford to suggest he had any of these things. There is precisely a literary paper trail of zero, unlike all other authors of his time. That evidence alone is sufficient to raise doubt about his alleged authorship.

So what about your Jesus? Do you suppose he was an Essene who left his beginnings, rather highly educated in the scriptures and then took off on his own? Do you suppose he was an educated man like his brother James, assuming James was highly literate himself?

Or do you think he was just a bumpkin who got whacked? If so, if he was just a bumpkin that got whacked, what relevance does that have to the protagonist in the gospels who is portrayed as very wise, very well spoken, very much a genius in his own right?

There is absolutely no doubt, if we can trust the historical record, that lots and lots of fellows named Jesus likely got whacked as it was a very common name. I'm guessing we're not interested in any of those as none of them would rise to the level of the gospel protagonist. But I don't really know anything about your Jesus apart from a few events. So please tell me about him and how he is the gospel Jesus just without all the supernatural trappings and maybe even the genius aura. Thanks.

I should add that claims are not evidence. Even if 100% of Shakespeare scholars claim that Will of Stratford wrote the works attributed to "William Shakespeare" that is still just a claim, it does not rise to the level of evidence. Ben Jonson's first folio allusions are also just claims, not evidence, and there is no evidence that Will of Stratford was an author outside claims by orthodox scholars.

Likewise, if 99.9% of Jesus scholars say there is an HJ, that amounts to a claim, not evidence requiring extraordinary rebuttal. Understand the difference between a claim and evidence? All the geological experts claimed that "Continental Drift" was baloney, nonsense to be disregarded. Those claims all amount to arguments from authority so we can toss them.

To my knowledge no one has ever given us a bio of your Jesus that allows him to become something resembling the gospel protagonist. With regards to the SAQ we get fantasy after fantasy that all sell big time and make the writers lots of money. But they're all just speculation and fan fiction, choir music for the choir who sing their praises. But none of them provide even a scintilla of new evidence to support their claims. What about your Jesus? What do you propose as his life leading to his death and his immortalization in the gospels?

 

[No Robots]

^For Jesus, see Our Christ: The revolt of the mystical genius by Constantin Brunner
^For Shakespeare, see The True Shakespere revealed! Shakespere was a Jew by Harry Waton

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

^For Jesus, see Our Christ: The revolt of the mystical genius by Constantin Brunner
^For Shakespeare, see The True Shakespere revealed! Shakespere was a Jew by Harry Waton

Thanks, Robots. Maybe you could summarize for me. I'm no mystic. What is Brunner's argument? What is Waton's argument? Hopefully they're not like SAQ Orthodox arguments that provide zero convincing discussion but merely trot out the same old claims.

 

[No Robots]

^Short précis of Brunner's book: Jesus as atheistic mystic.
^Waton's lecture is only 10 typewritten pages.

I searched "SAQ", but didn't find anything. What does it mean?

Brunner and Waton do not present the standard view of their subjects. Their views are coloured by their Jewish origins and by the intense intellectual and spiritual pressures of the early twentieth century. This period acted as a pressure-chamber, producing some valuable diamonds like those found in the works of these two writers.

Waton's lecture is a scan I made from what appears to be the only extant copy. It is in the collection of NYPL. I have many more scans of rare copies of Waton's works, including his analyses of Shakespeare's plays. I plan to make all that I have available when copyright lapses in 2029, which is seventy years after Waton's death.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I searched "SAQ", but didn't find anything. What does it mean?

Please refer to post 1,283 of the thread where I responded to Swammi.

 

[Swammerdami]

Two questions have come up. I hope even my detractors give me credit for one thing: I DO answer your questions. First about Shakespeare:

Say Pretty Please and Good Boy and I will bump the Shakespeare Authorship Hoax thread with a briefish but -- I hope -- useful summary. If anyone wants to bump that thread without waiting for me, Fine. But let's minimize any "Hijacking" of THIS thread please.

I WILL however respond to the recent claims.

(1) Do NOT use Wikipedia for source about the Shakespeare Hoax. 51% rules at Wikipedia, and 51% band together to corrupt all attempts by "Oxfordians" to present their views. There's plenty of "Oxfordian" propaganda -- if you want to call it that -- on the 'Net. But you can't get there from Wikipedia.

