The Christ Myth Theory

[Person19960]

There definitely is a book, but, wait. For the Wikipedians:

SOMEONE said, to me, privately:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle

Cyril of Alexandria (fragment 219) claimed that "camel" was a Greek scribal typo where Biblical Greek: κάμηλος, romanized: kámēlos, lit. 'camel' was written in place of Biblical Greek: κάμιλος, romanized: kámilos, lit. 'rope' or 'cable'ore recently, George Lamsa, in his 1933 translation of the Bible into English from the Syriac, claimed the same.

Arthur Schopenhauer, in The World as Will and Representation, Volume 1, § 68, quoted Matthew 19:24: "It is easier for an anchor cable to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich person to come to God's kingdom."

English "camel" < Latin camēlus < Greek kámēlos likely from some Semitic language: Arabic jamal, Hebrew gamal (in Arabic, g > j is common)

Personally, I've read in cannabis culture literature for as long as I can remember that the Eye of the Needle verse in the Bible was said by some to be a mistranslation.

There is a new book that goes into this. I have not read it, and my correspondent doubted its scholarship.

But, hmm.

The identity of kaneh and kaneh bosm has long been a topic of speculation. Benet’s view was that when the Hebrew texts were translated into Greek for the Septuagint, a mistranslation took place, deeming it as the common marsh root “calamus.” This mistranslation followed into the Latin, and then English translations of the Hebrew Bible. It should be noted that other botanical mistranslations from the Hebrew to Greek in the Hebrew Bible have been exposed.

Cannabis & the Bible​

An excerpt adapted from ‘Cannabis: Lost Sacrament of the Ancient World’ by Chris Bennett.
May 31, 2023 BY: Chris Bennett

Compelling evidence of the ritual use of cannabis in ancient Israel was reported in a 2020 archaeological study, “Cannabis and Frankincense at the Judahite Shrine of Arad,” by the Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. The authors noted that two altars with burnt plant residues had been found in a shrine at an ancient Hebrew outpost in tel Arad. One of the altars tested for frankincense, a well-known Biblical herb, and the other altar tested positive for cannabis resin.

The research, expectedly, caused a storm of controversy, with Biblical historians, religious authorities, and other parties weighing in. An article in Haaretz, headlined “Holy Smoke | Ancient Israelites Used Cannabis as Temple Offering, Study Finds,” raised a key question: “If the ancient Israelites were joining in on the party, why doesn’t the Bible mention the use of cannabis as a substance used in rituals, just as it does numerous times for frankincense?”

The Disappearance of “Kaneh Bosm”​

Actually, several scholars have drawn attention to indications of cannabis use in the Bible. Polish anthropologist and etymologist Sula Benet contends that the Hebrew terms kaneh and kaneh bosm refer to cannabis. Benet identified five specific references in the “Hebrew Bible” (aka the Old Testament) — Exodus 30:23, Song of Songs 4:14, Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20, and Ezekiel 27:19 — that mention kaneh and kaneh bosm. However, when one reads these passages individually and compares them, a stark contrast emerges.

In Exodus 30:23, the reference is to an ingredient in the Holy Oil, which was used in the Holy of Holies, the inner chamber of the Temple in Jerusalem, whereas in Jeremiah 6:20, this same previously sacred substance is wholly rejected as an item of foreign influence and disdain. It appears that Yahweh, the Jealous God, frowned upon the idolatrous use of cannabis, the polytheistic drug of choice.

The identity of kaneh and kaneh bosm has long been a topic of speculation. Benet’s view was that when the Hebrew texts were translated into Greek for the Septuagint, a mistranslation took place, deeming it as the common marsh root “calamus.” This mistranslation followed into the Latin, and then English translations of the Hebrew Bible. It should be noted that other botanical mistranslations from the Hebrew to Greek in the Hebrew Bible have been exposed.

