Page 10 of 28

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:27 am
by ant
Robert,

Fine.

How about the evidence being requested?
Source(s) please?
Let's see what any undergraduate would know.
Every time hard evidence is asked for, a narrative has been given.

Let's start with the evidence that points to the existence of these ancient mystery cults. That would be a good start

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:32 am
by Robert Tulip
In the source ant gave, Ehrman makes a careless error in misquoting Doherty about the variety of ancient practice. Ehrman then lambasts Doherty about Erhman's own misrepresentation, ending up with egg on his face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries says "The popularity of mystery cults flourished in Late Antiquity."

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:11 am
by Robert Tulip
ant wrote:evolutionary biology does not make much use of empirically testable laws because it can't, quite frankly. Laws involve highly complex interactions with other laws.
1) Scientific explanations involve laws.
2) Biology does not make frequent use of empirically testable laws
Conclusion: Biology is an incomplete science.
Biology mostly explains in a historical manner. It falls short of explaining in a law governed manner. Because of the complexities involved and the laws that govern them (most of which are not capable of being replicated), biology relies heavily on narrative explanations. A narrative is different than a theory. Chew on that one a while.
Note: I am not attempting to create a case for Adam and Eve.
For the law basis of evolution see for example http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html which states
Darwin's Five Laws are:
1.Evolution as such
2.Common descent
3.Multiplication of species
4.Gradualism
5.Natural selection
Saint Mark conducted his psychological operations warfare against the Roman Empire by writing his gospel. Seeing that military methods were futile, Mark sought to subvert the moral legitimacy of Rome by destroying its divine mandate, using the fictional story of Jesus to build popular opposition to the right of the empire to rule
.
Cite the evidence for the above narrative, please. What manuscripts, archeological discoveries, etc, etc, add substance to that claim? It sounds too much like a mythical narrative. Your poetic style about the Christ myth is backed with little to no evidence, Robert.
I stated in the post that my basis for these comments is in my reading of Paul and Mark. You are welcome to disagree, but it would be more constructive to focus on the logic of why you disagree in detail, rather than sweeping gainsaying. As to why the Synoptic Gospels are subversive towards Rome, they all attack the 'desolating abomination' in the temple, in apparent direct reference to the Roman Conquest (Luke paraphrases as 'Jerusalem surrounded by Armies'). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abominatio ... on#Gospels states that the reference to Rome was the view of Church Father St. John Chrysostom, 4th century Archbishop of Constantinople.

There is much analysis of the theology of the cross, especially in liberation theology, that explains the Christian exaltation of Rome's political torture weapon as a subversive strategy.

There is no evidence for Jesus, whereas his invention is highly plausible, and indeed the only explanation for all the impossible deeds and mythic dialogue. My comments were aimed at explaining how the Christ Myth could have evolved, including the carnalization phase between Paul and Mark.

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:53 am
by ant
Robert Tulip wrote:In the source ant gave, Ehrman makes a careless error in misquoting Doherty about the variety of ancient practice. Ehrman then lambasts Doherty about Erhman's own misrepresentation, ending up with egg on his face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries says "The popularity of mystery cults flourished in Late Antiquity."
Due to the secret nature of the cult, and because the mystery religions of Late Antiquity were persecuted by the Christian Roman Empire from the 4th century (i.e. Theodosius I closed the Eleusinian Mysteries by decree in AD 392), the details of these religious practices are unknown to scholarship, although there are educated guesses as to their general content.
That proves the point that nothing is known.
The mystery cult angle is guess work. If you have a BA in HIstory, I guess it's safe to call it "educated guess work"

Lovely

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:41 am
by Robert Tulip
The Christian thugs burnt and destroyed and murdered all evidence of their origins in the mystery cults. What was their motive? Only to conceal their tracks regarding their invention of the lovely historical Jesus, in order to bolster the secular power of the church and eliminate their rivals. As Big Brother said in 1984, who controls the present controls the past, who controls the past controls the future.

