The Christ Myth Theory

[steve_bank]

Modern Christians refer to the alleged first followers as Christians. There were no 'Christians', they would have been Jews living a Jewish life.

The gospel Jesus reinforced Mosaic Law and Jewish prophets.

The myth that a god sent Jesus to save the entirety of humanity current and future was a gentile invention.

Whatever the Jewish movement was it became Chrtianity when gentiles co opted the Jewish scripture as their own, and divorced themselves from things Jewish. IOW Paul.

I posed in the past about getting invited to a private Evangelical meeting. About 20 people and some kids. Musicians and singing. Bread and wine.

When the spirit moved somebody they would randomly read the bible and interpret in intestacy. Emphasizing thees and thous form Old English as if they were prophets. Laying of hands for faith healing. People having visions.

I got to see the Full Monty.

If you go by Paul that was the early non Jewish Christianity.

 

[Learner]

Modern Christians refer to the alleged first followers as Christians. There were no 'Christians', they would have been Jews living a Jewish life.

So there were no Christians? Ok. I'm happy using the term Messianic Jews.

The gospel Jesus reinforced Mosaic Law and Jewish prophets.

The myth that a god sent Jesus to save the entirety of humanity current and future was a gentile Messianic Jew's "invention".

FIFY:
Technically speaking, being a little more accurate.

Whatever the Jewish movement was it became Chrtianity when gentiles co opted the Jewish scripture as their own, and divorced themselves from things Jewish. IOW Paul.

Things Jewish...

...There were/are a variety of Jewish sects, each with their own take on"Judaism". Some don't accept the Oral Law some do..
...but also, aren't Secular Jews living the Jewish life too, without abiding to the Judaic religion? People who place themselves among as members of the Jews-for-Jesus group, I would assume, they also live a Jewish life.
The Jewish life is rich with diversity.

I posed in the past about getting invited to a private Evangelical meeting. About 20 people and some kids. Musicians and singing. Bread and wine.

When the spirit moved somebody they would randomly read the bible and interpret in intestacy. Emphasizing thees and thous form Old English as if they were prophets. Laying of hands for faith healing. People having visions.

I got to see the Full Monty.

No issues with you having that experience. Hope you enjoyed the film.

If you go by Paul that was the early non Jewish Christianity.

The irony of being a former Pharisee.

 

[dbz]

Modern Christians refer to the alleged first followers as Christians. There were no 'Christians', they would have been Jews living a Jewish life.

• So there were no Christians? Ok. I'm happy using the term Messianic Jews.

The myth that a god sent Jesus to save the entirety of humanity current and future was a gentile Messianic Jew's "invention".

• Technically speaking, being a little more accurate.

"Talmudic Scholar Responds To Dr. Kipp Davis: "Errant, Rank Nonsense"". YouTube. Godless Engineer. 19 August 2024.

Dr. Kipp Davis response:

---

---

YouTuber "Godless Engineer" (John Gleason) highlights at time 36:30, Davis' example of Carrier's incompetence in mishandling a citation of Martin Abegg.

• "Kipp Davis' FAILED Response To Richard Carrier's Expert Citations" @time:00:36:30. YouTube. Godless Engineer. 28 August 2023.

YouTuber "Godless Engineer" (John Gleason) questions Boyarin.

• "The Pre-Christian Suffering And Dying Messiah ft. Dr. Daniel Boyarin". YouTube. Godless Engineer. 29 July 2024.

