IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:


This is pathetic. Go back and read it again. I never even mentioned 'bible scholars'. That's all in your imagination. I was talking about ME and your ridiculous accusations specifically towards ME that I 'have faith' etc on the basis that I use some religious texts to do history. I have no prior 'belief in Jesus'.

So, I ask again, in the case of a historian who concludes from some religious texts about a god of fire and smoke that the writers lived near an active volcano, would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he uses religious texts?

Of course you wouldn't. But you can't even bring yourself to concede that, because you are afraid of giving any ground at all. .

I did not say that you did mention “bible scholars” in your earlier post above. What I said was that in your analogy you talked about a “historian” deducing things about a volcano, and that you were presenting that as analogous to what “historians” bible scholars say about their belief in Jesus using the bible as their evidence.

Well you were wrong. You should have been able to tell that because (a) I didn't mention bible scholars, (b) I was talking specifically about your ridulous assertions about ME and then (c) when you continued to get it wrong I explained it to you.

In your analogy your mountain climbing historian is presented by you as the equivalent not of “historian” but of bible scholars who claim the bible as their evidence of Jesus.

Incredible! You are still getting it wrong. The analogy refutes your accusations about ME. (Your fixation suggests you are worried about what it also does to your arguments about bible scholars, and indeed you should be, but the matter at hand is your accusations about me.) And what are you talking about mountain climbing for, have you completely lost track of the argument?


And you STILL haven't answered the question. Would you accuse the historian of 'having faith' in the religious texts about the fire god?

See below re. what I said about your “faith or trust” being placed in what the biblical writers wrote about Jesus.

The fact that a country/geography exists, is certainly not physical evidence of a HJ, is it LoL!

I didn't say it was evidence in favour of J being historical, just that there is some physical evidence that is relevant when we are studying the case of HJ. It was a parallel to your mention of the mountain being physical evidence in the case of the fire god. The mountain isn't 'evidence of' a fire god, but it is relevant evidence in the study of the case of the fire god. It's ridiculous that you need these things spelling out for you. Your failure to get the point is getting extremely tiresome.

And I have no idea what inscription you are referring to. Which inscription is this that is actually physical evidence of Jesus?

Are you actually trying to misrepresent everything I say? I didn't say it was physical evidence of Jesus, I said it mentioned one of the purported characters. Look up 'purported'. At least you'll have learned something. (The inscription in question mentions Pilate.)

MS2 wrote:


And I have explained, in a section you apparently failed to take in, that you are wrong about that. Here it is for you again:

Well for a start, the people you are calling “historians” reading religious texts, are actually bible scholars.
And contrary to what you just said, those bible scholars do in fact ALL all believe that certain “assertions” in those biblical texts are indeed evidenec of a human Jesus.

Read what I fucking write. For fuck knows how many times, I DIDN'T mention bible scholars and I WAS talking about me.

(Here's hoping stronger language helps your comprehension!)

And in this thread you have been saying have you not, that like those bible scholars, you too believe certain “assertions” in the bible about Jesus, to be true as evidence of Jesus

The historian reads a scroll that says, 'All hail holy MooMoo, mighty fire god in the mountain'. The historian believes this is explained (in part, along with development of religious superstitions etc) by there having been an active volcano. Similarly, I believe the biblical assertions are explained (in part, along with development of superstitions etc) by an ordinary man getting crucified. If you think what the historian is doing or what I am doing amount to 'having faith' in religious writings, well your argument is just moronic.

But those “assertions” in the anonymous late biblical writing, are from writers who never knew any such person as Jesus, and hence could have been writing nothing more than their religious faith beliefs about a messiah who was actually unknown to them.

What I am saying about you and about bible scholars who claim that biblical religious faith writing as evidence of a Jesus figure unknown to any of those biblical writers excepts as a figure of their religious faith, is that you are putting your faith or trust in that religious faith writing that comprises the bible (that biblical writing is actually completely un-evidenced as far as any of it's writers every knowing a human Jesus. What they were recording was purely and completely their religious faith in an unknown messiah).

And what you are saying is pure propaganda. It is just as bad as those Christian apologists who do it. They argue non-christians 'have faith' too when they put their trust in science. It's moronic and you should feel embarrassed.

MS2 wrote:



There you go again. I don't 'believe in Jesus'!

I've explained that numerous times to you before ... you do believe in Jesus don't you?
PATHETIC

Please don't bother to reply to this unless you are prepared to change your approach, because your repeated smears, false reasoning and failures to read and understand what I've said have become extremely tiresome.

Well do you believe in Jesus or not? Yes or no?

I did not insist that you were a religious Christian.(I don't know if you are or not).

Well perhaps you might have got a clue from the multiple times I've told you I don't believe in Jesus. On, I forgot, you don't actually read what people write do you.

For example - if I asked you/anyone if you/they believe in God, you would either say “Yes I do believe in God” or “No I don’t believe in God”. It’s perfectly clear that I would be asking if you believed he existed. This thread is entirely about whether Jesus actually existed or not. And I am describing your position saying you do believe in Jesus. I am not asking you if you believe that people wrote about Jesus in the bible! ... we all know people did that, and nobody is disputing that biblical writers did indeed write about a messianic supernatural figure called “Iesous” (Jesus) ... I am simply saying that all your posts state very clearly that you do believe in that figure.

There are historians who think the figure of Father Christmas has its origins in the historical man called Saint Nicholas. Would you accuse such historians of 'believing in' Father Christmas? No you wouldn't. Yet you clearly want to be able to smear me with the 'I believe in Jesus' phrase along with me 'having faith', 'trusting in religious writings' etc. It's pathetic.

And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

Your posts are becoming quite hysterical and as if you were foaming at the mouth!

