https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Historian Richard Carrier talks about the non-historic Jesus. He talks about how he originally thought Jesus existed but realized that it could be true. Not a mythicist, some of whom he criticizes, but does conclude Jesus was originally a celestial being made into a human and cites many sources for earlier saviors that were given the identical treatment. Very informative,

all right, time for me to 'fess up guys...

i met the historical Jesus on the road and i killed Him

whenever i ask people to put up their historical Jesus they never do.

i think it's because as they begin to write it up they realise He's boring as batshit! (sorry bats)

Actually it would be historically correct to say "Jesus of Nazareth "
People of this time were also identified by the geographical area their families where from and their lives lived.

Jesus last name was not "Christ".
This entire post goes to the essence of your idiotic layman's scholarship, Roy.

DB Roy wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Historian Richard Carrier talks about the non-historic Jesus. He talks about how he originally thought Jesus existed but realized that it could be true. Not a mythicist, some of whom he criticizes, but does conclude Jesus was originally a celestial being made into a human and cites many sources for earlier saviors that were given the identical treatment. Very informative,

LOL!!

DB Roy wrote: While I could continue to write on this matter, I have gone as far as I care to at this point. While I think this series of posts certainly cast doubt on the existence of Jesus the Christ, none of it can prove that case.

Some may ask my motivation for presenting a case against the historic Jesus. Basically, why should we make this belief easy? If there is sufficient evidence to prove this personage existed then show it. If there is not (and this certainly appears to be the case) then there should be doubts and the verdict should not be in. However, among “historians” and “scholars” the verdict is in: he existed.

I've only started reading these posts, DB Roy, but kudos for your hard work. This is very impressive. I've asked the question before about Jesus' historicity, who is making the positive claim here? Those who argue for a historic Jesus or those who argue a mythic Jesus? But it seems like you're saying that neither "side" will ever prove its case. We have the scholar's "verdict", but this seems based almost solely on tradition—a habit of centuries-old religious belief. I do especially appreciate the intellectual humility you show in not pushing the claims for a mythic Jesus beyond the evidence, which is obviously fragmentary.

Jesii of Bethelhem

geo wrote:We have the scholar's "verdict", but this seems based almost solely on tradition—a habit of centuries-old religious belief. I do especially appreciate the intellectual humility you show in not pushing the claims for a mythic Jesus beyond the evidence, which is obviously fragmentary.

But this is simply not true Geo. The scholars note Josephus,Tacitus and other non Christian references to Jesus and John the baptist.
The prejudice of Carrier is exemplified in his strained mangling of Josephus' account of the execution of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

It may be noted there is a corroborating reference by Paul in Galatians to this James being the brother of the Lord, and the references in the gospels to Jesus having a brother named James.

Carrier simply rejects the gospel accounts out of hand and invents a new separate sect supposedly called "the brothers of the Lord" to get around the obvious meaning.

Carrier tries in vain to make this a different Jesus in Josephus,but scholars unanimously reject Carrier's arguments here and demonstrate his deliberate misconstruction of Josephus.
This is not scholarship but a cautionary tale of what happens when a scholar tries to bend and change the facts to fit a pet theory.
The atheist historian Tim O' Neill shows the misuse of Josephus by Carrier if not by name by method, in this article.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.ie/2014/ ... again.html

D.B. is ambivalent and says he doesn't care if Jesus or John the baptist existed but that they were "fictionalized".

And yet I've already shown how Josephus' historic account of John's execution fits the time and has major agreements with the gospel account.

His fish man John is nonsense,with a typical appeal to similarity of name and use of water as if anyone at the time can be shown to have viewed John that way,which they can not.

This is an absurd comparison,as if John lived in and emerged from the sea like this mythic "fish man."
He was seen as an entirely human Jewish prophet.

Flann 5 wrote:

geo wrote:We have the scholar's "verdict", but this seems based almost solely on tradition—a habit of centuries-old religious belief. I do especially appreciate the intellectual humility you show in not pushing the claims for a mythic Jesus beyond the evidence, which is obviously fragmentary.

But this is simply not true Geo. The scholars note Josephus,Tacitus and other non Christian references to Jesus and John the baptist.
The prejudice of Carrier is exemplified in his strained mangling of Josephus' account of the execution of James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

It may be noted there is a corroborating reference by Paul in Galatians to this James being the brother of the Lord, and the references in the gospels to Jesus having a brother named James.

I'm just shooting from the hip, as it were, Flann and I probably overstated my position (or lack of position). I did say "basely almost solely on tradition" which I think is true. I have always assumed there probably was a real man on which the mythologized Christ was grafted. History contains factual information and interpretation of those facts. But facts for Jesus are vanishingly small. From your source:

Scholars who specialise in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist.

And from Wikipedia:

Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[5][6][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.

That's some pretty iffy stuff. Nothing here really is a slam dunk.

geo wrote:Quote:
Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[5][6][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.




That's some pretty iffy stuff. Nothing here really is a slam dunk.

Hi Geo.

There is no scholarly dispute about Tacitus' reference or the later reference in Josephus to James the brother of Jesus who was called messiah.

Adding to that Paul's reference to James and the gospel references to Jesus having a brother named James.
Carrier tries to make it another Jesus in Josephus which is an extremely forced and unnatural reading of the passage as it stands.
Then there's Josephus' historic reference to John the baptist also.

You get all sorts of absurd "explanations" from mythicists to get around Paul's reference for instance and the Josephus reference.
Bottom line is mythicists are conspiracy theorists and everything awkward is an 'interpolation' or explained away badly.

Too much special pleading,ad hoc arguments and bad exegesis of both biblical and secular historical texts.

Flann 5 wrote:

geo wrote:Quote:
Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[5][6][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.




That's some pretty iffy stuff. Nothing here really is a slam dunk.

Hi Geo.

There is no scholarly dispute about Tacitus' reference or the later reference in Josephus to James the brother of Jesus who was called messiah.

Adding to that Paul's reference to James and the gospel references to Jesus having a brother named James.
Carrier tries to make it another Jesus in Josephus which is an extremely forced and unnatural reading of the passage as it stands.
Then there's Josephus' historic reference to John the baptist also.

You get all sorts of absurd "explanations" from mythicists to get around Paul's reference for instance and the Josephus reference.
Bottom line is mythicists are conspiracy theorists and everything awkward is an 'interpolation' or explained away badly.

Too much special pleading,ad hoc arguments and bad exegesis of both biblical and historical texts.

I'm sure that's true, and I'm not really familiar with Carrier's specific sins and omissions. When you have such fragmentary source material, it probably leaves a lot for rampant speculation on both sides of the equation.

The other side of the coin is that most believers don't question the mythical narrative that has been passed down for many generations—born in a manger, performed miracles, etc. This doesn't get scholarly scrutiny at all because it's part of a religious belief system. Much of this is all muddled together by your average believer and falls far afield from the "authentic nucleus" of Josephus.