Background Elements to Christianity

• Element 1 The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. (pp. 65-6)
• Element 2 When Christianity began Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. (p. 66)
• Element 3 (a) When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or saviour anointed … to help usher in God’s supernatural kingdom, usually (but not always) by subjugating or destroying the enemies of the Jews and establishing an eternal paradise.
  (b) If these enemies were spiritual powers, the messianic victory would have been spiritual; or both, as in the Enochic literature.
  (c) Jewish messianic expectations were widespread, influential and very diverse. (pp. 66-7)
• Element 4 (a) Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. There was an evident clamoring of sects and individuals to announce they had found the messiah.
  (b) Christianity’s emergence at this time was therefore no accident. It was part of the zeitgeist.
  (c) Christianity’s long-term success may have been simply a product of natural selection. (pp. 67-73)
• Element 5 Even before Christianity arose some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end-times would be killed before the final victory. (pp. 73-81)
• Element 6 The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 have numerous logical connections with the “Jesus/Joshua Rising” figure in Zechariah 3 and 6. (pp. 81-83)
• Element 7 (a) The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the messianic fervour of the age.
  (b) The text was widely known and widely influential, widely regarded as scripture by early Christians. (pp. 83-87)
• Element 8 (a) Many messianic Jewish sects were searching the (Hebrew and Greek) scriptures for secret messages.
  (b) It follows that the Jews who became the first Christians had been searching the scriptures this way this long before they became Christians. (pp. 87-88)
• Element 9 The early first century concept of scriptures embraced not only writings that became canonized but many more works, many of which no longer exist; further, of those that do still exist, including canonical texts, the early first century versions were sometimes quite different in details. Texts in places were been modified, changed, before their canonical versions were finally settled. (p. 88-92)
• Element 10 Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah. (pp. 92-96)

---

"On the Historicity of Jesus". RationalWiki. Retrieved 31 August 2023.

---

 

[dbz]

Modern Christians refer to the alleged first followers as Christians. There were no 'Christians', they would have been Jews living a Jewish life.

So there were no Christians? Ok. I'm happy using the term Messianic Jews.

A Hellenistic sectarian counter culture cult—of Jews—(i.e. Peter's "Brothers of Kyrios Christ"). Said Jews were Greek speaking readers of a Greek LXX Old Testament—that informed the cult's conversations about the celestial Jesus Angel dying and rising..

 

[dbz]

Things Jewish...

...There were/are a variety of Jewish sects, each with their own take on"Judaism". Some don't accept the Oral Law some do..
...but also, aren't Secular Jews living the Jewish life too, without abiding to the Judaic religion? People who place themselves among as members of the Jews-for-Jesus group, I would assume, they also live a Jewish life.
The Jewish life is rich with diversity.

Alexander took Palestine in 332 BCE and Jews were quickly exposed en masse to Greek culture. In some cases, Palestinian Jews began accepting the influence of this culture. For example, Greek names began appearing within Jewish families as early as the late third century BCE. Jews outside of Palestine, namely in Egypt, exhibited greater signs of Hellenization.

Given the fact that  Hellenistic Judaism combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. And that during the  Second Temple period (516 BCE – 70 CE) a Male Jew, would be OK with changing his normative sexuality and his body image as Jew.

[When] a Jewish man appeared in the gymnasium nude, circumcised or otherwise, given the status of nudity within Judaism, he would be changing his image as a Jew. A reverse circumcision on top of this would not only be breaking the covenant, but would also be saying as clearly as possible that his image as a Jew has changed forever.

In addition to issues of nudity, ideas of normative Jewish sexuality became increasingly defined during the Second Temple period [...] While not as prevalent in the East as it had been in Greece, pederasty remained a part of the education of gymnasia. [Percy, Pederasty and Pedagogy, 34.]

A HISTORY OF JEWS IN GREEK GYMNASIA FROM THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD THROUGH THE LATE ROMAN PERIOD, Diss. by JORDAN, H. A.​

• Then why is  Religious syncretism not possible?