Calm down please.

Look - you made a very silly trite analogy about a historian looking for a god up a volcano, an entirely imaginary proposal from you.

And you tried to present that as analogous to the case of biblical scholars who believe they have found evidence of Jesus in the bible.

Owdhat wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

There certainly are historical volcanoes. And I can write a story that has a volcano in it that is 100% fictional invention, a fact HJers seem unable to grasp. You guys want us to believe that a story about a volcano erupting in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is somehow historically accurate because the author somehow, somewhere witnessed the eruption that inspired his story, and then other people have been talking about the story for 2000 years.

That's called fiction.

Err no.

Harry Potter - fiction

Captain Hornblower - Fiction based on history

Robin Hood - mostly fictional - based on history - but could have originated with a real person.

King Arthur - fiction based on romantic ideas of the past, the character as portrayed does not fit with the era.

Jesus Christ - mostly mythical - based in a historical period - examination of texts both christian & pagan suggests may have been an actual person. Difficult to explain the material without at least someone who was understood to be a normal ordinary human at some point. Fits well with the time period, fits badly with old testament prophecy that he was supposed to explain. Has unusual unexpected demise with physical evidence of mocking by ancient and original graffiti.

Elephant in the room - metaphorical idiom for glaringly obvious fact that MJ proponents are desperate not to look at even though it has now started playing Trumpet Voluntary in stereo whilst pirouetting on the coffee table.

proudfootz wrote:


The real 'elephant in the room' is HJ proponents are desperate to pretend that belief in something for which there is scant evidence of is the only reasonable proposition.

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:


I did not say that you did mention “bible scholars” in your earlier post above. What I said was that in your analogy you talked about a “historian” deducing things about a volcano, and that you were presenting that as analogous to what “historians” bible scholars say about their belief in Jesus using the bible as their evidence.

Well you were wrong. You should have been able to tell that because (a) I didn't mention bible scholars, (b) I was talking specifically about your ridulous assertions about ME and then (c) when you continued to get it wrong I explained it to you.

In your analogy your mountain climbing historian is presented by you as the equivalent not of “historian” but of bible scholars who claim the bible as their evidence of Jesus.

Incredible! You are still getting it wrong. The analogy refutes your accusations about ME. (Your fixation suggests you are worried about what it also does to your arguments about bible scholars, and indeed you should be, but the matter at hand is your accusations about me.) And what are you talking about mountain climbing for, have you completely lost track of the argument?


And you STILL haven't answered the question. Would you accuse the historian of 'having faith' in the religious texts about the fire god?

See below re. what I said about your “faith or trust” being placed in what the biblical writers wrote about Jesus.





The fact that a country/geography exists, is certainly not physical evidence of a HJ, is it LoL!

I didn't say it was evidence in favour of J being historical, just that there is some physical evidence that is relevant when we are studying the case of HJ. It was a parallel to your mention of the mountain being physical evidence in the case of the fire god. The mountain isn't 'evidence of' a fire god, but it is relevant evidence in the study of the case of the fire god. It's ridiculous that you need these things spelling out for you. Your failure to get the point is getting extremely tiresome.

And I have no idea what inscription you are referring to. Which inscription is this that is actually physical evidence of Jesus?

Are you actually trying to misrepresent everything I say? I didn't say it was physical evidence of Jesus, I said it mentioned one of the purported characters. Look up 'purported'. At least you'll have learned something. (The inscription in question mentions Pilate.)

Well for a start, the people you are calling “historians” reading religious texts, are actually bible scholars.
And contrary to what you just said, those bible scholars do in fact ALL all believe that certain “assertions” in those biblical texts are indeed evidenec of a human Jesus.

Read what I fucking write. For fuck knows how many times, I DIDN'T mention bible scholars and I WAS talking about me.

(Here's hoping stronger language helps your comprehension!)

And in this thread you have been saying have you not, that like those bible scholars, you too believe certain “assertions” in the bible about Jesus, to be true as evidence of Jesus

The historian reads a scroll that says, 'All hail holy MooMoo, mighty fire god in the mountain'. The historian believes this is explained (in part, along with development of religious superstitions etc) by there having been an active volcano. Similarly, I believe the biblical assertions are explained (in part, along with development of superstitions etc) by an ordinary man getting crucified. If you think what the historian is doing or what I am doing amount to 'having faith' in religious writings, well your argument is just moronic.

But those “assertions” in the anonymous late biblical writing, are from writers who never knew any such person as Jesus, and hence could have been writing nothing more than their religious faith beliefs about a messiah who was actually unknown to them.

What I am saying about you and about bible scholars who claim that biblical religious faith writing as evidence of a Jesus figure unknown to any of those biblical writers excepts as a figure of their religious faith, is that you are putting your faith or trust in that religious faith writing that comprises the bible (that biblical writing is actually completely un-evidenced as far as any of it's writers every knowing a human Jesus. What they were recording was purely and completely their religious faith in an unknown messiah).

And what you are saying is pure propaganda. It is just as bad as those Christian apologists who do it. They argue non-christians 'have faith' too when they put their trust in science. It's moronic and you should feel embarrassed.

Well do you believe in Jesus or not? Yes or no?

I did not insist that you were a religious Christian.(I don't know if you are or not).

Well perhaps you might have got a clue from the multiple times I've told you I don't believe in Jesus. On, I forgot, you don't actually read what people write do you.

For example - if I asked you/anyone if you/they believe in God, you would either say “Yes I do believe in God” or “No I don’t believe in God”. It’s perfectly clear that I would be asking if you believed he existed. This thread is entirely about whether Jesus actually existed or not. And I am describing your position saying you do believe in Jesus. I am not asking you if you believe that people wrote about Jesus in the bible! ... we all know people did that, and nobody is disputing that biblical writers did indeed write about a messianic supernatural figure called “Iesous” (Jesus) ... I am simply saying that all your posts state very clearly that you do believe in that figure.