Buy Book

---

This article is adapted from Cannabis: Lost Sacrament of the Ancient World by Chris Bennett (TrineDay, 2023). Bennett is the author of several books, including Liber 420 and Cannabis and the Soma Solution. © Copyright, Project CBD. May not be reprinted without permission.

It's from here: https://projectcbd.org/hemp/cannabis-the-bible/

If the Jesus Mythicists were correct about their ideas, then, how did they miss this? The same way they missed Juneteenth?

 

[Swammerdami]

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

Asked and answered several times, e.g. at this post from two years ago:

.

. . . but I will summarize One.More.Time. The two most relevant mentions of the brother are by Paul the Evangelist and by the Judeo-Roman historian Josephus. (That Jesus had a brother James is also mentioned in the synoptic Gospels and by the Christian historian Hegesippus.)

Paul the Evangelist

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

(1) Paul HATES this James! Even the brief passage where he calls him the Lord's brother is dismissive: ("... saw I NONE, save ...") If "Lord's brother was used as a compliment, why does Paul apply it to his opponent in the developing Hellenist Christian community, someone he also calls "Son of Satan"?
(2) IF "Lord's brother" and/or any similar expression was in use during the 1st century to refer to a disciple of the so-called Christ, can you find another example?
SPOILER ALERT: Other than the Galatians:1:19 quote just given, the number of occurrences of "Lord's brother", "brother of Christ" or ANY such expression applied to a human is NOT a whoppingly large number. It was NOT a common idiom, at least in any 1st century writings. Go ahead, count the occurrences of such a reference in the Epistles, the Gospels, the entirety of the New Testament, the entire Bible for that matter. Go ahead, count them! Or let me save you some time. The TOTAL number of such references, not counting Galations 1:19 itself is ZERO (0). Zero, Nada, Nil. "Crickets." That SINGLE passage in Galatians is the ONLY such reference in the ENTIRE BIBLE.

Josephus the Historian

When therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified. Nay some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria; and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed with what they said; and wrote in anger to Ananus; and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done. On which account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest.

A few scholars, as well as Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, think "who was called Christ" was a later interpolation. This is unlikely [POP QUIZ: WHY is it unlikely?] but even if true doesn't change the argument much. Even Carrier accepts that the paragraph is genuine Josephus except for that one phrase.

Judaeans in those days did not have heritable surnames as most of the world does now. But it was common to use a nick-name, placename, patronymic, or occupation to make it more clear who we're even talking about! (Let's call these non-heritable surnames) This is particularly true when the given name itself is common, as were the names Jesus, James, Simon etc. Josephus needn't provide surnames for men like Ananus -- he's written about him before, the name was not particularly common, and he was the friggin High Priest of Judaea! But he does use surnames to clarify Jesus at the very end of the paragraph ("the son of Damneus"), James ("the brother of Jesus") and perhaps even THAT Jesus ("who was called Christ").

It was MUCH more common to reference the father in a patronymic (e.g. "James son of Joseph") than to reference a brother. Clarifying which James by showing him as Jesus' brother is a bit odd since Jesus was a very common name. Is this a hint that Jesus might have been famous? That "brother of Jesus" was intended to help pin down which James we're speaking of? But Jesus was a very common name; that's why the "who was called Christ" is likely original Josephus. (Christian editors might have left off the "called.") BTW, even in the age of parchment I'm not sure how easy it would be to corrupt ALL copies of a single well-read book.

Carrier has a solution to the "puzzle" of Josephus' Jesus here. It is absolutely laughable and demonstrates to me that he is a charlatan. I use it as an IQ test: Anyone who doesn't find Carrier's solution absurd has cognitive deficiency. I strongly doubt that Carrier believes his own "solution."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

What do you say, @TomC ? If nothing else, so you need TWO distinct solutions for just these TWO instances of James the Brother? TWO righteous Christian leaders who lived about the same time, were BOTH named James, and BOTH wrongly shown as Jesus' brother?