• Hellenistic Jews like Philo and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews adopted Logos ideas to create a melding of Hebrew and Greek. But more mainstream Judaism had its own intermediary figure [Personified Wisdom] going back centuries, certainly as old as Plato. [...] In the Wisdom of Solomon, perhaps the most important surviving piece of Hellenistic-Jewish writing, we can see a clear and exotic blending of Wisdom with the Logos.
  • Doherty, Earl (2009). Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus. Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications. pp. 92f. ISBN 978-0-9689259-2-8. "New edition, Revised and Expanded, Originally published under the title: The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? - Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus"
  
  
• Philo of Alexandria (c25BCE to c50CE) is the foremost example of the input of Greek ideas into Jewish thought, a phenomenon which produced an important type of philosophy and culture during this period, called "Hellenistic Judaism." [...] Charles H. Talbert ("The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity," New Testament Studies22 [1975], p.418-439) regards Philo as a witness to an existing myth in which Wisdom-Logos was treated as a heavenly personal being and a redeemer figure—through bestowing knowledge of God. This myth is reflected in the Alexandrian document, the Wisdom of Solomon...
  • Doherty, Earl (2009). Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus. Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications. p. 723, n. 40, 41. ISBN 978-0-9689259-2-8. "New edition, Revised and Expanded, Originally published under the title: The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? - Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus"

 

[dbz]

The irony of being a former Pharisee.

[T]he Hillelites and Shammaites are distinct sects. You can also call them subgroups or subsects (of the Pharisees perhaps), or “affiliations” or “orders” or “schools of thought,” or whatever word or phrase you like, but that is just semantics. Each is still “a group of people that has separated from a larger group” in some way “and has a particular set of religious or political beliefs” distinct from the other. These are therefore sects in common English. Which means the Pharisees were split into or competing with at least two disagreeing groups with differing opinions on many subjects of belief and interpretation; and therefore the Pharisees were two sects (if not more), not one monolithic sect agreeing on everything. Even if we question whether one of these sects was actually a Pharisee sect, it’s still a distinct, disagreeing sect. So even that distinction is irrelevant.

We have evidence likewise that there were several sects disagreeing with each other within the umbrella of the Essenes (as described by Hippolytus and Josephus); and again of the Samaritans (such as the Dosthean sect) and Sadducees (such as the Boethusian sect). So we are already looking at a minimum of eight “sects,” if we mean by “sect” any metric for organized diversity in ancient Jewish thought. But there were many other sects, which we hear of only by name, or with minimal discussion (such as the Hemerobaptists, the Meristae and Genistae, the Therapeutae, and even the “Galileans,” cf. Huttunen, p 20).

---

--Carrier, Richard (1 April 2024). "Simone's Series on How to Read the Talmud: On Jewish Diversity". Richard Carrier Blogs.

 

[steve_bank]

Messianic Jew? Oh, do you keep kosher and go to temple Saturdays? Do you celebrate Passover?

I have known observant Jews, I have no problem with Jews.

The point is Christianity has little connection to whoever Jews may have followed an HJ.

You are basing your belief on gospels with sparse unconnected quotes by unknown authors.

Jesus was a Jew who lived a Jewish life, he reinforced Mosaic Law. Paul took the Jewish out of Jesus, so more properly call yourself a Paulist.

 

[Swammerdami]

To clarify context, I've taken the liberty of placing the Swammi post that bilby IMPLICITLY references inside the bilby post that references it.

The task of a professional or scholarly historian is to determine what is likely. Let me write that again:
The task of a professional or scholarly historian is to determine what is likely.

Many or most of you completely miss the point. When there's a 99% consensus of climatologists, most of us TRUST their conclusions. Rightly or wrongly, I TRUST the many mechanical engineers who tell me fuel-heavy 767's could bring down the WTC: There was no need for CIA to plant bombs up and down the pillars the day before.

Yet essentially ALL of you snub the 99% of professional historians! Are you all so very much smarter than them? Maybe so, but you've spent about zero time studying the issue. I do NOT trust "authorities" willy-nilly, but I've perused lots of the evidence, lots of the professional musings, and reached my own conclusions.

...and in the absence of evidence, this simply means expressing an opinion.

Any historical evidence for or against an actual Jesus has long since been buried by a tsunami of Christian bullshit. They have been piling it on for two thousand years, and it has polluted everything.