There are historians who think the figure of Father Christmas has its origins in the historical man called Saint Nicholas. Would you accuse such historians of 'believing in' Father Christmas? No you wouldn't. Yet you clearly want to be able to smear me with the 'I believe in Jesus' phrase along with me 'having faith', 'trusting in religious writings' etc. It's pathetic.

And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

Your posts are becoming quite hysterical and as if you were foaming at the mouth!

Calm down please.

I'm perfectly calm. Since reason alone wasn't getting through I thought couching it in stronger language might help you.

You know, for a while I thought you were someone who might be open to reasoned discussion on this topic. Unfortunately it turns out you are just another propagandist for you cause.

Look - you made a very silly trite analogy about a historian looking for a god up a volcano, an entirely imaginary proposal from you.

Nope. An analogy that was completely on point and to which you were and are utterly unable to respond. You can't even summarise it correctly.

And you tried to present that as analogous to the case of biblical scholars who believe they have found evidence of Jesus in the bible.

You've lied about this repeatedly and I've put you right repeatedly. The analogy was to my use of texts. No mention of bible scholars except by the voices in your head. Repeating the lie again here just makes you look even more foolish.

Its obvious now that on this topic at least you are impervious to reason, resort to repeated lies and tactics lifted direct from the apologist's and creationist's playbook. So I'm not going to be arsed with the rest of the shit you've posted.

Cue even more repetitive shit from you.....

MS2 wrote:@IanS
Let's say a historian found some 2000 year old scrolls in which the priests of a religion talked about their god living in the nearby mountain and breathing fire and smoke. Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. Would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he was relying on evidence from religious believers?

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:
Well you were wrong. You should have been able to tell that because (a) I didn't mention bible scholars, (b) I was talking specifically about your ridulous assertions about ME and then (c) when you continued to get it wrong I explained it to you.


Incredible! You are still getting it wrong. The analogy refutes your accusations about ME. (Your fixation suggests you are worried about what it also does to your arguments about bible scholars, and indeed you should be, but the matter at hand is your accusations about me.) And what are you talking about mountain climbing for, have you completely lost track of the argument?


And you STILL haven't answered the question. Would you accuse the historian of 'having faith' in the religious texts about the fire god?



I didn't say it was evidence in favour of J being historical, just that there is some physical evidence that is relevant when we are studying the case of HJ. It was a parallel to your mention of the mountain being physical evidence in the case of the fire god. The mountain isn't 'evidence of' a fire god, but it is relevant evidence in the study of the case of the fire god. It's ridiculous that you need these things spelling out for you. Your failure to get the point is getting extremely tiresome.


Are you actually trying to misrepresent everything I say? I didn't say it was physical evidence of Jesus, I said it mentioned one of the purported characters. Look up 'purported'. At least you'll have learned something. (The inscription in question mentions Pilate.)


Read what I fucking write. For fuck knows how many times, I DIDN'T mention bible scholars and I WAS talking about me.

(Here's hoping stronger language helps your comprehension!)


The historian reads a scroll that says, 'All hail holy MooMoo, mighty fire god in the mountain'. The historian believes this is explained (in part, along with development of religious superstitions etc) by there having been an active volcano. Similarly, I believe the biblical assertions are explained (in part, along with development of superstitions etc) by an ordinary man getting crucified. If you think what the historian is doing or what I am doing amount to 'having faith' in religious writings, well your argument is just moronic.


And what you are saying is pure propaganda. It is just as bad as those Christian apologists who do it. They argue non-christians 'have faith' too when they put their trust in science. It's moronic and you should feel embarrassed.



Well perhaps you might have got a clue from the multiple times I've told you I don't believe in Jesus. On, I forgot, you don't actually read what people write do you.


There are historians who think the figure of Father Christmas has its origins in the historical man called Saint Nicholas. Would you accuse such historians of 'believing in' Father Christmas? No you wouldn't. Yet you clearly want to be able to smear me with the 'I believe in Jesus' phrase along with me 'having faith', 'trusting in religious writings' etc. It's pathetic.

And it is perfectly clear from this thread that I think it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus. You know that perfectly well.

Your posts are becoming quite hysterical and as if you were foaming at the mouth!

Calm down please.

I'm perfectly calm. Since reason alone wasn't getting through I thought couching it in stronger language might help you.

You know, for a while I thought you were someone who might be open to reasoned discussion on this topic. Unfortunately it turns out you are just another propagandist for you cause.

Look - you made a very silly trite analogy about a historian looking for a god up a volcano, an entirely imaginary proposal from you.

Nope. An analogy that was completely on point and to which you were and are utterly unable to respond. You can't even summarise it correctly.

And you tried to present that as analogous to the case of biblical scholars who believe they have found evidence of Jesus in the bible.

You've lied about this repeatedly and I've put you right repeatedly. The analogy was to my use of texts. No mention of bible scholars except by the voices in your head. Repeating the lie again here just makes you look even more foolish.

Its obvious now that on this topic at least you are impervious to reason, resort to repeated lies and tactics lifted direct from the apologist's and creationist's playbook. So I'm not going to be arsed with the rest of the shit you've posted.

Cue even more repetitive shit from you.....

I'm sorry but your foul-mouthed trash talking is completely out of place here.

Look, here is your full and entire original post proposing your historian-up-a-volcano analogy -

MS2 wrote:@IanS
Let's say a historian found some 2000 year old scrolls in which the priests of a religion talked about their god living in the nearby mountain and breathing fire and smoke. Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. Would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he was relying on evidence from religious believers?