Or maybe... Jesus was born of a virgin, ascended to heaven, walked on water, turned water into wine, rose from the dead, healed by miraculous touch, was raised in Nazareth (a town that did not exist), descended to hell where he baptized Adam and Abraham so they could go to heaven, told his disciples "The knowledge of the secrets of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. This is why I speak to them in parables" ...

Which is more likely? Jesus was a parable, pure and simple.

The cults of Eleusis and Mithras were extremely widespread, and have attested evidence of the sacred meal, which bears more than a passing resemblance to the Last Supper. That was Doherty's point, which Ehrman (and ant) use for a straw man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries says "Of all the mysteries celebrated in ancient times, these were held to be the ones of greatest importance. It is acknowledged that their basis was an old agrarian cult which probably goes back to the Mycenean period (c.1600-1100 BC) ... It was a major festival during the Hellenic era, and later spread to Rome."

Some of Doherty's writing on the mystery cults is at http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp13B.htm

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:41 am
by geo
ant wrote:
It's preposterous to believe that science could ever explain everything. For one thing, we are very limited beings with limited sensory capability and limited imaginations. It's preposterous to think that we could know everything
Agreed
But what other avenues besides science can we, as limited beings, use to pursue knowledge?
To think that science is the only avenue to obtain knowledge is to engage in "scientism."
So I'll ask again, what besides science can we, as limited beings, use to pursue knowledge? You can respond in the new thread I just created.
ant wrote:This may be a bit related: What is your opinion of the below quote from Einstein:
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.

We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
Einstein is probably talking about imagination and intuition as part of the creative process. I completely agree with him that imagination is essential to our pursuit of knowledge.

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:47 pm
by DWill
Robert Tulip wrote: Mark's effort to subvert Roman identity was partly successful, leading to the collapse of paganism, but also partly unsuccessful, in that Rome successfully assimilated the Christian moral attack, recognising its own psychological guilt for imperial murder by making the cross the symbol of redemption and conscience. This imperial guilt was then deflected onto the Jews, who were stigmatised as Christ killers so that western civilization could claim an unrepentant clear conscience about its destructive and oppressive behavior.
A simple question about the end point of your sequence: roughly in what year would this imperial guilt have been deflected onto the Jews? As an imperium, Rome didn't adopt Christianity until quite late, did it, yet the scapegoating of the Jews exists in the earliest Gospel, perhaps around 70 CE.
Jesus and John made the point that you cannot be forgiven if you do not understand your sin and feel sorry about it. While people fail to understand the sinful nature and history of the construction of the Christ myth, they live under condemnation. As Jesus put it, the truth will set you free.
Do I read you correctly here? Are you indeed saying that the construction of the Christ myth (if it was in fact constructed by a few people, as you imply) was sinful?

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:45 pm
by ant
The Christian thugs burnt and destroyed and murdered all evidence of their origins in the mystery cults. What was their motive? Only to conceal their tracks regarding their invention of the lovely historical Jesus, in order to bolster the secular power of the church and eliminate their rivals. As Big Brother said in 1984, who controls the present controls the past, who controls the past controls the future.
You simply will not, or can not (that's my bet) provide any real evidence for these fantastic narratives you place your faith in, Robert. Your source here is "Big Brother"? Seriously? You expect some of us to take off our skeptical hats for these tales of arson, vandalism, murder, etc, etc by secret cults that were so secret the members hardly knew who was a member, what the extent of their influence was, how their treacherous deeds were carried out, but now we know with certainty, despite not having a shred of hard evidence to hang our hats on?
"The knowledge of the secrets of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. This is why I speak to them in parables"
This is a convenient translation to back your mythicist angle up. But you are willing to totally dismiss scripture that states unambiguously Jesus was a man of flesh, who was crucified here on earth. Scripture that is against the mythicist angle were inserted to build the Christ Myth! !