I debunked this preposterous claim . . .

Utter nonsense. If you had the smallest drop of knowledge on the topic, you'd not write the above. Let me try bold-face and a larger font:

Professional historians get their information about Jesus mainly from VERY EARLY texts. What the F**k "two thousand years of Christian bullshit" are you speaking of??? There are Gospel fragments preserved on parchment dated to the very early 2nd century. They confirm that the more complete texts from 4th century are quite close to the earliest Gospels. What the F**k "two thousand years of Christian bullshit" are you speaking of??? Do you really think professional historians focused on the 1st century base their research on 20th-century bullshit????

[Swammi wanders off, shaking his head in disbelief.]

"Gospel fragments".

Any historical information from non-Christian sources?

. . . So, without expressing any remorse ( L.O.L.) bilby trots out a different preposterous argument!

Thought not.

The Gospels are not history. They are fiction, until proven otherwise by independent sources.

Of which none survive. Because Christians have spent two thousand years making damn sure that nothing that contradicts their Gospels survives.

There's your two thousand years of bullshit.

Bullshit isn't just bad stuff you invented; It's also good stuff you destroyed.

Why is a second century source suspect? Because it survived.

To even make sense of bilby's argument, I must posit something like this:

The very ancient papyri fragments at Nag Hammadi originally included lots of revelations. "Jesus was a fiction or a nobody." Dozens of different papyri shrieked this same message. Christianity would be doomed if these documents came to light.

It was during the Second Crusade that the Pope Eugenius III himself assigned the Knights Templar the secret task of penetrating Egypt and searching for old papyrus documents. But it wasn't until 1168, during a 3-way war between 2nd and 3rd Crusades, that the Templars were able to elude Shawar's Army and bribe their way to Nag Hammadi. The translators the Templars had brought were able to locate and destroy all the papyri that contradicted the canonical texts. The magnificent trove of ancient copies of the Gospels excited the Templars, who debated whether to take them to the Vatican, or to sell them in Constantinople and resign their vows of chastity. What a wild week of debauchery such a treasure trove could buy!

It was Grandmaster Bertrand de Blanchefort himself, who had secretly accompanies his soldiers to Nag Hammadi, who decided they would do neither. Instead they covered up their tracks, leaving no evidence of their eradication of the secret truth that Jesus was a fiction AND a nobody. They left the remaining papyri for a future generation to discover.

It was bad luck that it took almost eight centuries for the papyri to be rediscovered: By then most of the Gospels had crumbled into dust

I notice that bilby doesn't deign to offer his solution to the James enigma. Carrier apparently may need up to FIVE distinct Jameses to resolve the enigma. I guess bilby doesn't have time to present a FOUR-James solution and hold it up for applause!

Don't bother, bilby. I know what you'll come up with is just a glib almost-amusing non sequitur that doesn't even mention any James!

But sincere thanks for your participation! Wrong all the way through of course, but at least you managed not to turn it into gratuitous insults against Swammi.

 

[dbz]

In the original pre-canonical gMark, JacobZ (as Israel) betrays Jesus as there were only three followers/comrades of HJ attested in gMark. The rest: Andrew, Judas, etc. being latter additions.

Name (in order of presentation)	Mentions by name (3:20–16:8)	Base Name	Modifier	Cognomen	New name given by Jesus	"Church Pillars" per Paul c. 53 CE (Galatians 2:9)
Simon Peter	~20	Símōnos Σίμωνος			Pétros Πέτρος	Kēphâs Κηφᾶς
Jacob/James (son of Zebedee)	~10	Iákōbos Ἰάκωβος	ton tou Zebedaiou τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου	Boanergés Βοανεργές		Iakōbos Ἰάκωβος
John (brother of Jacob/James)	~10	Iōánnēs Ἰωάννης	ton adelphon tou Iakōbou τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου	Boanergés Βοανεργές		Iōannēs Ἰωάννης

The name Israel given to Jacob
[...]
The Septuagint renders the name Iákobos (Ancient Greek: Ἰάκωβος), whence Latin Jacobus, English Jacob.
[...]
Jewish apocalyptic literature of the Hellenistic period includes many ancient texts with narratives about Jacob...