If you want to say the "historian" in the above is analogous to yourself, such that I should not accuse you of having "faith" in the evidence of the biblical writing, then your argument is fatally flawed right from the start, because you are not a historian who has examined 2000 year old biblical manuscripts!

And in passing, you should also note that your historian was NOT as you claimed "relying on evidence from religious believers" at all! ... in your own analogy the historian was relying upon an entirely different non-religious investigation from which he discovered the physical evidential fact of the "mountain" actually being an active volcano in biblical times. That's where analogies like yours are often fatally flawed and likely to be terribly misleading, i.e. because they contain partly hidden errors of assumption like that!

However, continuing from the first paragraph above -

You are not a historian who has examined 2000 year old biblical manuscripts, but instead just someone who has placed your faith in what bible scholars, theologians and others have reproduced as the words of the gospels and letters of the NT bible, where those biblical scholars claim to find in those words of the bible, actual evidence of a human Jesus. You then look at those reproduced passages from the bible, and agree with the biblical scholars that some of those passages are indeed evidence of a human Jesus.

But that's where you are making a massive and absolutely fatal mistake. Because that biblical writing actually contains NO such evidence of a human Jesus ever known to any of those biblical writers. None at all. Zero! Instead what it contains is evidence of their religious belief in an unknown un-evidenced Jesus!

The Jesus which the biblical writers described, was only ever a Jesus of their religious faith. That does not mean he could not have existed. It means the biblical writers were only able to write about him as a matter of their religious faith in a figure they had never known.

And what you are doing is placing your faith or trust, in that religious faith expressed by the biblical writers. IOW - your belief in Jesus from the biblical writing comes from you putting your faith in the religious faith which is the biblical writing ... you are trusting to religious faith! ... trusting to 1st century religious faith which proclaimed an unknown, un-evidenced, supernatural impossible messiah/god called "Jesus".

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:



Your posts are becoming quite hysterical and as if you were foaming at the mouth!

Calm down please.

I'm perfectly calm. Since reason alone wasn't getting through I thought couching it in stronger language might help you.

You know, for a while I thought you were someone who might be open to reasoned discussion on this topic. Unfortunately it turns out you are just another propagandist for you cause.

Look - you made a very silly trite analogy about a historian looking for a god up a volcano, an entirely imaginary proposal from you.

Nope. An analogy that was completely on point and to which you were and are utterly unable to respond. You can't even summarise it correctly.

And you tried to present that as analogous to the case of biblical scholars who believe they have found evidence of Jesus in the bible.

You've lied about this repeatedly and I've put you right repeatedly. The analogy was to my use of texts. No mention of bible scholars except by the voices in your head. Repeating the lie again here just makes you look even more foolish.

Its obvious now that on this topic at least you are impervious to reason, resort to repeated lies and tactics lifted direct from the apologist's and creationist's playbook. So I'm not going to be arsed with the rest of the shit you've posted.

Cue even more repetitive shit from you.....

I'm sorry but your foul-mouthed trash talking is completely out of place here.

Aah, you're upset. Unfortunately, 'shit' is the best description of what you've been posting recently. If you stop lying, start responding to what I actually write and at least try to employ some decent reasoning then I won't need to use the word.

Here is yet more of your shit:

Look, here is your full and entire original post proposing your historian-up-a-volcano analogy -

Right from the start you can't get it right. No where in the analogy is the historian 'up a volcano'. The voice in your head inserted that and by doing so changed the terms of the analogy from what I wrote. You then responded to the analogy in your head, not the one I wrote.

Incredibly, you didn't realise this despite actually requoting the analogy I wrote:

MS2 wrote:@IanS
Let's say a historian found some 2000 year old scrolls in which the priests of a religion talked about their god living in the nearby mountain and breathing fire and smoke. Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. Would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he was relying on evidence from religious believers?

If you want to say the "historian" in the above is analogous to yourself, such that I should not accuse you of having "faith" in the evidence of the biblical writing, then your argument is fatally flawed right from the start, because you are not a historian who has examined 2000 year old biblical manuscripts!

You're struggling to understand how analogies work aren't you. They draw comparisons between different things. Therefore I don't need to be a historian for it to work.

And in passing, you should also note that your historian was NOT as you claimed "relying on evidence from religious believers" at all! ... in your own analogy the historian was relying upon an entirely different non-religious investigation from which he discovered the physical evidential fact of the "mountain" actually being an active volcano in biblical times. That's where analogies like yours are often fatally flawed and likely to be terribly misleading, i.e. because they contain partly hidden errors of assumption like that!

I've already pointed out above your 'shit' on this matter. But you rarely get things the first time, so I'll tell you again. My analogy did not have the historian 'relying on an entirely different non-religious investigation'. It was the voice in your head that put that in. In the analogy as I wrote it (go read it again, it's just above), he has the scrolls alone and without any further investigation he thinks the best explanation for their belief in a fire god is that there was an active volcano. And the question wasn't, What might he do next (eg a physical investigation), but simply whether at the time he just has the scrolls to work from, he is 'having faith' by reaching his view based on the religious scrolls alone. Is he, as you are continuing (unbelievably!) to accuse me of, 'trusting to religious faith'?

However, continuing from the first paragraph above -

You are not a historian who has examined 2000 year old biblical manuscripts, but instead just someone who has placed your faith in what bible scholars, theologians and others have reproduced as the words of the gospels and letters of the NT bible, where those biblical scholars claim to find in those words of the bible, actual evidence of a human Jesus. You then look at those reproduced passages from the bible, and agree with the biblical scholars that some of those passages are indeed evidence of a human Jesus.