 

[Swammerdami]

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

The "Mythicists" are certainly crackpots. but they are NOT alt-right grifters. The alt-right pretends to be Christian and seeks money. But AFAIK there's little or no money in their Mythomania, except for their Prophet himself, the bookwriter Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD.

The Mythicists remind me most of Flat-Earthers. and the Fundies who assure us that dinosaur fossils are only a few thousand years old. There are some major differences however:

(1) Some Flat-Earthers are science nerds who have developed elaborate models to support their flat earth. Like the "Birds are all fake" movement, many Flat-Earthers know the world is round and are in it just for the giggles. Mythologists actually BELIEVE their nonsense, though have little to offer but "Duuuh. Because Carrier the Prophet told me so." Their blind faith in this crackpot "scholar" reminds us of some of the most laughable Christian Fundies.

(2) Fundies who make the dinosaurs young are trying desperately to maintain their faith in the literal truth of the Bible. Atheists are under no such obligation. Preachers have been common throughout history whether God exists or not. Atheists even admit that there were preachers in Galilee and Judaea during the early 1st-century. But why is their FEAR and HATRED of Christianity so great that they must deny the very existence of the preacher named Jesus?? They cannot stand the idea that Simon Peter admired a real man; he has to be myth creator instead! L.O.L. I really do NOT understand this. At least the Fundies who don't believe in dinosaurs have a religious purpose for their nonsense. But what's with these hyper-extreme atheists? Based on their responses here, they don't think the Buddha or Mohammed the Prophet were historic persons either.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

"Tiny" or not, it's a set of facts that happen to point VERY STRONGLY at Jesus' historicity. We ARE interested in the true/false historicity question, right? Or do we prefer to deliberately ignore evidence that doesn't fit our prejudice?

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

Asked and answered several times, e.g. at this post from two years ago:

.

. . . but I will summarize One.More.Time. The two most relevant mentions of the brother are by Paul the Evangelist and by the Judeo-Roman historian Josephus. (That Jesus had a brother James is also mentioned in the synoptic Gospels and by the Christian historian Hegesippus.)

Paul the Evangelist

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

(1) Paul HATES this James! Even the brief passage where he calls him the Lord's brother is dismissive: ("... saw I NONE, save ...") If "Lord's brother was used as a compliment, why does Paul apply it to his opponent in the developing Hellenist Christian community, someone he also calls "Son of Satan"?
(2) IF "Lord's brother" and/or any similar expression was in use during the 1st century to refer to a disciple of the so-called Christ, can you find another example?
SPOILER ALERT: Other than the Galatians:1:19 quote just given, the number of occurrences of "Lord's brother", "brother of Christ" or ANY such expression applied to a human is NOT a whoppingly large number. It was NOT a common idiom, at least in any 1st century writings. Go ahead, count the occurrences of such a reference in the Epistles, the Gospels, the entirety of the New Testament, the entire Bible for that matter. Go ahead, count them! Or let me save you some time. The TOTAL number of such references, not counting Galations 1:19 itself is ZERO (0). Zero, Nada, Nil. "Crickets." That SINGLE passage in Galatians is the ONLY such reference in the ENTIRE BIBLE.

Josephus the Historian

When therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified. Nay some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria; and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed with what they said; and wrote in anger to Ananus; and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done. On which account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest.

A few scholars, as well as Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, think "who was called Christ" was a later interpolation. This is unlikely [POP QUIZ: WHY is it unlikely?] but even if true doesn't change the argument much. Even Carrier accepts that the paragraph is genuine Josephus except for that one phrase.

Judaeans in those days did not have heritable surnames as most of the world does now. But it was common to use a nick-name, placename, patronymic, or occupation to make it more clear who we're even talking about! (Let's call these non-heritable surnames) This is particularly true when the given name itself is common, as were the names Jesus, James, Simon etc. Josephus needn't provide surnames for men like Ananus -- he's written about him before, the name was not particularly common, and he was the friggin High Priest of Judaea! But he does use surnames to clarify Jesus at the very end of the paragraph ("the son of Damneus"), James ("the brother of Jesus") and perhaps even THAT Jesus ("who was called Christ").