Is this really your definition of historical scholarship?

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:28 am
by Robert Tulip
ant wrote:tales of arson, vandalism, murder, etc, ... despite not having a shred of hard evidence to hang our hats on?
Now now ant, you should read more carefully, or not wilfully misrepresent me. I did not cite Orwell as a source on the Bible, just that he explains their methods quite well, modelling Big Brother on the Pope.

A thread from a while back links to some of the sorry evidence of Christian destruction of paganism.
http://www.booktalk.org/origins-of-chri ... t7836.html

It is quite easy to find abundant evidence of this sort on the internet, more so when we get to the Crusades and later persecution of free thinkers. Were you not aware that the pagan cults were destroyed by Christianity?
"The knowledge of the secrets of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. This is why I speak to them in parables"
This is a convenient translation to back your mythicist angle up. But you are willing to totally dismiss scripture that states unambiguously Jesus was a man of flesh, who was crucified here on earth. Scripture that is against the mythicist angle were inserted to build the Christ Myth! ! Is this really your definition of historical scholarship?
Yes, I dismiss positive Bible claims about a real Jesus, because they are not backed by any contemporary evidence, and are completely illogical against a forensic assessment. Nothing from the first century mentions Jesus or Christianity, but there is abundant other written material from the first century. It is a yawning gap. If Jesus was real it is surprising to say the least that he left no trace at the time, and nothing about his physical life until generations later. The evidence indicates the most plausible scenario is pure invention.

We have as much hard evidence for Don Quixote as we do for Jesus Christ, none. So it is reasonable to examine the Bible to see how well it coheres with the hypothesis that Jesus was invented. The answer is that it does, a lot, for example in the statement at issue here, where Jesus explains that his teachings to outsiders are parables. (Not sure why you call it a 'translation'?)

One of the big "secrets of heaven" is that Jesus was invented.

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:21 am
by Robert Tulip
DWill wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote: Mark's effort to subvert Roman identity was partly successful, leading to the collapse of paganism, but also partly unsuccessful, in that Rome successfully assimilated the Christian moral attack, recognising its own psychological guilt for imperial murder by making the cross the symbol of redemption and conscience. This imperial guilt was then deflected onto the Jews, who were stigmatised as Christ killers so that western civilization could claim an unrepentant clear conscience about its destructive and oppressive behavior.
A simple question about the end point of your sequence: roughly in what year would this imperial guilt have been deflected onto the Jews? As an imperium, Rome didn't adopt Christianity until quite late, did it, yet the scapegoating of the Jews exists in the earliest Gospel, perhaps around 70 CE.
This is a really good question, but I don’t think it is simple. Apologies that this post is a bit long, I have just used it to set out some observations. Where I say ‘Jesus says’ I am just referring to the fictional character.

Rome had plenty to be guilty about – as Paul said, all have sinned, and there is plenty of evidence that pagan practices were specifically viewed as wrong in the eyes of Christ. But Christianity teaches that believers are forgiven and will go to heaven, based for example on John 3:16. This is a good way to deflect a guilty conscience. It means that where believers should feel guilty they don’t because they have internalised a simple formula to justify themselves ‘whosoever believeth shall have eternal life’.

By the time Christianity became the Roman state religion in the fourth century, there was strong feeling against Jewish intransigent refusal to believe that Jesus was the Christ. It was possible for the ruling classes to morally justify their own oppressive actions, but they had to psychologically project their own evil onto another scapegoat, the Jews.

Looking at the evolution of Christian attitudes towards Judaism, we see a gradual separation and hardening. There is certainly Roman imperial guilt, given that the cross was originally a symbol of imperial condemnation, and it was converted into a symbol of salvation. (Incidentally the crucifix did not appear in art for 400 years.) Roman feeling of guilt must have involved a transformation of attitudes about crucifying people, alongside a sense of remorse that their political torture weapon murdered the Lord of Glory.