But that's where you are making a massive and absolutely fatal mistake. Because that biblical writing actually contains NO such evidence of a human Jesus ever known to any of those biblical writers. None at all. Zero! Instead what it contains is evidence of their religious belief in an unknown un-evidenced Jesus!

The Jesus which the biblical writers described, was only ever a Jesus of their religious faith. That does not mean he could not have existed. It means the biblical writers were only able to write about him as a matter of their religious faith in a figure they had never known.

This is just a desperate attempt to distract from the point at hand, namely your inability to understand let alone respond appropriately to my question. Apart from that, this is just more repetition of your position, dealt with countless times before.

And what you are doing is placing your faith or trust, in that religious faith expressed by the biblical writers. IOW - your belief in Jesus from the biblical writing comes from you putting your faith in the religious faith which is the biblical writing ... you are trusting to religious faith! ... trusting to 1st century religious faith which proclaimed an unknown, un-evidenced, supernatural impossible messiah/god called "Jesus".

I've refuted this so many times already I can only risk upsetting you once again: you are talking shit.

proudfootz wrote:

iskander wrote:We seem to be playing a game of table tennis , aka ping-pong.

There is an element of tit-for-tat on every thread.

Meanwhile I've just received a book on the historicity of Jesus by a modern historian.



We'll see if anyone's interested in discussing that...

Carrier does not reject a Jewish origin for Christianity and explicitly says that it started as a Jewish mystic (I say mystic although he uses the more blunt term, "schizotypal") sect in the vein of Qumranites or Essenes or that naked Banias nutjob that Josephus talked about training with - people who saw themselves as exemplars of the Jewish prophetic tradition (many significant historicist scholars say that Jesus himself presented in this tradition, not as a Messiah) and/or people who thought they were able to discern secret, secondary messages in Scripture (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are full of this). Carrier thinks it was definitely a hardcore Jewish origin at it's most inceptional level - fanatically Jewish even - but that it became fused with Mystery Cult traditions once it got outside of Palestine and into the Empire. Carrier points out that such Mystery Cult fusions were commonplace with other religions. He names specific examples, but I don't remember them or feel digging up the Kindle right now, but it's not either/or with Christian origins. It's Jewish chocolate in Pagan peanut butter. The original Palestinian Jewish cult (whether there was an HJ at the center of it or not) was not Christianity. Christianity is what happened to the cult after it went into the Empire and after the original Palestinian cult disappeared after the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction Jerusalem.

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:
I'm perfectly calm. Since reason alone wasn't getting through I thought couching it in stronger language might help you.

You know, for a while I thought you were someone who might be open to reasoned discussion on this topic. Unfortunately it turns out you are just another propagandist for you cause.


Nope. An analogy that was completely on point and to which you were and are utterly unable to respond. You can't even summarise it correctly.


You've lied about this repeatedly and I've put you right repeatedly. The analogy was to my use of texts. No mention of bible scholars except by the voices in your head. Repeating the lie again here just makes you look even more foolish.

Its obvious now that on this topic at least you are impervious to reason, resort to repeated lies and tactics lifted direct from the apologist's and creationist's playbook. So I'm not going to be arsed with the rest of the shit you've posted.

Cue even more repetitive shit from you.....

I'm sorry but your foul-mouthed trash talking is completely out of place here.

Aah, you're upset. Unfortunately, 'shit' is the best description of what you've been posting recently. If you stop lying, start responding to what I actually write and at least try to employ some decent reasoning then I won't need to use the word.

Here is yet more of your shit:

Look, here is your full and entire original post proposing your historian-up-a-volcano analogy -

Right from the start you can't get it right. No where in the analogy is the historian 'up a volcano'. The voice in your head inserted that and by doing so changed the terms of the analogy from what I wrote. You then responded to the analogy in your head, not the one I wrote.

Incredibly, you didn't realise this despite actually requoting the analogy I wrote:

MS2 wrote:@IanS
Let's say a historian found some 2000 year old scrolls in which the priests of a religion talked about their god living in the nearby mountain and breathing fire and smoke. Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. Would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he was relying on evidence from religious believers?

If you want to say the "historian" in the above is analogous to yourself, such that I should not accuse you of having "faith" in the evidence of the biblical writing, then your argument is fatally flawed right from the start, because you are not a historian who has examined 2000 year old biblical manuscripts!

You're struggling to understand how analogies work aren't you. They draw comparisons between different things. Therefore I don't need to be a historian for it to work.

And in passing, you should also note that your historian was NOT as you claimed "relying on evidence from religious believers" at all! ... in your own analogy the historian was relying upon an entirely different non-religious investigation from which he discovered the physical evidential fact of the "mountain" actually being an active volcano in biblical times. That's where analogies like yours are often fatally flawed and likely to be terribly misleading, i.e. because they contain partly hidden errors of assumption like that!

I've already pointed out above your 'shit' on this matter. But you rarely get things the first time, so I'll tell you again. My analogy did not have the historian 'relying on an entirely different non-religious investigation'. It was the voice in your head that put that in. In the analogy as I wrote it (go read it again, it's just above), he has the scrolls alone and without any further investigation he thinks the best explanation for their belief in a fire god is that there was an active volcano. And the question wasn't, What might he do next (eg a physical investigation), but simply whether at the time he just has the scrolls to work from, he is 'having faith' by reaching his view based on the religious scrolls alone. Is he, as you are continuing (unbelievably!) to accuse me of, 'trusting to religious faith'?

However, continuing from the first paragraph above -

You are not a historian who has examined 2000 year old biblical manuscripts, but instead just someone who has placed your faith in what bible scholars, theologians and others have reproduced as the words of the gospels and letters of the NT bible, where those biblical scholars claim to find in those words of the bible, actual evidence of a human Jesus. You then look at those reproduced passages from the bible, and agree with the biblical scholars that some of those passages are indeed evidence of a human Jesus.