It was MUCH more common to reference the father in a patronymic (e.g. "James son of Joseph") than to reference a brother. Clarifying which James by showing him as Jesus' brother is a bit odd since Jesus was a very common name. Is this a hint that Jesus might have been famous? That "brother of Jesus" was intended to help pin down which James we're speaking of? But Jesus was a very common name; that's why the "who was called Christ" is likely original Josephus. (Christian editors might have left off the "called.") BTW, even in the age of parchment I'm not sure how easy it would be to corrupt ALL copies of a single well-read book.

Carrier has a solution to the "puzzle" of Josephus' Jesus here. It is absolutely laughable and demonstrates to me that he is a charlatan. I use it as an IQ test: Anyone who doesn't find Carrier's solution absurd has cognitive deficiency. I strongly doubt that Carrier believes his own "solution."

I I forgot to mention that Acts and 1st Corinthians both provide clues from which it can be INFERRED that the James who became leader of the Church in Jerusalem was James the Brother. (A reason why James the Brother is barely known among many Christian sects is that the Roman Church suppressed mention of him since he contradicted their Myth that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin!)

Well, @TomC . I'd answered this question before but just for you I constructed an answer from scratch, more detailed than my previous efforts. I hope I get some sort of acknowledgement and response, even if it's just "TL;DNR."

 

[steve_bank]

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.

You miss the point. We have no way of knowing how language was used colloquially in the day, and we do not know how and why translations were adapted to the language.

Did Jesus say 'a needle' or 'the needle'? Who knows. Who knows if an HJ actually said it or a gospel writer thought it up.

A communist Jesus? Before this thread I never heard that one.

Did not Jesus say 'Give to god what is god's and to Caesar what is Caesar's'??

IOW pay your taxes. Hardly a communist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

That's always been my point but I think the good Swammi doesn't understand the perspective. I would certainly go so far to say that such a guy or guys are in part the inspiration for the gospel tales and those gospel tales are the hearsay evidence that granted later writers their license. That's precisely what authors do and clearly the gospels and their ilk are fictional. But to call such blokes the historical Jesus is complete baloney and a case of special pleading. It's like calling the salamander in my frog pond the historical Smaug.

Earlier in the thread someone posted links to the argument that the gospels and these other writings of later centuries were actually literate, educated persons exchanging midrashic writings. Someone like Eusebius, centuries later, and a known propagandist and liar, miraculously discovers lost Josephus writings. Then of course, any reference to anything remotely resembling early christianity becomes christian and naysayers are methodically eliminated.

Archaeologists recently discovered the room where Jesus had his last supper.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've repeated about 99 times that the "historic Jesus" I speak of, and that 99% of professional non-Christian historians speak of, did NOT walk on water, did NOT turn water into wine, and did NOT resurrect the dead. He was an ordinary mortal man. The fact that a minor preacher became the "mascot" for a major religion can be regarded as a mystery, if you wish. But whatever qualities he lacked that might have been expected for a "Christ" or "Son of God" HE DID EXIST.

But the ONLY way I can map the ridiculously inane comments here to intelligent thought is to imagine you all keep overlooking this. So let me clarify once more:

The "historic Jesus" I speak of, and that 99% of professional non-Christian historians speak of, did NOT walk on water, did NOT turn water into wine, and did NOT resurrect the dead. The alleged miracles by Jesus are NOT what the debate is about.

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.

That's always been my point but I think the good Swammi doesn't understand the perspective. I would certainly go so far to say that such a guy or guys are in part the inspiration for the gospel tales and those gospel tales are the hearsay evidence that granted later writers their license. That's precisely what authors do and clearly the gospels and their ilk are fictional. But to call such blokes the historical Jesus is complete baloney and a case of special pleading. It's like calling the salamander in my frog pond the historical Smaug.

