Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

[karavan]

"Alas, the thread dealing with such a thing was deleted from reddit and from its archives, which you will probably interpret as evidence that I am lying about such a claim. But here are the links if you are interested: https://vridar.org/2020/11/16/bad-histo ... issenters/, in which I cite https://snew.notabug.io/r/AcademicBibli ... reputable/"

I looked at your first link, found nothing of relevance about Hansen except his appearance in the comments simply pointing out that Carrier, Lataster et all are morons. The second link literally doesn't load for me. I'm sure you're not lying, but are just honestly wrong about this topic as well. Besides, how can a reddit post be COMPLETELY deleted? Or are you saying the OP deleted it? Do you have the BROKEN link at least of the article you claim to be deleted? If so, post it.

[Peter Kirby]

By the way, there *tends* to be a correlation between a position dying in academia and the amount of evidence there is for it at any given moment.

Godfrey has a pretty good post relevant to this:

https://vridar.org/2013/11/30/theologia ... nto-proof/

On pages 51 and 52 Fischer writes...

The fallacy of the prevalent proof makes mass opinion into a method of verification.

This practice has been discovered by cultural anthropologists among such tribes as the Kuba, for whom history was whatever the majority declared to be true.* If some fearless fieldworker were to come among the methodological primitives who inhabit the history departments of the United States, he would find that similar customs sometimes prevail. There are at least a few historians who would make a seminar into a senate and resolve a professional problem by resorting to a vote. . . .

If the fallacy of the prevalent proof appeared only in this vulgar form, there would be little to fear from it. But in more subtle shapes, the same sort of error is widespread. Few scholars have failed to bend, to some degree, before the collective conceits of their colleagues. Many have attempted to establish a doubtful question by a phrase such as “most historians agree . . .” or “it is the consensus of scholarly opinion that . . .” or “in the judgment of all serious students of the problem. . . .”

Price has a relevant article specifically on the subject of interpolations in Paul:

https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

RECENT ARTICLES have tried to establish ground rules for scholarly theorizing that would rule out arguments such as mine from the start. Two of these prescriptions against heretics are Frederik W. Wisse, "Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus" and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Interpolations in 1 Corinthians."2 These scholars seem to speak for the majority when they maintain that, short of definitive manuscript evidence, no suggestion of an interpolation in the Pauline Epistles need be taken seriously. The texts as they stand are to be judged "innocent until proven guilty" (Wisse, 170), which in the nature of the case, can never happen. Otherwise, if we had to take seriously interpolation or redaction theories based on internal evidence alone, "the result [would be] a state of uncertainty and diversity of scholarly opinion. Historians and interpreters [in such a case] can no longer be sure whether a text or parts of it represent the views of the author or someone else" (Ibid). The game would be rendered very difficult to play.

I see in such warnings essentially a theological apologetic on behalf of a new textus receptus, an apologetic not unlike that offered by fundamentalists on behalf of the Byzantine text underlying the King James Version. Just as the dogmatic theology of the latter group was predicated on particular readings in the Byzantine/King James text and thus required its originality and integrity, so does the "Biblical Theology" of today's Magisterium of consensus scholarship require the apostolic originality of today's Nestle-Aland/UBS text. Herein, perhaps, lies the deeper reason for the tenacious unwillingness of such scholars to consider seriously the possibility of extensive or significant interpolations (or, indeed, any at all).

The issue resolves itself into theological canon-polemics. If the integrity of the "canonical" scholarly text proves dubious in the manner feared by Wisse, the whole text will be seen to slide from the Eusebian category of "acknowledged" texts to that of the "disputed." That is the danger, not that a few particular texts will pass all the way into the "spurious" category and be rendered off limits like the long ending of Mark, but that wherever he steps the New Testament theological exegete will find himself amid a marshy textual bog. The former would actually be preferable to Wisse, since whatever remained could still be considered terra firma. And thus the apologetical strategy is to disallow any argument that cannot fully prove the secondary character of a piece of text. Mere probability results in the dreaded anxiety of uncertainty, so mere probabilities are no good. If we cannot prove the text secondary, we are supposedly entitled to go on regarding it as certainly authentic, "innocent until proven guilty." God forbid the scholarly guild should end up with Winsome Munro's seeming agnosticism:

Until such time as the entire epistolary corpus is examined, not merely for isolated interpolations, but to determine its redactional history, most historical, sociological, and theological constructions on the basis of the text as it stands should probably be accepted only tentatively and provisionally, if at all.3
William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations."4 Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that

the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.5
Wisse seems to think it unremarkable that all textual evidence before the third century has mysteriously vanished. But according to Walker, the absence of the crucial textual evidence is no mystery at all. It was a silence created expressly to speak eloquently the apologetics of Wisse and his brethren. Today's apologists for the new textus receptus are simply continuing the canon polemics of those who standardized/censored the texts in the first place. But, as Elisabeth Sch�ssler Fiorenza says in a different context, we must learn to read the silences and hear the echoes of the silenced voices.6 And that is what Walker and previous interpolation theorists have learned to do. The only evidence remaining as to a possible earlier state of the text is internal evidence, namely aporias, contradictions, stylistic irregularities, anachronisms, redactional seams. And this is precisely the kind of thing our apologists scorn. As we might expect from an apologetical agenda, the tactic of harmonization of "apparent contradictions" is crucial to their enterprise. Consensus scholarship is no less enamored of the tool than the fundamentalist harmonists of whom their "maximal conservatism" is so reminiscent.7 Wisse is forthright: the judicious exegete must make sense of the extant text at all costs. "Designating a passage in a text as a redactional interpolation can be at best only a last resort and an admission of one's inability to account for the data in any other way" (Wisse, 170). In other words, any clever connect-the-dots solution is preferable to admitting that the text in question is an interpolation. If "saving the appearances" is the criterion for a good theory, then we will not be long in joining Harold Lindsell in ascribing six denials to Peter.8

One of the favorite harmonizations used by scholars is the convenient notion that when Paul sounds suddenly and suspiciously Gnostic, for example, it is still Paul, but he is using the terminology of his opponents against them.9 This would seem to be an odd, muddying strategy. But it was no strategy of the apostle Paul, only of our apologists. It commends itself to many, including Murphy-O'Connor: "If Paul, with tongue in cheek, is merely appropriating the formulae of his adversaries, there are no contradictions in substance."10 Note the talk, familiar from fundamentalist inerrancy apologetics, of merely apparent contradictions. It is implied when Murphy-O'Connor is satisfied with "no contradictions in substance," "no real contradiction" (Interpolations, 83).

Wisse even repeats the circularity of apologist C. S. Lewis's argument in the latter's "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism." Lewis dismisses historical-critical reconstructions, of the historical Jesus, for example, since they are merely a chain of weak links: "If, in a complex reconstruction, you go on... super-inducing hypothesis on hypothesis, you will in the end get a complex, in which, though each hypothesis by itself has in a sense a high probability, the whole has almost none."11 But, we must ask, how is the orthodox apologist's edifice of apologetical bricks any more sturdy? The merely probabilistic character of the critics' position is evident to him; that of his own is not.

And so with Wisse: "since the burden of proof rests on the arguments for redactional interference, the benefit of the doubt rightfully should go to the integrity of the text. If the case of the prosecution is not able to overcome serious doubts, then the text deserves to be acquitted" (172). Again, "This lack of certainty is sometimes obscured by scholars who wishfully refer to certain redactional theories as if they were facts" (Ibid). And yet Wisse seems willing to consider harmonizations as facts, as if they themselves were not just as debatable as the interpolation hypotheses he despises. Because the critical argument is merely probabilistic and not certain, notwithstanding the similar vulnerability of his own preferred reconstructions (for that is what every harmonization is), Wisse feels as entitled as Lewis did simply to assume the case is closed.

The whole judicial verdict analogy is inappropriate to Wisse's argument anyway. In the one case, we have two choices, to put a man in jail or not. In the other, we have three choices: certainty of an authentic text, certainty of an inauthentic text, and uncertainty. A suggestive argument that nonetheless remains inconclusive should cause us to return the third verdict, but Wisse will not consider it. The logical implication would seem to be textual agnosticism, but Wisse prefers textual fideism instead.