But that's where you are making a massive and absolutely fatal mistake. Because that biblical writing actually contains NO such evidence of a human Jesus ever known to any of those biblical writers. None at all. Zero! Instead what it contains is evidence of their religious belief in an unknown un-evidenced Jesus!

The Jesus which the biblical writers described, was only ever a Jesus of their religious faith. That does not mean he could not have existed. It means the biblical writers were only able to write about him as a matter of their religious faith in a figure they had never known.

This is just a desperate attempt to distract from the point at hand, namely your inability to understand let alone respond appropriately to my question. Apart from that, this is just more repetition of your position, dealt with countless times before.

And what you are doing is placing your faith or trust, in that religious faith expressed by the biblical writers. IOW - your belief in Jesus from the biblical writing comes from you putting your faith in the religious faith which is the biblical writing ... you are trusting to religious faith! ... trusting to 1st century religious faith which proclaimed an unknown, un-evidenced, supernatural impossible messiah/god called "Jesus".

I've refuted this so many times already I can only risk upsetting you once again: you are talking shit.

More juvenile frothing at the mouth toys out of the pram stuff from you.

You invent a completely fictitious scenario which is nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus and the bible, and then say the imaginary historian is analogues to you yourself; is that what you say?

But in your analogy your historian is said to examine 2000 year old religious scrolls. OK, so when did you examine 2000 year old bible scrolls? And are you a biblical historian?

Please be sure to answer that first. Because if you are not a professional biblical historian who has personally examined 2000 year old biblical scrolls, then your analogy-argument is dead in the water right there.

However, assuming you are in fact a professional bible historian who has indeed personally examined the 2000 year old scrolls that you are talking about -

- next you are castigating me in repeatedly expletive terms of saying "shit this and shit that, and fucking this and fucking, fucking that" etc. etc, because I said that in your analogy your historian knew from other external investigations that the mountain was an active volcano (or that's what he believed to be the case). And now you say, ahh ... no, my historian did not actually investigate to confirm it was really an active volcano. OK, well here is the actual quote of the sentence you wrote -

"Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. "....

... right, so even in your own words of your own invented analogy, you say the historian did think that particular mountain was actually volcano. Fine. So why did he think that? That idea did not come from the religious writing in his 2000 year old scrolls did it! No, it did not, not according even to your very own words ... because in your own invented words, what the scrolls said was not that it was a volcano, but that it was a god in the mountain causing the fire and smoke. Right, so your imaginary historian could only get his belief that it was actually a volcano from somewhere else ... so where did he get that idea unless he investigated it by other means outside of those 2000 year old scrolls which specifically did NOT say it was a volcano?

Do you want to try saying that perhaps he did not personally investigate that particular mountain to check if it was an active volcano 2000 years ago? You really want to try a defence as stupid as that?? OK, well whether he personally checked that it was a volcano, even if you want to say something as disingenuous and as tenuous as "well, he would have known that some mountains are volcanic, so he thought that was probably the answer" ... that's still factual information which he has learnt from outside of your imaginary 2000 year old scrolls, isn't it!

Remember that your analogy specifically does NOT have the religious scrolls saying it was a volcano ... according to you the scrolls specifically said the opposite and claimed it was a god causing the fire in the mountain. But the reason your historian thinks that was wrong is (as I already explained to you) because he has other completely external non-religious information suggesting to him that the mountain in question was actually a volcano.

And that by the way is vastly more explanation than your idiotic childish tantrum of an analogy ever deserved.

MS2 wrote:I don't have to figure out anything at all. It's your claim, so you back it up.

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:


I'm sorry but your foul-mouthed trash talking is completely out of place here.

Aah, you're upset. Unfortunately, 'shit' is the best description of what you've been posting recently. If you stop lying, start responding to what I actually write and at least try to employ some decent reasoning then I won't need to use the word.

Here is yet more of your shit:

Look, here is your full and entire original post proposing your historian-up-a-volcano analogy -

Right from the start you can't get it right. No where in the analogy is the historian 'up a volcano'. The voice in your head inserted that and by doing so changed the terms of the analogy from what I wrote. You then responded to the analogy in your head, not the one I wrote.

Incredibly, you didn't realise this despite actually requoting the analogy I wrote:

If you want to say the "historian" in the above is analogous to yourself, such that I should not accuse you of having "faith" in the evidence of the biblical writing, then your argument is fatally flawed right from the start, because you are not a historian who has examined 2000 year old biblical manuscripts!

You're struggling to understand how analogies work aren't you. They draw comparisons between different things. Therefore I don't need to be a historian for it to work.

And in passing, you should also note that your historian was NOT as you claimed "relying on evidence from religious believers" at all! ... in your own analogy the historian was relying upon an entirely different non-religious investigation from which he discovered the physical evidential fact of the "mountain" actually being an active volcano in biblical times. That's where analogies like yours are often fatally flawed and likely to be terribly misleading, i.e. because they contain partly hidden errors of assumption like that!

I've already pointed out above your 'shit' on this matter. But you rarely get things the first time, so I'll tell you again. My analogy did not have the historian 'relying on an entirely different non-religious investigation'. It was the voice in your head that put that in. In the analogy as I wrote it (go read it again, it's just above), he has the scrolls alone and without any further investigation he thinks the best explanation for their belief in a fire god is that there was an active volcano. And the question wasn't, What might he do next (eg a physical investigation), but simply whether at the time he just has the scrolls to work from, he is 'having faith' by reaching his view based on the religious scrolls alone. Is he, as you are continuing (unbelievably!) to accuse me of, 'trusting to religious faith'?

