5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Spanner]

For Aristotle and Kish, what do you think of Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus"? I am just waiting for it to come out on audio book (he says it will be done very soon, I have so much more listening time available than reading time); I was intrigued with "Proving History" and "Hitler, Homer, Bible, Christ", both of which have severely knocked my faith in a historical Jesus. I simply have not seen any decent response to some of the issues Carrier addresses.

I only started reading up on the topic after a thread here a number of years ago, that dissed Reza Aslan's "Zealot" (I was an Aslan fan back then, but have since realised how badly he was recycling the work of others).

[_richardMdBorn]

For Aristotle and Kish, what do you think of Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus"? I am just waiting for it to come out on audio book (he says it will be done very soon, I have so much more listening time available than reading time); I was intrigued with "Proving History" and "Hitler, Homer, Bible, Christ", both of which have severely knocked my faith in a historical Jesus. I simply have not seen any decent response to some of the issues Carrier addresses.

I only started reading up on the topic after a thread here a number of years ago, that dissed Reza Aslan's "Zealot" (I was an Aslan fan back then, but have since realised how badly he was recycling the work of others).

Hi Spanner,

There 's a long response here.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... ricity.htm

I haven't had time to read through all of it, but you may find it of interest.

[Guest]

http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

A minor quibble - I've noticed while reading through the thread tonight that Ehrman is given responsibility for these points. That's not accurate. Ehrman is rightly noted in the link as being someone who believes there was a historical Jesus but is quoted as noting issues related to point 1. The list is someone else's.

I do think Kishkumen is uniquely qualified to speak on the subject of the historical Jesus given his advanced and specialized knowledge of historical methods. Plus, his acknowledged expertise on the cultures involved at the time and how our knowledge of those cultures is derived and studied isn't something we arm-chair hobbyists can match. Generalities of that sort are beyond dispute.

Now if you want to read an interesting thread on the topic of the historical Jesus where Kish and AS go head-to-head, I'd suggest reading through this link.

[_Bret Ripley]

Bret,

Don't go out of your way. If you feel like it, then okay.

Oh, it won't be out of my way, Jersey Girl. You've got me wanting to refresh my memory on the subject.

[Guest]

Can you point me to the writings of Jewish historians or scholars that wrote about faith healers and potential prophets that forward a theology other than their own?

AS mentioned Philo of Alexandria elsewhere in this thread. He's an example of a well-regarded Jewish philosopher and prolific writer who included comments on other Jewish cultic beliefs, typically to point out errors, in his On the Special Laws for example.

[_Jersey Girl]

A minor quibble - I've noticed while reading through the thread tonight that Ehrman is given responsibility for these points. That's not accurate. Ehrman is rightly noted in the link as being someone who believes there was a historical Jesus but is quoted as noting issues related to point 1. The list is someone else's.

No. In my posts, at least, Ehrman isn't given responsibility for the points. He is quoted in the link to the first point. I copied his comments. I'm not sure other posters have referred to Ehrman. I did.

In each instance where I mentioned Ehrman, it was in reference to that first quote.

^^ Clarifying

[Guest]

A minor quibble - I've noticed while reading through the thread tonight that Ehrman is given responsibility for these points. That's not accurate. Ehrman is rightly noted in the link as being someone who believes there was a historical Jesus but is quoted as noting issues related to point 1. The list is someone else's.

No. In my posts, at least, Ehrman isn't given responsibility for the points. He is quoted in the link to the first point. I copied his comments. I'm not sure other posters have referred to Ehrman. I did.

In each instance where I mentioned Ehrman, it was in reference to that first quote.

^^ Clarifying

Ah, ok. My misreading of your posts, then.

[_Jersey Girl]

honor,

Could you please correct the spelling of the word "copied" in your copy of my post. I'll die from it.

Signed,

A first born who cannot tolerate spelling errors in her posts

;-)

[_Jersey Girl]

I do think Kishkumen is uniquely qualified to speak on the subject of the historical Jesus given his advanced and specialized knowledge of historical methods. Plus, his acknowledged expertise on the cultures involved at the time and how our knowledge of those cultures is derived and studied isn't something we arm-chair hobbyists can match. Generalities of that sort are beyond dispute.

You're not permitted to endorse posters on this thread. Read back a few pages. ;-)

Now if you want to read an interesting thread on the topic of the historical Jesus where Kish and AS go head-to-head, I'd suggest reading through this link.

I'll take it! That's exactly what I want!

:-)

[Guest]

Were the gospels intended to be historical writings?

As in accurately recording things that actually happened?

The Gospels appear to have been written as propaganda for cult religious and political purposes. Much like many texts which make up the non-canonical books of Jewish and Christian mythology. In that respect not too dissimilar to the Book of Mormon.

It is impossible to tell how much those original authors actually believed in what they were writing. It is also difficult to determine which elements actually happened, are based on actual occurrences and which elements are made up to make the story more persuasive for the audience.

For example, I think we'd all expect Josephus to make a mention of something like the massacre of the innocents by Herod, if it actually took place. The fact that Josephus makes no mention of such a profound event throws it into serious doubt.

I think there are some facts about events which are mixed into pieces of propaganda which are about as "true" as a Hollywood movie based on a "true story". Regardless of how much is accurate about the "historical Jesus", we can all safely assume that the miraculous elements use plot devices that are similar to comparable fictional myths and stories both then and now.

What sort of historical information would you expect to find in them?

I'd expect the use of historic people and places that more or less existed as a backdrop for a largely fictional story. I have no doubt that the Book of Mormon is likewise based on people in Joseph Smith's environment, including his family and places in America even if he didn't have any real ancient historic figures to include in his fiction.

I don't see why some people want to make this a hill that they are willing to die on. There is so much that is obviously fictional in the Bible, so that even if the characters did exist in some capacity it doesn't change the fact that the sensational elements of the story are obviously as made up as The Matrix.