As for Mark Twain writing satire: Even Twain's serious writing has a satiric tone. I'll guess any claim that his work was "only" satire is just more Wikipedia garbage. Anyway he was NOT the only 19th-century genius who defied consensus on the SAQ ("Shakespeare Authorship Question.") As a student of math history, I was surprised that Georg Cantor -- inventor discoverer of transfinite numbers among other creative math -- thought Shakespeare to be a hoax.

An imposing array of professors and critics tell us flatly that he was the former, Shaksper of Stratford. To dispute them would seem to require no little nerve. One who does so, however, will find himself in good company. The heretics include Walt Whitman, Charles Dickens, Lord Palmerston, Otto von Bismarck, Henry James, Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, John Galsworthy, William McFee, Charles Chaplin, ex-Senator (formerly Professor) Paul Douglas, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, and, it would seem, Benjamin Disraeli and Charles de Gaulle, along with a remarkable number of lawyers (including the late editor of the American Bar Association Journal), and the authors of publications requiring hundreds of pages to list. All have been skeptical about the conventional attribution of Shakespeare's works, or total disbelievers in it. Henry James said, "I am 'sort of' haunted by the conviction that the divine William" -the Stratford man- "is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practised on a patient world."

 

[Swammerdami]

Mr. Moogly has asked me to detail the biography of Jesus of Nazareth. I cannot do it. I've "admitted" this over and over and over in these threads. I've suggested Aslan's Zealot as a book to get your started, Moogly, if your question is sincere. But there are better books, I'm sure.

BUT I think your question is disingenuous, Moogly. You don't sincerely want to hear the bio of a man you think never existed. You just think you've got a Gotcha question. Now what am I to do? Concoct some scenario around a real-world inspiration for Santiago and throw it back at you?

The 99+% of professional historians who agree Jesus did exist do NOT base this on a 300-page biography they've constructed for him! They base it on a few specific facts, and a few clear inferences. Here's a few that pop into my mind:

* - Parts of the Gospels were first written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek. This challenges the Mythicist belief that the Gospels were purely a Greek-speaker invention.
* - As someone pointed out recently, several incidents in the Gospels are NOT AT ALL what Myth inventors would want to present. Instead the most logical reason for their inclusion was their truth!
* - John the Baptist DID exist, had beliefs and ministry that overlapped strongly with those of Jesus. He was martyred but NOT "on a tree." Why not base the new cult on John the B?
* - Chrisitianity was blooming strongly soon after the alleged Crucifixion, at a time when plenty of people would have known Jesus to be a myth IF that's what he was. But the "Never existed" charge is one that was NEVER made by any of those fiercely opposed to Christianity. (And why would Simon Peter run the risk of constructing a myth, when there were plenty of real martyrs to choose from?)
* - Et cetera
* - And finally, a clue that is VERY simple and VERY easy to understand: Jesus of Nazareth had a flesh-and-bones brother named James. How many mythical men have flesh-and-bones brothers? People who oppose historicity but refuse to comment on James are like Stratfordians who refuse to comment on the Dedication to The Sonnets.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Mr. Moogly has asked me to detail the biography of Jesus of Nazareth. I cannot do it. I've "admitted" this over and over and over in these threads. I've suggested Aslan's Zealot as a book to get your started, Moogly, if your question is sincere. But there are better books, I'm sure.

I'm asking you to think about your Jesus and who he was for the thirty years before he got whacked. Is that really a trick question? Absolutely not so please don't avoid it. Stratfordians do it about Will of Stratford all the time because there is absolutely no literary paper trail leading to the guy, none at all. Even his will has absolutely no literary element to it and this is supposedly the greatest writer of English letters. Your Jesus occupies a similar slot in the historical record.

The point is that Strat diehards give it a try after try after try after try. They look at the Shakespeare canon and conjecture that he must have traveled to Italy and France. He must have had access to rare books and been fluent in at least four languages. He must have done this and that and this and that. How did Will of Stratford pull it off? Etc. Etc. Etc.