Earlier in the thread someone posted links to the argument that the gospels and these other writings of later centuries were actually literate, educated persons exchanging midrashic writings. Someone like Eusebius, centuries later, and a known propagandist and liar, miraculously discovers lost Josephus writings. Then of course, any reference to anything remotely resembling early christianity becomes christian and naysayers are methodically eliminated.

You're right that I have trouble understanding IGNORANT perspectives.

Pretend you're trying to solve a mystery, e.g. a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie story. Do you think you MIGHT consider the CLUES?

Jesus the Brother is NOT a "tiny bit" -- this close kin of Jesus was de facto leader of the Christian Church not long after the Crucifixion -- but that is NOT the point. The point is that, "tiny" or not, the existence of James the Brother is a BIG clue in solving the "mystery" of whether a real Jesus existed or not.

It would be rude and possibly in violation of ToU to detail how much pity I feel for people who can't glean even a morsel of comprehension from the preceding paragraph.

And for those who prattle on and on ignorantly but when presented with a CLUE -- "tell us about James" -- cannot produce even a single syllable of intelligent reply that even mentions James.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've repeated about 99 times that the "historic Jesus" I speak of, and that 99% of professional non-Christian historians speak of, did NOT walk on water,

And we've heard you loud and clear all 99 times because we think the same thing. It's your word "historical" that seems to be the sticking point. Is there an historical Paul Bunyan or is there an inspiration for the Paul Bunyan tales that provided fodder for the storytellers and writers? Is your guy the historical inspiration? Maybe. You still haven't told us what you think is true about the gospel words he allegedly spoke and what is not. You should do that so we know where you are coming from.

The fact that a minor preacher became the "mascot" for a major religion can be regarded as a mystery,

For it to be a mystery one first needs to claim that there was a specific guy, identical to Stratfordians first claiming that their illiterate businessman with no literary record is William Shakespeare, complete with the wrong spelling.

And I've mentioned James too, and I've mentioned Paul. And I've said so what about both of them because Paul was psychotic and delusional and even if James had a brother named Jesus how is that connected to the gospel protagonist except via hearsay?

And what of Chrestus and Chrestians? You've not mentioned that but those changes bolster the myth of historicity.

The gospel tales are worshipped by billions but they are total baloney. Saying there is an historical Jesus that is actually the gospel jesus just embellished is to pen the latest baloney edition to gospel baloney.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've repeated about 99 times that the "historic Jesus" I speak of, and that 99% of professional non-Christian historians speak of, did NOT walk on water,

And we've heard you loud and clear all 99 times because we think the same thing. It's your word "historical" that seems to be the sticking point. Is there an historical Paul Bunyan or is there an inspiration for the Paul Bunyan tales that provided fodder for the storytellers and writers? Is your guy the historical inspiration? Maybe. You still haven't told us what you think is true about the gospel words he allegedly spoke and what is not. You should do that so we know where you are coming from.

The fact that a minor preacher became the "mascot" for a major religion can be regarded as a mystery,

For it to be a mystery one first needs to claim that there was a specific guy, identical to Stratfordians first claiming that their illiterate businessman with no literary record is William Shakespeare, complete with the wrong spelling.

And I've mentioned James too, and I've mentioned Paul. And I've said so what about both of them because Paul was psychotic and delusional and even if James had a brother named Jesus how is that connected to the gospel protagonist except via hearsay?

And what of Chrestus and Chrestians? You've not mentioned that but those changes bolster the myth of historicity.

The gospel tales are worshipped by billions but they are total baloney. Saying there is an historical Jesus that is actually the gospel jesus just embellished is to pen the latest baloney edition to gospel baloney.

All gibberish. The James you dismiss was the brother of the one "called Christ" by Josephus and "the Lord's brother" by Paul. Is it your claim that Paul the Psychotic invented his peculiar claim? Why did he? Even psychos have motives and methods. And did Josephus catch Paul's disease? We can agree to differ on the reasons for and importance of the alternate transliterations Christ/Chrest, but it's mostly irrelevant.