Though Walker and Munro are both willing to set some high hurdles for a proposed interpolation-exegesis to jump,12 they are not nearly so high as the walls erected by Wisse: one must show manuscript support from that period from which none of any kind survives.13 And here we are reminded of another inerrantist apologist, Benjamin B. Warfield, who set up a gauntlet he dared any proposed biblical error to run. Any alleged error in scripture must be shown to have occurred in the original autographs, which, luckily, are no longer available.14 Warfield sought to safeguard the factual inerrancy of the text, while today's consensus scholars want to safeguard the integrity of the text, but the basic strategy is the same: like Warfield, Wisse and Murphy-O'Connor have erected a hedge around the Torah.15

Murphy-O'Connor rejoices at any exegesis "liberating us from speculative interpretations, some with far reaching consequences regarding the authority of Scripture" (85). Here is the heart of the apologetical agenda, but with genuine criticism it has nothing in common. And thus we proceed with our inquiry.

When reference to a consensus becomes an argument in itself and when preference is given to holding an opinion with the idea that disputing it carries a burden of proof, the notion that a consensus even is a shared, evidence-based judgment of the matter is compromised.

[neilgodfrey]

I honestly wonder whether there may now be developing a taboo around challenging such verses' authenticity, . . .

I sometimes wonder if the current focus on an authentic core behind the TF in Josephus is part of the circling of the wagons against mythicism.

And that brings us to the "proof-texting" method of "historical argument". Too many biblical scholars seem to rely on proof-texting to "prove" such and such a point and when it comes to arguing the mythicism thing they routinely fall back on proof-texting... Here is the chapter and verse, that proves it. Simple. A book discussed recently in another thread -- Daniel Schwartz's Reading the First Century -- makes many worthwhile comments on this problem. One such:

But it is the same theme, basically, that we find, for a very prominent and recent example, in the complaint on the back cover of a volume by Steve Mason, that scholars “have often strip-mined Josephus for selfish reasons,”5 which within the volume is explained to mean that they have been “ripping chunks out of Josephus and citing them as ‘raw data’ or facts – as if they were written by a robot and not a real human mind with a story to tell.” (p. 3)

That's the same mentality that too often engages with the mythicism debate (on both sides, by the way). Sources are not studied for understanding their authors or their works but are scanned for "facts" to use as ammunition. Very often those "facts" simply disappear into thin air when the author is studied through serious historical processes.

[ABuddhist]

ABuddhist has achieved his "VICTORY" against me that Godfrey doesn't always lap up *everything* Carrier says. While this isn't a victory (more like a relief ... somewhat ... he still vigilantly defends Carrier from virtually all critique, in a ridiculous apologetic way I debunked earlier when it came to both Gathercole and Litwa), it's definitely the closest thing to a "victory" ABuddhist has after I smackered his mythicism earlier.

P.S. ABuddhist, your first four points are totally irrelevant. Like, do you really want me to respond to those, and just keep laughing at you for getting triggered at calling myself "Dick (the Jesus Buster Duster) Carrier"? But the stuff about Islam is actually mildly interesting and not hyper-repetitive, so it's worth commenting on that, since Muhammad mythicists really are as insane as they appear to be. (Or perhaps just plain ignorant. Or sometimes both.)
a) You're going to need to clarify what you mean by this, it's QUITE unclear.
b) Nah that's BS, the date of the Sanaa manuscript PROVES that its references to Muhammad are contemporaneous, or at least insanely close to being contemporaneous. In any case, the Quran is absolutely contemporaneous to Muhammad.

I was hoping you were going to say more about the Islam topic (would be a refresher to me smacking mythicism around), but unfortunately not.

But yes dude, Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. I mean, it's pretty explicit in the sources.

