Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm The insistence that a historical Jesus has to in some way be like the Gospel Jesus is a strawman (unless arguing against someone who is actually making that claim).

LOL. You just forfeited any and all rights to be taken serious in any which way whatsoever Don.
Like Giuseppe said: this in itself is a straw man, and as hilarious as that it is shameless really - so thank you for the loud laugh!

Why don't you do your homework, and list all the deeds that Jesus did, actively or passively, e.g.:

Jesus got baptised by John B
Upon baptism Jesus was entered by the holy spirit in the form of a dove
Jesus raised someone from the dead
Jesus healed a blind
Jesus healed a withered hand
Jesus calmed a storm
Jesus transfigured
Transfiguration was in the presence of Moses and Elijah
Jesus died on a stake
Jesus rose from the dead

And all of the above is to be taken literally, in full, all of it - unless you'll make explicit reservations of course, which is fine

And then tick m off please, only binary choices allowed: Yes or No. The goal? To present us the historical Jesus that you have in mind

Go on then

I'd like some more detail on the historical Jesus whom G'Don finds the best explanation for Paul's letters and Mark. So far, I understand that this man isn't the Christ Jesus of Faith, Christian or Muslim, but who is he?

I think maybe something like the Linssen top ten checklist may be a good place to start. The follow-up questions I'd have asked to focus my broad "who is he?"include things on the checklist (was this fellow baptized by John? crucified by Pilate? A miracle worker? ...).

In demanding "yes or no" answers, however, I would be a bit more "methodological naturalism" compliant than

And all of the above is to be taken literally, in full, all of it - unless you'll make explicit reservations of course, which is fine

That is, for the "visionary experiences" and more difficult miracles, maybe it is enough to ask whether or not the man had a reputation for similar feats during his lifetime (or shortly afterward in the case of "Easter faith" events). How some later people read the gospels may be a separate issue from what sort of life a man actually lived and how people around him thought of him.

Maybe it helps to divide the list:

Biographical (Things anybody could have done; did he?)

Jesus got baptised by John B
Jesus died on a stake

Spiritual or "visionary" experiences (Other people would only know if told about them)

Upon baptism Jesus was entered by the holy spirit in the form of a dove
Jesus transfigured
Transfiguration was in the presence of Moses and Elijah

Naturally possible feats (Things some skilled people maybe could have done; did he?)

Jesus healed a blind
Jesus healed a withered hand

More ambitious feats for which he might have had a reputation (Did he have that rep in life or immediately afterward?)

Jesus raised someone from the dead
Jesus calmed a storm
Jesus rose from the dead

It’s the same with the Jesus story, only more so. It was a local story, a small time event that only mattered to a small circle of believers, but it grew over time. Much of the story was dubious, but professional historians could look at the legends that arose over time and infer back to a reasonable, even likely beginning. And they have almost universally agreed that the most parsimonious explanation of the rise of Christianity is that it started as the teachings of a small-time holy man who was executed — that is, martyred — by the Romans, and that it prospered and changed over the years by evangelical preachers who spread it throughout the empire.

That sounds likely to me, a non-historian.

---

-- PZ Myers
25 December 2022

One way to look at it, probably the best way, is to ask ourselves how much of the Jesus we see in the New Testament is mythical? Of all the tales we read about Jesus, how much is made up, or borrowed, or based on faked OT prophecy? I’d say a great deal is mythical at the very very best. At the very least, there’s no way at all to corroborate the tales! That alone makes me a Jesus mythicist. Am I right or am I right?

---

Comment by John W. Loftus—12 January 2023—per "I had to say what I think of Jesus Mythicism". Pharyngula. 25 December 2022

dbz wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 7:55 am

It’s the same with the Jesus story, only more so. It was a local story, a small time event that only mattered to a small circle of believers, but it grew over time. Much of the story was dubious, but professional historians could look at the legends that arose over time and infer back to a reasonable, even likely beginning. And they have almost universally agreed that the most parsimonious explanation of the rise of Christianity is that it started as the teachings of a small-time holy man who was executed — that is, martyred — by the Romans, and that it prospered and changed over the years by evangelical preachers who spread it throughout the empire.