And your baloney about "baloney" makes no sense.


I am fed up. I like you Infidels, thought of you as friends. But this is just ridiculous.

Some of you have obviously never even opened a book which discusses the historicity question. Nor have you deigned to devote a single second to contemplating mysteries like James. Yet you consider yourself expert. But here am I, spending hours trying to introduce you to the topic, and you comprehend not a single whit of what I write. I have few supporters here; and increasingly understand I am engaging only in masturbation and masochism.

My experience at this "atheist" board is that many of you are "Hyper-Atheists" whose relation to ordinary atheists like myself, resembles the Hyper-Christians who think the universe was created in 4004 BC. The Hyper-Atheism has affected your cognition so much that you insist -- against all reason -- that even an ordinary Jesus (who happened to have an ordinary flesh-and-bones brother named James) did not exist. (Did Mohammed the Prophet, also credited with miracle working, also not exist in your opinions? You are so woefully ignorant of history and logic, you've not deigned to answer even that!)

PLEASE start a new thread for your nonsense. Call it "Stupid People express their Stupid ideas" if you wish. I MIGHT continue to scan THIS thread. If I see totally ignorant posts by totally ignorant people I will click on the I***** option and never need to look at your blather again.

Sorry. Life is short. I am easily annoyed. This is it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

All gibberish. The James you dismiss was the brother of the one "called Christ" by Josephus and "the Lord's brother" by Paul.

So you're taking the words of a psychotic and also the findings of a known forger who "found" his perfect documents centuries later. This is your claim to historicity. Who is the one spreading gibberish?

 

[Swammerdami]

All gibberish. The James you dismiss was the brother of the one "called Christ" by Josephus and "the Lord's brother" by Paul.

So you're taking the words of a psychotic and also the findings of a known forger who "found" his perfect documents centuries later. This is your claim to historicity. Who is the one spreading gibberish?

More gibberish. And the last words I will ever see from you. My I list is growing and making my interactions here much more pleasant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

More gibberish. And the last words I will ever see from you. My I list is growing and making my interactions here much more pleasant.

You should take the time to hone your HJ. What did your HJ do and what did he say? The gospel protagonist to me is just another fictional character inspired by an author's experiences. To you those fictional accounts are based on an actual singular dude. You should check the provenance of the TF. You should look at the Pauline Corpus as an investigator, not a consumer. All the later mentions of your alleged HJ you should examine for accuracy. Ask yourself if you are swallowing hearsay.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

The above link if for Swammi to get him started on his research.

 

[No Robots]

A communist Jesus? Before this thread I never heard that one.

Did not Jesus say 'Give to god what is god's and to Caesar what is Caesar's'??

IOW pay your taxes. Hardly a communist.

Here is John Macmurray on this:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” That is the principle on which the Jews should act. In that way they would remain co-workers with God in history. Caesarism with its will to power must destroy itself; yet in destroying itself it will achieve, against its own will, the purpose of God—a universal community embracing the world, based on equality and freedom. And this—which Rome would achieve in spite of itself—would be the realization of the Jewish intention, immanent in the Roman Empire. So the meek should inherit the earth.

Judaism is inherently revolutionary, and Jesus is the greatest revolutionary of them all. All mankind will embrace this revolutionary stance, and universal communism will come to the whole of mankind.

 

[steve_bank]

You can post links until the end of time. The reality is the gospels have unknown authorship and there is no way to know what a single HJ may have said or done. On top of that translation issues.

It is probable translators added or modified texts. What they thought Jesus said or should have said.

 

[No Robots]

^Reactionaries burying their heads in the sand.

 

[bilby]

I've repeated about 99 times that the "historic Jesus" I speak of, and that 99% of professional non-Christian historians speak of, did NOT walk on water, did NOT turn water into wine, and did NOT resurrect the dead. He was an ordinary mortal man. The fact that a minor preacher became the "mascot" for a major religion can be regarded as a mystery, if you wish. But whatever qualities he lacked that might have been expected for a "Christ" or "Son of God" HE DID EXIST.