P.S. Is that an attempt to reconstruct Christianity without Jesus? If so, it makes no sense to me. Paul shows TONS of interest in Jesus as a person, from noting his twelve disciples, his crucifixion and burial, his leading disciple, brother, a number of his teachings, lineage from David and a Jew, the last supper and so on. The idea that Paul has nothing about Jesus as a person is pseudohistorical wee woo gibberish. More can be added to this short list. The Gospels have disagreements on minor details, but by and large the paint roughly the same picture of Jesus. So that totally fails. You keep lapping onto the lack of "sources" as if it was customary to list your sources back then. But we can pretty easily tell that these Gospels had access to yet earlier sources. And finally, the lack of debate about Jesus in the extant sources proves WHAT exactly? LOL. It's undeniably and blatantly obvious that Christianity can't exist if Jesus didn't exist. The suggestion otherwise requires you to believe in a celestial Jesus at some point in Paul who got later historicized, which is a known clunker of a view. Otherwise, Paul knew Jesus own disciples and family. That settles, literally, everything. Movements also don't magically happen out of nowhere, new sects grow around teachers and leaders. This is a basic fact of social psychology.

1. I have made it clear to you that I refused to address your arguments against my discussion of mythicist arguments because you were too busy insulting me and others. Maybe you were right and maybe you were wrong, but I refused to subject myself to your insults in order to read your arguments in all but the briefest form.

2. The fact that you keep fixating upon the claim (which I have denied) that I was only triggered by your obscene refererence to Dr. carrier further reveals that you are uninterested in addressing my actual arguments/words (which referred in this case to your falsely claiming to be Dr. Carrier with no disclaimer). Given this ignoring of my views, I wonder whether I should bother replying to you, but I will.

3. The fact that you are unable to understand my discussion "With all due respect, you are misrepresenting the position that I was discussing, in which Muhammad had something to do with the Qu'ran's creation but not as its author - rather, he would have been a figure head to whom the authors of the Qu'ran (his associates) would have presented their efforts for him to present as Allah's words." suggests that you have very poor reading comprehension. But to clarify my claims, I am referring to claims that the Qu'ran was written for Muhammad by some combination of Umar and/or Salman the Persian, who used Muhammad as their spokesperson.

4. You are moving the goal posts. Formerly, you were citing the Sanaa manuscript as proof that Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran. Now, you are only citing the Sanaa manuscript as evidence that the Qu'ran was contemporary to Muhammad. But I agreed with you in my words, viz., " The fact that a manuscript of the Qu'ran exists from Muhammad's lifetime and approximate location is not evidence that the Qu'ran was written by Muhammad - although it eliminates various models in which Muhammad was more distant from the Qu'ran (such as the proposal that the Qu'ran was written c. 100 years after Muhammad's death)."

5. "But yes dude, Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. I mean, it's pretty explicit in the sources." So you and O'Neill assert, but other mainstream biblical scholars disagree - and they are working with the same sources.

6. No, I am not trying to reconstruct Christian origins without Jesus upon the Earth because I am not a mythicist, as you keep refusing to accept. I accept that Jesus was upon the Earth and was crucified upon the Earth, and whether he had a brother I care not (even though the matter is more complicated than what you acknowledge). But I am trying to reconstruct Christianity's origins without to gospels and post-gospel literature. Such sources (the authentically Pauline literature and Revelations) reveal no knowledge of a Jesus who preached upon the Earth or appointed apostles while he was alive upon the Earth. Jesus is rather presented as a man who was crucified and, after his death, teaches people trough visions. Given these facts, it becomes possible to conceive of a scenario in which Jesus was conceived, within the earliest Christian communities, as having appointed apostles through similar posthumous visions. You may say that no real religion could gain authority from such a system of transmission, but Hong Xiuquan founded a religion based upon visions in which Jesus not only granted to him power, but also proclaimed to hong that hong was Jesus's brother. And this religion was able to raise an army of around 3 million men in an attempt to found a Christian theocracy in China.

7. As a counter to your assertion that Christianity cannot have arisen without a Jesus preaching upon the Earth, I cite for you the cult of Amitabha Buddha, which has endured for over 1 thousand years. Its central saviour figure, Amitabha Buddha, is not alleged by any person to have been upon the Earth, yet millions of people throughout history, inspired by the so-called Pure Land Sutras, have developed faith in Amitabha Buddha. Particularly well-documented is the spread of the cult of Amitabha Buddha in Japan, where there were organized missionary efforts, "revival meetings" (people gather to chant praises of Amitabha Buddha for hours), and even martyrs (people executed for refusing to abandon their belief that faith in Amitabha Buddha was the only way to avoid a bad rebirth) - all without anyone claiming that Amitabha Buddha had been upon this Earth. His divine and salvific power was said to save despite this lack of connection.