However, continuing from the first paragraph above -

You are not a historian who has examined 2000 year old biblical manuscripts, but instead just someone who has placed your faith in what bible scholars, theologians and others have reproduced as the words of the gospels and letters of the NT bible, where those biblical scholars claim to find in those words of the bible, actual evidence of a human Jesus. You then look at those reproduced passages from the bible, and agree with the biblical scholars that some of those passages are indeed evidence of a human Jesus.

But that's where you are making a massive and absolutely fatal mistake. Because that biblical writing actually contains NO such evidence of a human Jesus ever known to any of those biblical writers. None at all. Zero! Instead what it contains is evidence of their religious belief in an unknown un-evidenced Jesus!

The Jesus which the biblical writers described, was only ever a Jesus of their religious faith. That does not mean he could not have existed. It means the biblical writers were only able to write about him as a matter of their religious faith in a figure they had never known.

This is just a desperate attempt to distract from the point at hand, namely your inability to understand let alone respond appropriately to my question. Apart from that, this is just more repetition of your position, dealt with countless times before.

And what you are doing is placing your faith or trust, in that religious faith expressed by the biblical writers. IOW - your belief in Jesus from the biblical writing comes from you putting your faith in the religious faith which is the biblical writing ... you are trusting to religious faith! ... trusting to 1st century religious faith which proclaimed an unknown, un-evidenced, supernatural impossible messiah/god called "Jesus".

I've refuted this so many times already I can only risk upsetting you once again: you are talking shit.

More juvenile frothing at the mouth toys out of the pram stuff from you.

You invent a completely fictitious scenario which is nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus and the bible, and then say the imaginary historian is analogues to you yourself; is that what you say?

But in your analogy your historian is said to examine 2000 year old religious scrolls. OK, so when did you examine 2000 year old bible scrolls? And are you a biblical historian?

Please be sure to answer that first. Because if you are not a professional biblical historian who has personally examined 2000 year old biblical scrolls, then your analogy-argument is dead in the water right there.

However, assuming you are in fact a professional bible historian who has indeed personally examined the 2000 year old scrolls that you are talking about -

- next you are castigating me in repeatedly expletive terms of saying "shit this and shit that, and fucking this and fucking, fucking that" etc. etc, because I said that in your analogy your historian knew from other external investigations that the mountain was an active volcano (or that's what he believed to be the case). And now you say, ahh ... no, my historian did not actually investigate to confirm it was really an active volcano. OK, well here is the actual quote of the sentence you wrote -

"Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. "....

... right, so even in your own words of your own invented analogy, you say the historian did think that particular mountain was actually volcano. Fine. So why did he think that? That idea did not come from the religious writing in his 2000 year old scrolls did it! No, it did not, not according even to your very own words ... because in your own invented words, what the scrolls said was not that it was a volcano, but that it was a god in the mountain causing the fire and smoke. Right, so your imaginary historian could only get his belief that it was actually a volcano from somewhere else ... so where did he get that idea unless he investigated it by other means outside of those 2000 year old scrolls which specifically did NOT say it was a volcano?

Do you want to try saying that perhaps he did not personally investigate that particular mountain to check if it was an active volcano 2000 years ago? You really want to try a defence as stupid as that?? OK, well whether he personally checked that it was a volcano, even if you want to say something as disingenuous and as tenuous as "well, he would have known that some mountains are volcanic, so he thought that was probably the answer" ... that's still factual information which he has learnt from outside of your imaginary 2000 year old scrolls, isn't it!

Remember that your analogy specifically does NOT have the religious scrolls saying it was a volcano ... according to you the scrolls specifically said the opposite and claimed it was a god causing the fire in the mountain. But the reason your historian thinks that was wrong is (as I already explained to you) because he has other completely external non-religious information suggesting to him that the mountain in question was actually a volcano.

And that by the way is vastly more explanation than your idiotic childish tantrum of an analogy ever deserved.

How sad. I didn't think it was possible for you to embarrass yourself any more. But you just have. You should have listened when I advised you to let it drop some time ago. On well, you've only yourself to blame.

Ducktown wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't have to figure out anything at all. It's your claim, so you back it up.

Then who is your historical superman? Your methodology requires you to have one. Do some searching. You might be surprised.

iskander wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

iskander wrote:We seem to be playing a game of table tennis , aka ping-pong.

There is an element of tit-for-tat on every thread.

Meanwhile I've just received a book on the historicity of Jesus by a modern historian.



We'll see if anyone's interested in discussing that...

I haven't read it.
In the early Christian writings forum, Diogenes the Cynic wrote this:

Diogenes the Cynic » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:18 pm , page 15

Carrier does not reject a Jewish origin for Christianity and explicitly says that it started as a Jewish mystic (I say mystic although he uses the more blunt term, "schizotypal") sect in the vein of Qumranites or Essenes or that naked Banias nutjob that Josephus talked about training with - people who saw themselves as exemplars of the Jewish prophetic tradition (many significant historicist scholars say that Jesus himself presented in this tradition, not as a Messiah) and/or people who thought they were able to discern secret, secondary messages in Scripture (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are full of this). Carrier thinks it was definitely a hardcore Jewish origin at it's most inceptional level - fanatically Jewish even - but that it became fused with Mystery Cult traditions once it got outside of Palestine and into the Empire. Carrier points out that such Mystery Cult fusions were commonplace with other religions. He names specific examples, but I don't remember them or feel digging up the Kindle right now, but it's not either/or with Christian origins. It's Jewish chocolate in Pagan peanut butter. The original Palestinian Jewish cult (whether there was an HJ at the center of it or not) was not Christianity. Christianity is what happened to the cult after it went into the Empire and after the original Palestinian cult disappeared after the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction Jerusalem.