That sounds likely to me, a non-historian.

---

-- PZ Myers
25 December 2022

One way to look at it, probably the best way, is to ask ourselves how much of the Jesus we see in the New Testament is mythical? Of all the tales we read about Jesus, how much is made up, or borrowed, or based on faked OT prophecy? I’d say a great deal is mythical at the very very best. At the very least, there’s no way at all to corroborate the tales! That alone makes me a Jesus mythicist. Am I right or am I right?

---

Comment by John W. Loftus—12 January 2023—per "I had to say what I think of Jesus Mythicism". Pharyngula. 25 December 2022

Loftus makes sense: it's not like Jesus created a 5 storey hospital out of thin air, or even fulfilled 10% of real messianic prophecies

PZMyers is a cunning rhetoric, yet not a very smart one: professional historians alleges that the stories about the stories that we have came from historians, professional ones even, whereas all we have is internal subjective testimonies - by the brass even, the very stakeholders of and to the entire charade.
Reasonable and likely beginning? Lovely how he tries to write his own story in the background of this little story, and the almost universally agreed is a beauty: the wants to come across as moderate but what he is doing is merely ever so slightly watering down an extreme statement: "universal" is used only by people who feel so insecure that they have to overshout themselves and everyone and everything else.
Most parsimonious explanation is yet another extreme and stealth manipulation, suggesting that this really is a very, very moderate and even reluctant position to take and he starts it with the adjective small-time, to immediately counter with holy man, and he does the same next, by juxtaposing executed and martyred - and those two words are his entire goal. What does the reader takeaway from this?

The reasonable and likely beginning, almost universally agreed upon by professional historians, is that of a martyred holy man

There are all sorts of apologists, but this is a clever one. A sneaky, manipulating, twisting and turning one of course, but still - it beats the dumb loudmouth apologist by a mile

I see both the mythical author we presume as Paul and his mythical Jesus as the initial product of Pagan cultures. After Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina, and was resettled by Pagans, there was a sudden blending of Pagan and Judaic influences sprouting an amalgam which could not possibly have been seeded from Judaism alone. Some (to many) of the crushed remnant of Judaism, rife with the recent and complete humiliation and failure of their God, likely found a conciliatory need whereby to become receptive of conquering influences to which they could never before offer the slightest consideration. Rome, not wanting to ever again experience yet another rise in Zealotry, may have, locally at least, and for some brief period of time, been wiling to somewhat better tolerate such an amalgam.

lsayre wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:52 am I see both the mythical author we presume as Paul and his mythical Jesus as the initial product of Pagan cultures. After Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina, and was resettled by Pagans, there was a sudden blending of Pagan and Judaic influences sprouting an amalgam which could not possibly have been seeded from Judaism alone. Some (to many) of the crushed remnant of Judaism, rife with the recent and complete humiliation and failure of their God, likely found a conciliatory need whereby to become receptive of conquering influences to which they could never before offer the slightest consideration. Rome, not wanting to ever again experience yet another rise in Zealotry, may have, locally at least, and for some brief period of time, been wiling to somewhat better tolerate such an amalgam.

The problem with that picture is that it presumes Judaic elements in the NT story. Which appear to exist, but on cost inspection (almost?) all turn out to be inaccurate, fake or false

I understand the need and desire for your picture, as almost everyone craves a Judeo-Christian origin because there most certainly was not a Judeo-Christian continuation, let alone a Judeo-Christian religion, and the falsifying fathers were very quick to reject any and all Judaism unless it was of their own making

Just one simple question: what is your guesstimated percentage of Judaics who would have initially believed and / or participated in this very nascent movement? Let's say in the first 10-20 years after Bar Kokhba

I have no means whereby to found a guess. But the Jewish remnant could not have been all that large of a population. The Ebionites, if such factually existed, would seem to fit within my framework.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:14 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:31 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:37 am

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:11 am

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 11:20 pm

An allusion to the scriptures : Isaiah 53.