I'm merely asking you to do the same thing with your Jesus. I'm also asking you to tell me what you think he really said and what you think he didn't say. I'm asking you to guess about his life and if you think he was literate how he got that way. That's a rare skill at that time. I don't want Aslan's take, I want yours. Feel free to say your Jesus was like so and so, some real person of similar historical regard, religious or not.

If you're simply telling me that there was this guy who was a preacher and he got whacked and that's the HJ then you are 100 percent wrong because there had to be dozens. What did this brother of James do all his life that got him immortalized? Do you understand? I'm asking you to think about the dude that allegedly delivered the beatitudes. If he delivered the beatitudes how did he get so smart and so eloquent? Who the fuck was he other than simply the "brother of James?" Even if I admit that James had a brother named Jesus so what? How does this brother get to become a god? Who the fuck was he? Are you telling me he was the standard corner preacher we encounter in our lives and that he got whacked? That's it?

Hopefully you understand what I'm asking you to do.

EDIT: I took a peek at some reviews of Aslan's book. Some say it is entertaining but has limited historical value about Jesus the person. It sounds a lot like Shapiro's The Year of Lear. It's just fodder for the Strat diehards with lots of fantasy but is valueless in terms of shedding any light of how their hero came to be the greatest writer in the English language.

 

[dbz]

Mr. Moogly has asked me to detail the biography of Jesus of Nazareth. I cannot do it.
[...]
The 99+% of professional historians who agree Jesus did exist do NOT base this on a 300-page biography they've constructed for him! They base it on a few specific facts, and a few clear inferences.

[A] recent pamphlet from the British Humanist Association titled “Who Was Jesus?” deals peremptorily with this issue of historicity: “Did Jesus exist? Almost all scholars believe that Jesus existed in the first century CE in Palestine.” The pamphlet goes on to give an account of Jesus identical to mine.

---

--Scott, Nicole (19 July 2024). "Five Challenges to Christ Myth Theorists | Free Inquiry". Cf. British Humanist Association. “Who Was Jesus?” London, UK, 1999.

• Claim 1: We should never question the consensus.

That is false. The only way a consensus can claim to be reliable is if it can be questioned and overturned if wrong—and the consensus in this field has been questioned and overturned a lot. So it’s not even unusual. Compared to other academic fields, biblical studies is the most unreliable. So you cannot simply rely on arguments from consensus there: you have to vet it. See On Evaluating Arguments from Consensus. So when Cooke asks “Why should we reject this general consensus?” he doesn’t even know that I and Lataster answer that (he doesn’t know we or our work even exist). Indeed our entire studies are about answering that. And our peer reviewers agreed the field should pay attention to what we had to say.

We document, with evidence, that the current consensus on this subject is malformed, being based on too many false assumptions and invalid methodologies. And that’s not just us saying that: even the field itself admits they are using invalid methodologies, as I documented in Proving History in 2012 (which was also peer reviewed, by professors of mathematics and biblical studies: I made that a requirement in my contract with Prometheus, which used to be a publishing arm of CFI; clearly Cooke could use some competent peer reviewers of his own). Among those invalid methods is a bizarre trusting of field-wide assumptions, even by secular scholars, that originated in Christian apologetics. I’ve discussed all this before, in several articles, but you can start the breadcrumb at Things Fall Apart Only When You Check: The Main Reason the Historicity of Jesus Continues to Be Believed.

---

--Carrier (14 August 2024). "That Phenomenally Stupid Article by Bill Cooke". Richard Carrier Blogs.

 

[dbz]

• Duke Mertz (2023). "Old Testament Evidence for the Mythical Jesus | Free Inquiry".

Mertz (“Old Testament Evidence for the Mythical Jesus,” Free Inquiry, December 2023/January 2024, pp. 44–49), added little new material. Mertz was content to roll out a whole caravan of historical oddities and complexities—stuff nobody is denying—only then to spice it up by returning to a theory of the mystery drama as his explanation of Jesus’s non-historicity

---

--Bill Cooke (2024). "Five Challenges to Christ Myth Theorists | Free Inquiry"

• Claim 4: Mythicism doesn’t add anything. It’s, as Cooke says, “sterile.”