[neilgodfrey]

ABuddhist has achieved his "VICTORY" against me that Godfrey doesn't always lap up *everything* Carrier says.. . . . .

1. I have made it clear to you that I refused to address your arguments against my discussion of mythicist arguments because you were too busy insulting me and others. Maybe you were right and maybe you were wrong, but I refused to subject myself to your insults in order to read your arguments in all but the briefest form.

K is playing a one-man game here. Insult and provoke to get responses he can use of foils to redouble his insults and provocations; insult and provoke to the point the targets refuse to bite and he can claim victory on grounds that he silenced his targets. It's a classic narcissistic game.

(If k seriously wants to know what I think about or how I respond to anything in particular e can ask through the norms of civil discourse.)

[ABuddhist]

I looked at your first link, found nothing of relevance about Hansen except his appearance in the comments simply pointing out that Carrier, Lataster et all are morons. The second link literally doesn't load for me. I'm sure you're not lying, but are just honestly wrong about this topic as well. Besides, how can a reddit post be COMPLETELY deleted? Or are you saying the OP deleted it? Do you have the BROKEN link at least of the article you claim to be deleted? If so, post it.

1. I will quote for you my 3 passages from the b log post's comment thread, which made no reference to Chris Hansen but rather to Chrissy_H_; we had instead agreed that Chrissy_H_ and Chris Hansen were the same person.

a. A Buddhist says:
2020-11-17 00:57:29 GMT+0000 at 00:57

Readers of this blog may find interesting the fact that on Reddit, recently a user named “Chrissy_H_”, who four days ago claimed, “I’m literally writing an entire book on mythicism”, has been temporarily banned from the Academic Biblical subreddit for some rather insulting language used when disputing with another historicist the other historicist’s claim that only mythicists believe that both passages from Josephus which mention Jesus are interpolations. “Chrissy_H_”, among other phrases, wrote, “Why would I bother engaging with the arguments of someone who has so little to say that they couldn’t be bothered to even read the scholarship, and are just repeating Tim O’Neill, whom I’ve already have tussled with elsewhere? You don’t offer a single thing worth actually thinking about. At this point you are just an entertaining child running around here complaining because how dare I hold you accountable to the fact that you don’t know the first thing about any of this, and are just a troglodyte.”

You may read these words here: https://old.reddit.com/user/Chrissy_H_, although they may be deleted in time.

I wish that people on all side of this discussion would be politer and that more people would realize that a heavenly Jesus makes Christianity stronger – because the earthly Jesus was so inferior to Shakyamuni Buddha and other sages.

b. A Buddhist says:
2020-11-19 22:38:04 GMT+0000 at 22:38

“Chrissy_H_” has deleted their reddit account. But as a correction, the person whom “Chrissy_H_” was debating was not saying that only mythicists believe that both passages in Josephus were interpolations; rather, the other person was saying that only Mythicists’ efforts ensure that mythicists’ and non-mythicists’ arguments that both passages in Josephus were interpolations receive any notability instead of being completely condemned and ignored.

Which is, I confess, a strange argument in its own right.

c. A Buddhist says:
2020-11-20 00:41:11 GMT+0000 at 00:41

People who are interested in the debate which “Chrissy_H_” was engaged in (which involves discussion of Ken Olson and of the idea that the Dialogue with Trypho suggested that some people thought that Jesus never existed) may find the following archived link to be useful: https://snew.notabug.io/r/AcademicBibli ... reputable/

Neil, if this break the rules of this blog for any reason (related to, for example, posting deleted content), then I apologize.

2. A reddit post can be completely deleted, as I have told you, as can its archived version, when the users and/or moderators within a subreddit choose to delete their posts and when the archive containing the subreddit breaks down.

3. I was not discussing an article that was being commented upon, but rather a discussion between users of the r/academicbiblical subreddit in response to a question about whether only mythicists rejected references to Jesus Christ in Josephus as interpolations. Chrissy_H_ was stating that e believed that both references were interpolations, which caused much anger in another user.

4. I thank you for thinking me to be incompetent rather than deceptive; maybe you should apply the same charitableness more often.