---

--"Jacob". Wikipedia.

[The name John] was adopted as Ἰωάννης (Iōánnēs) in Biblical Greek as the name of both John the Baptist and John the Apostle.

---

--"Johanan (name)". Wikipedia.

1. I see JtB-gMark as Isaiah under the Elijah covering.
2. JacobZ as Israel (under theocratic nationalists))
3. JohnZ as ?

[Judas of Galilee] was a Jewish leader who led resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Judea Province around 6 CE.
[...]
In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus states that Judas, along with Zadok the Pharisee, founded the Zealots . . . Josephus blamed this fourth sect for the First Jewish–Roman War of 66–73. The Zealots were theocratic nationalists who preached that God alone was the ruler of Israel and urged that no taxes should be paid to Rome.

---

"Judas of Galilee". Wikipedia.

In The Toledot Yeshu (according to Agobard) Peter is so called due to the severity and dullness of his mind.

In gMark the followers/comrades of Jesus are stupid.

 

[steve_bank]

The usual Christian babble. The non Jewish Christians in the 1st 2nd century rejected Jews and took the Jewish scripture as their own. Ever since then antisemitism has been a part of Christianity.

Jesus was a Jew preaching Mosaic Law, at least according to the gospels.

Follow Jesus. Keep kosher and go to a temple.

 

[No Robots]

Many or most of you completely miss the point. When there's a 99% consensus of climatologists, most of us TRUST their conclusions. Rightly or wrongly, I TRUST the many mechanical engineers who tell me fuel-heavy 767's could bring down the WTC: There was no need for CIA to plant bombs up and down the pillars the day before.

Yet essentially ALL of you snub the 99% of professional historians! Are you all so very much smarter than them? Maybe so, but you've spent about zero time studying the issue. I do NOT trust "authorities" willy-nilly, but I've perused lots of the evidence, lots of the professional musings, and reached my own conclusions.

The problem here is that you do the same with regard to Shakespeare. Now, as you launch into your Shakespeare theory, keep in mind that you are behaving just as the Jesus mythomaniacs, you are resolutely defying a scholarly consensus. You can say that you are thinking for yourself, but that is exactly what the Jesus mythomaniacs say about themselves.

 

[Swammerdami]

Many or most of you completely miss the point. When there's a 99% consensus of climatologists, most of us TRUST their conclusions. Rightly or wrongly, I TRUST the many mechanical engineers who tell me fuel-heavy 767's could bring down the WTC: There was no need for CIA to plant bombs up and down the pillars the day before.

Yet essentially ALL of you snub the 99% of professional historians! Are you all so very much smarter than them? Maybe so, but you've spent about zero time studying the issue. I do NOT trust "authorities" willy-nilly, but I've perused lots of the evidence, lots of the professional musings, and reached my own conclusions.

The problem here is that you do the same with regard to Shakespeare. Now, as you launch into your Shakespeare theory, keep in mind that you are behaving just as the Jesus mythomaniacs, you are resolutely defying a scholarly consensus. You can say that you are thinking for yourself, but that is exactly what the Jesus mythomaniacs say about themselves.

Color me completely confused by your comments.
Sometimes a scholarly consensus is right; sometimes it's wrong.

Actually there's a simple and logical reason why most "scholarly consensuses" are correct, but the Stratford-Shakespeare thinking is wrong:
* Climatologists are the best experts to consult for a question about climatology
* Professional or scholarly historians are the best experts to consult for a question about history.
* BUT Who are the best experts to consult for the Shakespeare Authorship Question?? Not so clear.