This is false. And it betrays the fact that Cooke is the one violating the Law of Excluded Middle here, and in exactly the way he falsely accuses mythicists of: he assumes the only relevance any theory of early Christianity can have is to answer or “respond” to Christian apologetics (as Cooke says, “proponents of the myth theory can’t say much in response” to various Christian apologetical stances he lists). That is not what history is for. If what Cooke wants is a counter-apologetic to Christianity, mythicism will indeed be of no use to him, just as I have already explained in Fincke Is Right: Arguing Jesus Didn’t Exist Should Not Be a Strategy. Only nonbelievers are capable of entertaining, and thus fruitfully discussing, the possibility Jesus didn’t even exist.

But as a question in history (not anti-religious rhetoric), Jesus mythicism is far from sterile. To the contrary, it calls for a substantial paradigm shift in the way we study early Christianity. Indeed, Jesus mythicism was so fruitful it anticipated almost the entirety of today’s mainstream consensus. A hundred years ago the mythicist-promoted notion that the Gospels are mythologies and the postmortem appearances of Jesus were prophetic dreams or hallucinatory ecstasies common to world religions was considered as absurd and contrary to the “consensus” as Cooke voices here; they are now the mainstream consensus (see Adventures at the Society of Biblical Literature Conference and Christianity Was a Revelation Cult). Likewise that Christians doctored and fabricated evidence—now mainstream (see Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counter-forgery and Orthodox Corruption of Scripture). And so on.

Today, mythicism promises a more fruitful way of studying the Epistles and Gospels and other sources—looking for their mythical rather than historical point, as for example in Can You Rebel Against Rome with Only Two Swords? and Mark’s Use of Paul’s Epistles and Did ‘Docetism’ Really Even Exist? and Yes, Galatians 4 Is Allegorical and The Difference Between a Historian and an Apologist and Robyn Faith Walsh and the Gospels as Literature. And mythicism’s fertile influence, past and present, has extended well beyond that (see Some Controversial Ideas That Now Have Wide Scholarly Support and Was the Entire New Testament Forged in the Second Century?). Mythicism also compels a more logical and critical development of methods. It shall reform a lot of bad argumentation (again, see Things Fall Apart Only When You Check, as well as The Backwards and Unempirical Logic of Q Apologetics).

Mythicism will also improve our understanding of how Christianity actually began, and why; as well as how and why it evolved its mythology over time the way it did. Rather than remaining mired in apologetically favorable positions that throw crumbs of support to Christian believers, we can return Christianity to the fold of world religions, where it resembles many other religions in history, and is not some startlingly unique development of it. Just as we did for Judaism, when the academic consensus that Moses and the Patriarchs existed was overthrown in the 1970s, evolving over ensuing decades into the current secular consensus that embraces “Moses mythicism” (see Efraim Wallach on Old Testament Studies). Was that “of no use” to history, a “sterile” development?

---

--Carrier (14 August 2024). "That Phenomenally Stupid Article by Bill Cooke". Richard Carrier Blogs.

 

[Swammerdami]

Mr. Moogly has asked me to detail the biography of Jesus of Nazareth. I cannot do it. I've "admitted" this over and over and over in these threads. I've suggested Aslan's Zealot as a book to get your started, Moogly, if your question is sincere. But there are better books, I'm sure.

I'm asking you to think about your Jesus and who he was for the thirty years before he got whacked. Is that really a trick question?

Your "trick question" is nothing but a provocation, but YES. It is an unanswerable question. All one can do is guess.

I will not ask again whether you think John the Baptist was an historical person or not -- YOU DO NOT DEIGN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS -- but he was; and yet essentially nothing is known about his first 30 years. The most poignant detail of the Baptist's life -- Salome's lascivious dance -- is probably a myth. You've read some of my writings here. What can you say with confidence about my first 30 years? Nothing.

Pontius Pilate was a far more important person than Jesus during their lifetimes, yet documents about Pilate are VERY few and far between. What do we know about Pilate's first 30 years? NOTHING.