Before Constantine, the Empire did not feel guilty about disposing of Jesus, as it considered that the mandate of heaven lay with their pagan pantheon headed by Jupiter, and Jesus was just a contemptible rebel. Once Christ was accepted as imperial God, the question became who was primarily at fault for killing him. The Revelation definitely blamed Rome, Paul is strongly anti-racist, and the Gospels are ambiguous, indicating Jesus was killed by Roman troops at the instigation of 'the Jews'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemiti ... _Testament is a good source.

Paul, generally considered the earliest Christian source, emphasises the need for Christianity to be non-racist, saying “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek”. Paul can be read as presenting Christianity as a version of Judaism that is acceptable to non-Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epis ... thenticity explains that a notorious anti-Semitic text in 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 is so dramatically incompatible with the rest of Paul’s teachings and so anachronistic that it cannot be regarded as authentic.

Revelation was widely read as principally directed against Rome as the new Babylon, and against Nero as the Beast, a line that moved into modern anti-imperialist rhetoric such as Bob Marley’s condemnation of the USA as Babylon.

The Gospels, if we accept their early versions as being written in the years after the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, are ambiguous about Judaism. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says “Salvation is from the Jews” (:4:22), but then John tells us “the Jews sought to kill him” (7:1), and continually speaks of ‘the Jews’, 71 times, casting them in a bad light for their failure to believe in Jesus.

On the one hand, Jesus says he came to fulfil the law of Moses and the prophecies of the Old Testament, and very many of the Gospel motifs are based on Jewish traditional texts. But on the other hand, Jesus follows in the tradition of the prophets in attacking prevailing Jewish practice. Just as Amos and Isaiah and Jeremiah suggested that failure to follow their own religion would lead to destruction of Israel, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for hypocrisy.

The crucifixion is blamed on the collaboration between the Jewish authorities and the Roman occupiers, with the high priests saying that if they let Jesus continue then the Romans will destroy the temple. The handing over of Jesus is compatible with the view that the Romans were the real evil power, while the Jews were simply doing what they had to do in order to prevent the emergence of a political subversive.

Jesus says he brings a new covenant, replacing Moses’ teaching on ‘eye for an eye’ with ‘love your enemies’. This is ambiguous. Replacing the law contradicts the line ‘not a jot or tittle of the law will pass away’. Also, loving enemies is incompatible with racism.

The blood guilt line from Matthew 27:25, ‘may his blood be on us and on our children’ has been a principal justification used for anti-Semitism. My view though, is that this line was not directed against Judaism in its entirety by any means, but rather against those collaborators with Rome who were allowed by Pilate into the temple for the trial. There is no indication, for example, that the Jews who accompanied Jesus into Jerusalem on his triumphant entry on Palm Sunday would have at all been the same people who mocked him before Pilate.
Jesus and John made the point that you cannot be forgiven if you do not understand your sin and feel sorry about it. While people fail to understand the sinful nature and history of the construction of the Christ myth, they live under condemnation. As Jesus put it, the truth will set you free.
Do I read you correctly here? Are you indeed saying that the construction of the Christ myth (if it was in fact constructed by a few people, as you imply) was sinful?
I regard it as sinful, because I view evidence as the core of ethics. Believing things that lack evidence is morally culpable.

The construction of the Christ myth was the basis of the collapse of classical civilization. Believing a pack of rubbish that conflicted with all reason and evidence led to an oppressive dogmatic culture in which free critical enquiry was banned and a clique of liars and frauds took power. Yes, that is sinful.

Looking at it today, people who believe adamantly in the historical Jesus tend to deny scientific reality, ignoring evidence about the likely consequences of their actions. Those who believe absurdities permit atrocities. Yes, that is sinful.

Allegorically, we might say if we live in a house that municipal authorities have condemned, and we ignore the evidence the engineer has explained, we also live under condemnation.