Historians studying England circa 1600 are a logical group of experts to consult​

"Experts" on the crafts of poetry and play-wrighting are a logical group of experts to consult​

Those who have devoted much time to specific study of the relevant biographies are a logical group of experts to consult​

People who have contemplated some of the specific clues and "smoking guns" are a logical group of experts to consult​

People who simply have good common-sense are a logical group of experts to consult​

Et cetera​

These diverse people are NOT the same as the self-appointed "experts" on the question!

Much as James the Brother is a big clue -- which nobody here has deigned to address! -- for Jesus historicity, there are a large number of distinctive clues ("smoking guns") on the Authorship Question. To say much more, we should move to that thread, but a few examples include:
* the peculiar dedication to Shakespeare's Sonnets. Does it even sound like the poet is alive?
* preface to Troilas (published at about same time as Sonnets). Stratfordians make do with "Inside joke. We'll never be able to decode it now!"
* Why were first 3 or 4 Shakespeare plays Histories? (Comedies and Tragedies got much better box office receipts.) These first "Shakespeare" plays were written shortly after the Queen started paying Oxford a large annual stipend for an undisclosed "office." Writing propaganda plays is the only serious proposal for what that "office" was.

 

[No Robots]

^From the point of view of someone who accepts the scholarly consensus on both Jesus and Shakespeare as historic, your position on Shakespeare makes you no better than the Jesus mythomaniacs. I'm truly sorry for that. Your arguments for the scholarly consensus on Jesus are good, but they are completely vitiated by your rejection of same on the Shakespeare question. It's like someone saying, "There was no CIA involvement in 9/11, but the CIA did kill JFK." It shows that you do not follow a coherent procedure for analyzing cultural phenomena.

 

[Swammerdami]

^From the point of view of someone who accepts the scholarly consensus on both Jesus and Shakespeare as historic, your position on Shakespeare makes you no better than the Jesus mythomaniacs. I'm truly sorry for that. Your arguments for the scholarly consensus on Jesus are good, but they are completely vitiated by your rejection of same on the Shakespeare question. It's like someone saying, "There was no CIA involvement in 9/11, but the CIA did kill JFK." It shows that you do not follow a coherent procedure for analyzing cultural phenomena.

Did you even read the comments I made just a moment ago??

 

[No Robots]

^From the point of view of someone who accepts the scholarly consensus on both Jesus and Shakespeare as historic, your position on Shakespeare makes you no better than the Jesus mythomaniacs. I'm truly sorry for that. Your arguments for the scholarly consensus on Jesus are good, but they are completely vitiated by your rejection of same on the Shakespeare question. It's like someone saying, "There was no CIA involvement in 9/11, but the CIA did kill JFK." It shows that you do not follow a coherent procedure for analyzing cultural phenomena.

Did you even read the comments I made just a moment ago??

Sadly, yes. Face it, you're every bit as deluded as the Jesus mythomaniacs, just in your own way. Sigh.

 

[Swammerdami]

^From the point of view of someone who accepts the scholarly consensus on both Jesus and Shakespeare as historic, your position on Shakespeare makes you no better than the Jesus mythomaniacs. I'm truly sorry for that. Your arguments for the scholarly consensus on Jesus are good, but they are completely vitiated by your rejection of same on the Shakespeare question. It's like someone saying, "There was no CIA involvement in 9/11, but the CIA did kill JFK." It shows that you do not follow a coherent procedure for analyzing cultural phenomena.

Did you even read the comments I made just a moment ago??

@No Robots -- All your comments seem to focus on ME PERSONALLY. You seem completely uninterested in the arguments I raise. You babble about the CIA killing JFK etc. but nobody's talking about that. I'm really mystified by what your point is, if any. You SEEM to be saying "Expert consensus is always right", but I just explained why it's folly to apply that to the Authorship Question. You didn't even deign to understand that much.

We are talking about SPECIFIC clues for or against specific hypotheses.

PERSONAL, PERSONAL, PERSONAL, PERSONAL, PERSONAL. Your comments are all directed at me personally. The comments may be too benign to be called a "Personal attack" but I see no call for them.