Must I go on and on and on like this to make the point clear?? Beyond a few certain life events, guesswork about Jesus' life is just that --guesswork. Aslan's book -- with its mixed reviews overall MUCH better than you imply -- is one attempt at guessing.

I won't guess because (1) It's too difficult and error-prone a task, and (2) it does NOT interest me. My To-Do List is already VERY long.

Did Siddhartha the Buddha exist? Yes. (And by the way, you do NOT even answer simple questions like that, resolved with a few seconds' Googling, while asking me to replace Aslan's book-length guesswork with a book of my own. What nonsense!

Quickly now, tell me the details of the Buddha's first 30 years!

Do you get the point?

We need not know the details of Columbus' childhood -- scholars aren't even in agreement on where he was born! -- to be sure he existed and sailed the ocean blue.

Moogly -- If you had even a slight clue about the task presented to professional historians about historic people who lived long ago, perhaps even before the printing press you would see how unreasonable your requests are.

Absolutely not so please don't avoid it. Stratfordians do it about Will of Stratford all the time because there is absolutely no literary paper trail leading to the guy, none at all. Even his will has absolutely no literary element to it and this is supposedly the greatest writer of English letters. Your Jesus occupies a similar slot in the historical record.

Non sequiturs and false comparisons abound. Almost every Englishman circa 1600 is better documented than almost every Jew in Judaea or Galilea circa 30.
Get it?

The point is that Strat diehards give it a try after try after try after try. They look at the Shakespeare canon and conjecture that he must have traveled to Italy and France. He must have had access to rare books and been fluent in at least four languages. He must have done this and that and this and that. How did Will of Stratford pull it off? Etc. Etc. Etc.

I'm merely asking you to do the same thing with your Jesus. I'm also asking you to tell me what you think he really said and what you think he didn't say.

First and foremost: You continue to draw comparisons between the SAQ and the Jesus Historicity question. These are so different the attempt at comparison is ... not smart. And not only "not smart" but an obvious ploy to "tug on me". Do you think you can divert me that way??

But since you do, here goes.

I am not a historical scholar. Many of the Infidels here think that a minute's Googling makes them more knowledgeable than professional historians who have devoted years to a particular mystery. Not me. I form my opinions in large part by reading the experts.

No, no, no. I did NOT say following the experts willy-nilly. I read both sides, compare, and draw conclusions.

Often the best clues are the tones of the alleged experts. Do they rebut with facts or logic? Or do they rebut with ad hominem insults?

Read Oxfordian papers on the SAQ. Fact, fact, logic, fact, fact, fact, logic, logic. The fact of the Oxfordian authorship becomes almost like a geometric proof.

Read Stratfordian rebuttals. They say "Like shit I scraped off the sole of my boot." Edward de Vere, being the father of the bride offered to Southampton in Venus and Adonis and so many Sonnets, is an important player in the Shakespeare story whether he wrote the Sonnets or not. Yet Wilson's pro-Stratfordian screed has only one mention of Oxford longer than a sentence: He tells us of an alleged fart when Oxford bowed to Her Majesty!

At that point one could correctly guess which side of the debate had facts and logic on their side just from their tones!!

The Jesus historicity question? SAME THING! Professional historians establish historicity with FACTS. Fact, fact, fact, logic, fact, logic, logic, fact, fact, fact.

You anti-history cultists? "Ignorance is strength. Facts are Irrelevant. Ignorance is strength. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Facts are Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.."

Obviously you can spend decades studying the question as professional historians have done. That's why I asked you to consider just ONE set of facts: The historicity of Jesus' brother James.

But YOU can barely stand to type the characters J-A-M-E-S. Your answer to the huge conundrum posed to Carrier cultists and whatever other rabid atheist cults are involved here?? What have you written to reconcile James with a Jesus that you think didn't exist?

Nada. Nada. Zero zero zero zero zero Nada. Nil. Nothing.
Nada. Nada. Zero zero zero zero zero Nada. Nil. Nothing.

EDIT: I took a peek at some reviews of Aslan's book. Some say ...