If an ancient author said that Inanna, was obedient unto death and we know that he had Isaiah 53 in mind because he thought that Inanna was the character described in this passage of Isaiah, would this be a proof that Inanna had existed ?

I'm not using it as proof of existence, but rather evidence towards what Paul thought about Jesus.

And the historical evidence for NT Paul is ????

Methinks your whole approach to the search for early christian origins is circular...around and around with assumptions. After all your years on these forums I can't fathom how you can imagine your approach can contribute anything of value. It's a dead-end, a cul-de-sac, a brick wall.

However, what a historicist approach to the gospel Jesus does do, historicists themselves notwithstanding, is it's desire to retain a foothold on terra-firma and not be caught away by Paul's philosophical musings. History is primary - that's the shift in focus the historicists need - rather than their fixation upon a gospel figure Jesus they assume to be historical.

I'm going to add my voice to yours on this Mary. My recent experiment with Paul has resulted in my concluding that, except for a totally unrelated to XCanity historical letter writer in 1 Cor, the rest of the Pauline material seems to be composed by multiple authors and reliant on the Gospel stories and Acts.

All in all, 'Paul' seems to be a fictional construct designed to support an equally fictional IC.

Yep, the paper apostle.......

It really does seem like it. The only exception being a writer/editor that seems to have expanded on an original source writer in 1 Cor that I have referred to as urpaul. I'm working on that now and will post my results and opinions on the 31st.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:46 am PZMyers is a cunning rhetoric, yet not a very smart one:
[...]
There are all sorts of apologists, but this is a clever one. A sneaky, manipulating, twisting and turning one of course, but still - it beats the dumb loudmouth apologist by a mile

The Jesus [Christ] pictured in the Gospels is a myth. If we must take the mythical tales at face value, then such a person found in the gospels never existed. So, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels never existed.
[...]
Since there was an actual person behind the Popeye traditions, Popeye existed according to mainstream Biblical historians. No one could reasonably doubt that Popeye was based on a real sailor who liked to get into fights, if they studied history properly.

Since there was an actual person behind Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories, Sherlock Holmes really solved crimes in his day.

So too Santa Claus really exists. Who else brings the presents on December 25th, and who else eats the cookies, and drinks the milk left for him?

All biblicists need for someone to exist is for a literary figure to be based on a real historical person. So Jesus existed too!

---

--Loftus, John (26 July 2021). "My Talk at the GCRR e-Conference on the Historical Jesus". Debunking Christianity.

dbz wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:23 am

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 8:46 am PZMyers is a cunning rhetoric, yet not a very smart one:
[...]
There are all sorts of apologists, but this is a clever one. A sneaky, manipulating, twisting and turning one of course, but still - it beats the dumb loudmouth apologist by a mile

Thanks DBZ, I forgot to finish it.
What he does is to conjure out of thin air a completely fictional statement about a historical Jesus and he assigns it all kinds of colours on the way, but starts and ends with the most important part:

dbz wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 7:55 am

It’s the same with the Jesus story, only more so. It was a local story, a small time event that only mattered to a small circle of believers, but it grew over time. Much of the story was dubious, but professional historians could look at the legends that arose over time and infer back to a reasonable, even likely beginning. And they have almost universally agreed that the most parsimonious explanation of the rise of Christianity is that it started as the teachings of a small-time holy man who was executed — that is, martyred — by the Romans, and that it prospered and changed over the years by evangelical preachers who spread it throughout the empire.

That sounds likely to me, a non-historian.

---

-- PZ Myers
25 December 2022

Now why do I label him cunning and clever yet not smart? Because the very start and end are in such stark contrast in such a damn obvious way. "Ow little old me I don't even have an opinion on the matter but this is what the authorities say"