Even with only three people on my I List, my involvement on this board is MUCH less stressful now. Low stress is good for me. Post useless bullshit like this again, and my I List will expand to 4 persons.

 

[No Robots]

^Here is Constantin Brunner on this subject:

It is of the most tremendous practical importance for humanity to know that such human beings have lived, human beings entirely certain of the Spirit. For our very health's sake, we shall throw the whole critical box of tricks into a corner, on the rubbish heap with all the other scholasticisms, sooner than take flight from loving these men, endowed with the powers of eternity. These powers inspire us with confidence that it is possible to live according to a higher life-principle than that which our humanity follows, with its emptiness, indecision, flatness, weakness, lack of inner peace and mutual malice. The critics know nothing of literature, of great men and their inspired deeds. They do not perceive genius; well and good, we shall not perceive the critics and their new fashions. We shall follow neither future fashions nor those of the past; believe me, it will be all the better for us, the more we hold on to the core of what is great and the further we keep away from the scholars. We must beware of their fashions. The way they change, immediately making themselves at home in whatever is new, not only manifests their instability and the incompleteness of their thought, but also unequivocally demonstrates the worthlessness of their trade. As long as we live, let us keep out of the way of their silly squabbles as to whether Homer wrote Homer, or Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, or Christ was Christ—0 heaven, deliver us from this age of scribblers!—here is Homer, here is Shakespeare, here is Christ! What significance, in comparison, have the ineradicable contradictions of ineradicable criticism, with its idiotic hacking to pieces of those who, after all its efforts, remain eternally whole and entire!

Denying the reality of men like Christ and Shakespeare is an act of cultural vandalism and robbery. It needs to be fought at every opportunity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I notice that bilby doesn't deign to offer his solution to the James enigma.

There is no James enigma. It is one claim stacked alongside lots of other claims about the gospel protagonist. It doesn't approach rising to being a smoking gun. It's related by a person who experiences psychotic breaks with reality and is later recorded in their writings, clearly as hearsay. It's a nothingburger given the weight of evidence for non-historicity.

Read a fantastic story with characters, none of which are human and it's recognized as a fantastic bit of fiction. Now read an equally fantastic story with characters that are human and we're supposed to say the characters are all historical. Not.

My sister believes that there was a Mary who was assumed into heaven. Mary floated away up into the clouds to be with her lord because she was so pure. She is absolutely convinced of this because her faith requires it and she isn't particularly interested in any of the scientific disciplines.

 

[bilby]

at least you managed not to turn it into gratuitous insults against Swammi.

It seems a shame that you could not bring yourself to return the favour.

You are entitled to your opinion; You are putting up a spirited defence of it. But it remains a mere opinion, because the question is one for which no un-corrupted evidence survives; And is of little import anyway.

The answer to the question of whether an historical Jesus ever existed is "Nobody knows, and as he didn't perform any miracles, it literally doesn't matter".

We know that many Judeans disliked Roman occupation. So there were many "Jesus-like" people. Did one of them have uniquely Jesus (but secular) qualities? Nobody knows, and it wouldn't make any difference to anything anyway. Maybe this "brother James" character adds a hint (even a strong hint) that there was just a single "Jesus". But it's insufficient, and smacks of far too much effort for anyone (without a religious motivation) to pursue.

My disagreement is not with your conclusion at all; It is with your fervor, and your misplaced certainty. To insist that the question is closed is as absurd as the insistence that it is important (to non-Christians) at all.

Christians think it's important; But they also think that they know the answer, and that the character in question was not only real, but miraculous too.

I simply advocate not taking their side on any of this - it's not important, nobody knows, and (obviously) miracles did not occur.

 

[DBT]

There may have been a Jesus/Yeshuah who had a brother named James, but that does nothing to help establish the truth of the supernatural elements of the story of Jesus the Saviour who died for our sins.