[karavan]

"Godfrey has a pretty good post relevant to this:"

So, let me get this straight:

1. Historians think that some sort of history can be gleaned from Acts if the appropriate tools were applied
2. Two 19th century scholars were very confident in Stephen's martyrdom; Ludemann also accepted it

WTH does this prove, LOL? The contention is: given the known evidence at any particular point in time, scholarly consensus tends to be the appropriate conclusion. Is that false? Is there anything in this post that you think challenges this? By the way, no one ever made that into an argument. It's much less of an argument, and moreso of a reminder. If you have a host of inane cooks on the internet claiming to have dishevelled all of academia, they're probably lying and almost certainly wrong. If I tried to count the number of time that counter-consensus nobodies with an utterly gigantic bias ended up debunking academia in the long run, I'd literally have 0 things counted.

Thanks for the Price quote, still doesn't change the fact that there isn't a hint of actual evidence for an interpolation in the numerous places mythicists posit, which ALL just so happen to be in EXACTLY the place that disconfirm their space Jesus thesis LOL. And of course Price is wrong about manuscripts, they're pretty fundamentally relevant because they are, y'know, actual *empirical* evidence which actually exist when it comes to interpolations like in Mark 16:9-20 and the adulteress pericope. But manuscript evidence for interpolation tends not to exist when there isn't an interpolation. Go figure.

[neilgodfrey]

"That one is news to me. I didn't know I denied the twelve are the twelve disciples."

See your response to Gathercole dude, you denied his point that "the twelve" in 1 Cor. 15:4 are "the twelve disciples" as if there's a serious or plausible alternative, LOL.

For anyone who cares a hoot about what I supposedly wrote about the twelve, here is the link k is speaking of: https://vridar.org/2019/01/23/gathercol ... l-history/

Notice: it is not my post. That is, I did not write it. Tim and I do not agree on everything. We are actually different people with different minds and points of view. And the post is, well, playing with the notion of counterfactuals anyway.... so.... hoo boy!

[karavan]

1. Nah ABuddhist, you dropped your mountain of mythicist arguments because I rubbished them. Godfrey tried to save you, but ended up blatantly falsely claiming, with a rather grand refutation at my hands, that academia either ignores mythicists or hasn't seriously responded to them. Of cours they have, I gave half a dozen examples LOL.

2. There's literally nothing to address, you got triggered and accused me of defamation when I called myself "Dick (the Jesus Buster Duster) Carrier" but then only had excuses for yourself for why you didn't report Godfrey in the way you did me when I blatantly tried to identify me two separate times.

3. Nah kiddo, if your point is unclear, it's your fault. Stop desperately searching for any point against me andjust clarify your point man, LOL. Also, "the Qu'ran was written for Muhammad by some combination of Umar and/or Salman the Persian, who used Muhammad as their spokesperson" sounds like a ridiculous, wishful thinking delusion to me.

4. Nope, you're blatantly lying. I never said Muhammad "WROTE" the Quran, but I did say the Quran is his, whether he wrote it or recited it (and some copyists put it to paper). And yup, the Sanaa manuscript ABSOLUTELY proves the Quran is contemporary to Muhammad. And any model where Muhammad had nothing to do with the composition of the Quran, i.e. he either wrote or recited it, is completely nuts.

5. "I FOUND SOMEONE WHO DISAGREES!" isn't an actual response my guy.

6. Nah, it's not complicated whether Jesus had a brother. Anyways, you just keep lying that Paul's epistles have no knowledge of an earthly Jesus. I mean, this is just a blatant and perpetual lie at this point. Paul says that Jesus had twelve disciples, was crucified, buried, had a brother, was a Jew descended from David, notes several of his teachings, the last supper, and so on. There is literally no possible rational model where a bunch of people figment a new religion and Jesus purely through visions, beginning as a celestial Jesus and then getting historicized. It's a form of hyper-wishful thinking. You then say "but Hong Xiuquan founded a religion based upon visions", thus completely refuting your own argument by proving you need a historical founder of a religion, LOL. Plus, you failed to provide a citation. That makes the claim a red herring.