In fact, there were bloody thousands of him.

You are absolutely correct that if you don't trim the criteria for being the historical Jesus, then their impossibility renders the number of Jesuses as zero. Zero people walked on water, turned water into wine, or ressurected the dead.

To make it possible for Jesus to be a real person, the criteria must be trimmed. But the less specific the criteria we apply, the greater the likelihood that they apply to many people.

We simply don't know enough about Jesus to distinguish him from a bunch of other contemporaries.

Try finding the one carpenter in your home town who has had a run in with the authorities, and who has firm religious convictions, and whose name begins with a J (or maybe an I). It won't be difficult to find lots; But finding one will be necessarily an exercise in pure arbitrariness.

There is no one person who can fit any definition of "the historical Jesus". There are either zero, or many, depending on how narrow your definition is.

It is therefore demonstrably both false, and utterly unimportant, to claim that there is an historical Jesus.

You despise my pointing this out. But your response is never the presenting of evidence that I am wrong - rather, it is always invective against the very idea that I might be right.

You have a very strongly held opinion, that you are convinced beyond reason to be a fact; And you attack and denigrate anyone who points out that it is merely an opinion.

But I can't blame you; That's what humans do when they don't have any evidence, but still really, really, really want something to be true.

 

[Swammerdami]

I have explained over and over the dichotomy between
(a) an historic Jesus DID exist.
(b) an historic Jesus did NOT exist.
Some of you just don't get it.

99% of professional historians agree Jesus existed. Consensuses can be wrong, and if one of you experts -- Ha ha ha! -- studied a book by the 1% and made an intelligent report THAT would be interesting.
INSTEAD you make it clear that you have NEVER studied the issue, NEVER considered the issue intelligently, and yet on you prattle.

To reduce a complicated question with LOTS of clues, to a simpler problem I asked you all to focus on the quandary that mythical men do NOT have a rather well-documented flesh-and-bones brother named James.^* What do I see in response? "Prattle prattle gibberish gibberish insult Swammi; insult Swammi; insult Swammi gibberish gibberish gibberish gibberish gibberish gibberish gibberish gibberish gibberish." Never a word about James.

* - One of you wondered why I focused on the "tiny bit" about James. He and Simon Peter were the two principals who established and led the early Christian church, for Chrestus's sake! But, more relevant to this discussion, he's the strongest single clue to historicity. If you were a detective called to investigate a murder, would your first act be to throw the smoking gun lying on the floor into the trash! No? But the way you handle the historicity question is even stupider than that!

If you were TRYING to prove your utter ignorance about the historicity question, I don't think you could do a better jobs.

I arrived at this Board almost by chance. IIRC there was some sort of merger from a "secular humanists" board I'd happened to subscribe to. I do not seem to fit in here and may stop posting soon. Happy about that? Probably not; this Board thrives on nurturing a few idiots to insult; some of you fellow idiots probably lump me with the other idiots now!

I've repeated about 99 times that the "historic Jesus" I speak of, and that 99% of professional non-Christian historians speak of, did NOT walk on water, did NOT turn water into wine, and did NOT resurrect the dead. He was an ordinary mortal man. The fact that a minor preacher became the "mascot" for a major religion can be regarded as a mystery, if you wish. But whatever qualities he lacked that might have been expected for a "Christ" or "Son of God" HE DID EXIST.

In fact, there were bloody thousands of him.

You are absolutely correct that if you don't trim the criteria for being the historical Jesus, then their impossibility renders the number of Jesuses as zero. Zero people walked on water, turned water into wine, or ressurected the dead.

I've written 99 times that the Historicity question is NOT related to the alleged Miracles. 99 times wasn't enough for you Billy Boy?