"Some say" ?? What a laugh. ("Some say it was the bigliest demonstration ever") SOME professional scholars on Jesus' historicity say that his speculations are interesting and plausible, but just one possible scenario out of many. There is not enough information to create a reliable and detailed biography of the Nazarene. Capische? Professional hstorians can't do it, YET you expect me to????

Professional historians cannot write a detailed "Life of Hammurabi" yet they KNOW he existed.

Moogly, Moogly, Moogly -- Please re-read my remarks here. Read it over and over until you finally get the point into your stubborn head!


Now. When are you finally going to tell us about Jesus' brother James?

 

[Swammerdami]

[quotations snipped]

Hi dbz! @dbz -- Do you have something to say? If you do, say it! Feel free to quote from Carrier or any of your other Prophets and Messiahs to SUPPORT the remarks YOU make, ... BUT SAY SOMETHING!!

I do NOT read your supporting quotations unless they are in support of some claim that YOU make.

In your recent post, after I strip off all the quotations to see what YOU believe or what YOU have the wherewithal to articulate, I am left with -- as you see above -- nothing, nada, nil. And this is the rule rather than exception with you and your posts.

I'm not sure that YOU even know how to create a paragraph. Can you do a single sentence?

 

[dbz]

Mr. Moogly has asked me to detail the biography of Jesus of Nazareth. I cannot do it....

I'm asking you to think about your Jesus and who he was for the thirty years before he got whacked. Is that really a trick question?

...All one can do is guess.

And all you can guess and the 99+% of professional historians who agree Jesus did exist—can guess—are based upon liars!

Mark being the most openly allegorical and the authors of John being the most deliberate liars. But Mark is also a deliberate liar!

[A]ncient honor culture was ubiquitously based on this principle, that it was moral, indeed obligatory, to lie to outsiders and tell the truth only among insiders. Hence Origen and Eusebius saying it’s right and proper for them, the elite, to lie to the public, so long as it serves what they believe to be “God’s will,” which really breaks down to a particular socio-political idea of how society should be organized and operate.

This is also why even Jews kept “changing” verses in their supposedly inviolate scriptures, while claiming to abhor any such meddling. The same exact thing we see in 2 Thessalonians condemning 1 Thessalonians as a forgery—when itself is in fact the forgery. They do what they condemn. Because that’s how you lie to people successfully. And you want to lie to them successfully, per Plato, to control them. Which they represent as “making the world a better place” or “solving the world’s problems,” with what actually amounts to social engineering, by means of deception. Because “rationally arguing from the truth” was not believed to work, or to get to the “correct” organization of society. For reasons as laid out, again, by Plato.

---

--Richard Carrier on August 8, 2021

 

[TomC]

Now. When are you finally going to tell us about Jesus' brother James?

I don't get why you find that tiny bit so compelling.

Around here, people often use the word to refer to guys who are not biological siblings. Almost always in the context of a religious community. People might even refer to long dead guys that they never met as Brother so-and-so, or a fellow member who lives far away. The word is not particularly precise.
Tom

 

[Swammerdami]

And all you can guess and the 99+% of professional historians who agree Jesus did exist—can guess—are based upon liars!

An actual sentence!! Congratulations!

A silly and useless sentence, of course -- and an implicit admission that it's the Prophet Carrier vs almost all actual historians -- but a complete sentence nonetheless.

 

[No Robots]

^The whole Jesus mythomania is alt-right grift. There's no one the reactionaries hate more than Jesus, that commie Jew bastard.

 

[steve_bank]

A modern saying 'He is my brother from another mother'. Meaning a close personal relationship without any biological link.

Today we read transliterations of translations without knowing the colloquial language spoken in Israel of the day.

I herd it it said that the Jesus reference the eye of a needle may have refereed to a narrow ally way.

It is not what Jesus said, it is what the gospel writer wrote translateto English much later after going through multiple language translations.

In the NLT bible Jesus says in Matthew 19:24 "I'll say it again-it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of A needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" Note that He says "a" needle, not "the" needle.

 

[Janice Rael]

I herd it it said that the Jesus reference the eye of a needle may have refereed to a narrow ally way.

How about a rope? Like a thread, only larger? Seems to be a lot more logical than a camel. Gee, maybe there's a book about it.