7. WTH? LOL. Buddha is also a historical figure and Buddhists believe that dude. Besides, your logic is totally and utterly fallacious. Let's assume Buddha is not a historical figure — that proves literally zit, zero, nadda, nothing. It's a blatant association fallacy, "Buddhism could originate without a historical Buddha therefore so could Christianity". Nah dude, logic doesn't work like that. You need to give actual evidence from the origins of Christianity to back that up.

Your whole discussion on Chris Hansen produces not an iota of evidence he was ever "SUPPRESSED" or anything for his views on Josephus, you literally just quoted yourself saying the same thingin earlier points.



____________

Godfrey:

"Notice: it is not my post. That is, I did not write it."

LOL, that's ABuddhist's mistake, the dude cited it and said you wrote it, and I quickly skimmed it under that presumption. And damn dude, why cherry pick a response to that point in my comment LOL? What about the other things, like your false assertion that I "apologized" for calling you a .. erm .. Carrier fanboy? ROFL. Sorry dude, you literally vigilantly defend Carrier from literally all criticism that comes his way. That's not my opinion, that's literally a fact documented by you yourself over numerous years.

EDIT: HOLY JESUS, ROFL. https://vridar.org/2015/02/17/jesus-the ... rpolation/

God damn, so Romans 1:3 is ALSO AN INTerpolation per the Neil freaking Godfrey. Notwithstanding the total pseudo-"evidence" cited in the post above, wishful thinking *really does* have a hold on this guy. What about the last supper part that Paul mentions, Neil? That also an interpolation?

EDIT 2: BAHAHAHHA, I LITERALLY PREDICTED IT MATE. https://vridar.org/2007/03/14/pastoral- ... ans-10-11/

So the part where Paul records the last supper with Jesus is ALSO an interpolation per Neil "the real freaking dea - , well, clown" Godfrey. Amazing how someone can live in such a world of wishful thinking as this. Literally EVERYTHING in Paul clearly proving his belief in an earthly Jesus is an interpolation.

[ABuddhist]

there isn't a hint of actual evidence for an interpolation in the numerous places mythicists posit, which ALL just so happen to be in EXACTLY the place that disconfirm their space Jesus thesis LOL.

1. With all due respect, you are conflating evidence, plausible evidence, and proof. We have provided to you evidence that scholars (even opponents of mythicism!) have agreed that the verses were interpolated. You are free to assert that we are not providing plausible evidence, and to provide refutations (which I would read if they were to lack insults), but to deny that we have provided evidenbce and to further say that there is not evidence is completely false.

2. It is possible to be a mythicist without asserting that Jesus was a "heavenly saviour figure Jesus"/"space Jesus". CF., mythicism asserting that Jesus was a dying/rising fertility god.

3. As proof that it was possible to be a Christian while believing in a "heavenly saviour figure Jesus"/"space Jesus", I cite "Medieval “Christ Mythicists” and the Ascension of Isaiah" [ https://vridar.org/2020/06/06/medieval- ... of-isaiah/ ], citing "Peter. 1998. The History of the Albigensian Crusade: Peter of Les Vaux-De-Cernay’s Historia Albigensis. Translated by W. A Sibly and M. D Sibly. Woodbridge: Boydell." The relevant passage says "[11] Further, in their secret meetings they said that the Christ who was born in the earthly and visible Bethlehem and crucified at Jerusalem was ‘evil’, and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine – and that she was the woman taken in adultery who is referred to in the Scriptures; the ‘good’ Christ, they said, neither ate nor drank nor assumed the true flesh and was never in this world, except spiritually in the body of Paul. I have used the term ‘the earthly and visible Bethlehem’ because the heretics believed there is a different and invisible earth in which – according to some of them – the ‘good’ Christ was born and crucified. Again, they said that the good God had two wives, Oolla and Ooliba, on whom he begat sons and daughters. There were other heretics who said that there was only one Creator, but that he had two sons, Christ and the Devil; they said moreover that all created beings had once been good, but that everything had been corrupted by the vials referred to in the Book of Revelations." Now, I am not citing this passage as proof that the earliest Christians believed in a "heavenly saviour figure Jesus"/"space Jesus", but it is evidence that such a belief was not impossible. That having been said, better evidence (and proof or disproof) can be found through considering the earliest Christians' surviving texts.