Fifty years ago, there were jokes circulating in Silicon Valley about "WOMs -- Write-Only Memories." That caricature sums up you guys to a Tee! I've spent hours explaining, and you guys have gleaned absolutely nothing from my posts. In turn, of course I've learned nothing from your prattle except to be aghast at it! The LESS you know the MORE you prattle.

Billy Boy once hijacked one of my threads to quibble over and over and over about my word choice "intrinsic." Would the substitution "inherent" have saved the thread? I doubt it. Billy Boy needs to lash out in anger almost as childish as my own whenever he finds himself only the 2nd-smartest in the room!

To make it possible for Jesus to be a real person, the criteria must be trimmed. But the less specific the criteria we apply, the greater the likelihood that they apply to many people.

We simply don't know enough about Jesus to distinguish him from a bunch of other contemporaries.

Confused Gibberish. Within a year or two of the Nazarene's crucifixion a cult had emerged and was growing quickly, In Billy's model the worshippers were saying "Jesus was the Messiah! Like Elijah He has risen from the dead! Which Jesus? We don't know!! Who cares!!! Hooray, Hooray! Long live the Resurrected Jesus, whichever Jesus he was!!!!! Hooray."

Billy and Moogly: You are just like Billy's hypothetical Jesus worshippers not sure which Jesus they worshipped: You throw up word salads with no reasoning behind them.

Try finding the one carpenter in your home town who has had a run in with the authorities, and who has firm religious convictions, and whose name begins with a J (or maybe an I). It won't be difficult to find lots; But finding one will be necessarily an exercise in pure arbitrariness.

There is no one person who can fit any definition of "the historical Jesus". There are either zero, or many, depending on how narrow your definition is.

"Yes, his speaking was so VERY charismatic. He was the successor to John the Baptizer. Which 'Jesus'? Pilate crucified at least four men with that name?? Conflate them all!! We'll worship all four!!! Throw in any Joshuas as well; it's almost the same name!!!!"

If you guys could listen to yourselves via the ears of someone who actually understands history, you'd know how stupid your viewpoint is.

You have a very strongly held opinion, that you are convinced beyond reason to be a fact; And you attack and denigrate anyone who points out that it is merely an opinion.

But I can't blame you; That's what humans do when they don't have any evidence, but still really, really, really want something to be true.

Insult, insults, insults. "Intrinsic nobody nobody nobody intrinsic intrinsic intrinsic."
Insults.

You're right about one thing. I AM insulting you guys. I don't know or particularly care if I'm banned or just wander away. Will you miss me? Will you be content to just insult even more obvious morons like Mr. Swiz?

Show ignored content

Sorry Moogly. I once thought of you as a friend. Call me childish and thin-skinned -- I'm guilty as charged -- but you've insulted me in this and in the other thread over and over and over. Your latest insult, whatever it was, is only a click away, but I do NOT click. I don't know if you can send me a PM -- try it -- but if not, and if you want to apologize you're welcome to ask someone we're both on speaking terms with to send me a PM. But I'm done with your insults.

 

[Swammerdami]

One of you wondered why I focused on the "tiny bit" about James. He and Simon Peter were the two principals who established and led the early Christian church, for Chrestus's sake!

My writing here is usually just stream of consciousness. When writing this sentence the Americnan idiom "for Chrissake!" popped into my head for the closing interjection. But I immediately realized that mentioning the thread's title character might muddy the waters.
So I wrote "for Chrestus's sake" whimsically. Perhaps one of you will pretend this is some sort of confession or concession by Swammi. Have at it!!!

 

[bilby]

I've written 99 times that the Historicity question is NOT related to the alleged Miracles. 99 times wasn't enough for you Billy Boy?

You appear to be so caught up in your emotional need to be right, that you didn't notice that I was agreeing with you.

It's pathetic, and an excellent object lesson is avoiding emotional ties to questions of fact.

If you are looking for a fight over the question of miracles, look elsewhere; No matter how hard you try, you cannot get me to disagree with you in the slightest way on this point.