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

Perhaps you may want to open a thread here to discuss the book written by Dr. Carrier.

MS2 wrote:Are you specialising in avoidance?

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:
Aah, you're upset. Unfortunately, 'shit' is the best description of what you've been posting recently. If you stop lying, start responding to what I actually write and at least try to employ some decent reasoning then I won't need to use the word.

Here is yet more of your shit:

Right from the start you can't get it right. No where in the analogy is the historian 'up a volcano'. The voice in your head inserted that and by doing so changed the terms of the analogy from what I wrote. You then responded to the analogy in your head, not the one I wrote.

Incredibly, you didn't realise this despite actually requoting the analogy I wrote:


You're struggling to understand how analogies work aren't you. They draw comparisons between different things. Therefore I don't need to be a historian for it to work.


I've already pointed out above your 'shit' on this matter. But you rarely get things the first time, so I'll tell you again. My analogy did not have the historian 'relying on an entirely different non-religious investigation'. It was the voice in your head that put that in. In the analogy as I wrote it (go read it again, it's just above), he has the scrolls alone and without any further investigation he thinks the best explanation for their belief in a fire god is that there was an active volcano. And the question wasn't, What might he do next (eg a physical investigation), but simply whether at the time he just has the scrolls to work from, he is 'having faith' by reaching his view based on the religious scrolls alone. Is he, as you are continuing (unbelievably!) to accuse me of, 'trusting to religious faith'?


This is just a desperate attempt to distract from the point at hand, namely your inability to understand let alone respond appropriately to my question. Apart from that, this is just more repetition of your position, dealt with countless times before.


I've refuted this so many times already I can only risk upsetting you once again: you are talking shit.

More juvenile frothing at the mouth toys out of the pram stuff from you.

You invent a completely fictitious scenario which is nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus and the bible, and then say the imaginary historian is analogues to you yourself; is that what you say?

But in your analogy your historian is said to examine 2000 year old religious scrolls. OK, so when did you examine 2000 year old bible scrolls? And are you a biblical historian?

Please be sure to answer that first. Because if you are not a professional biblical historian who has personally examined 2000 year old biblical scrolls, then your analogy-argument is dead in the water right there.

However, assuming you are in fact a professional bible historian who has indeed personally examined the 2000 year old scrolls that you are talking about -

- next you are castigating me in repeatedly expletive terms of saying "shit this and shit that, and fucking this and fucking, fucking that" etc. etc, because I said that in your analogy your historian knew from other external investigations that the mountain was an active volcano (or that's what he believed to be the case). And now you say, ahh ... no, my historian did not actually investigate to confirm it was really an active volcano. OK, well here is the actual quote of the sentence you wrote -

"Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. "....

... right, so even in your own words of your own invented analogy, you say the historian did think that particular mountain was actually volcano. Fine. So why did he think that? That idea did not come from the religious writing in his 2000 year old scrolls did it! No, it did not, not according even to your very own words ... because in your own invented words, what the scrolls said was not that it was a volcano, but that it was a god in the mountain causing the fire and smoke. Right, so your imaginary historian could only get his belief that it was actually a volcano from somewhere else ... so where did he get that idea unless he investigated it by other means outside of those 2000 year old scrolls which specifically did NOT say it was a volcano?

Do you want to try saying that perhaps he did not personally investigate that particular mountain to check if it was an active volcano 2000 years ago? You really want to try a defence as stupid as that?? OK, well whether he personally checked that it was a volcano, even if you want to say something as disingenuous and as tenuous as "well, he would have known that some mountains are volcanic, so he thought that was probably the answer" ... that's still factual information which he has learnt from outside of your imaginary 2000 year old scrolls, isn't it!

Remember that your analogy specifically does NOT have the religious scrolls saying it was a volcano ... according to you the scrolls specifically said the opposite and claimed it was a god causing the fire in the mountain. But the reason your historian thinks that was wrong is (as I already explained to you) because he has other completely external non-religious information suggesting to him that the mountain in question was actually a volcano.

And that by the way is vastly more explanation than your idiotic childish tantrum of an analogy ever deserved.

How sad. I didn't think it was possible for you to embarrass yourself any more. But you just have. You should have listened when I advised you to let it drop some time ago. On well, you've only yourself to blame.

Blatant 100% evasion.

Are you a trained biblical "historian"? Yes or No?

Have you personally examined 2000 year-old biblical manuscripts? Yes or No?

In your stupid infantile analogy, did your Historian get the idea that it was a volcano from the imaginary religious scrolls, or did he get that idea from some other information entirely? Yes, or No?

proudfootz wrote:

iskander wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

iskander wrote:We seem to be playing a game of table tennis , aka ping-pong.

There is an element of tit-for-tat on every thread.

Meanwhile I've just received a book on the historicity of Jesus by a modern historian.



We'll see if anyone's interested in discussing that...

I haven't read it.
In the early Christian writings forum, Diogenes the Cynic wrote this:

Diogenes the Cynic » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:18 pm , page 15

Carrier does not reject a Jewish origin for Christianity and explicitly says that it started as a Jewish mystic (I say mystic although he uses the more blunt term, "schizotypal") sect in the vein of Qumranites or Essenes or that naked Banias nutjob that Josephus talked about training with - people who saw themselves as exemplars of the Jewish prophetic tradition (many significant historicist scholars say that Jesus himself presented in this tradition, not as a Messiah) and/or people who thought they were able to discern secret, secondary messages in Scripture (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are full of this). Carrier thinks it was definitely a hardcore Jewish origin at it's most inceptional level - fanatically Jewish even - but that it became fused with Mystery Cult traditions once it got outside of Palestine and into the Empire. Carrier points out that such Mystery Cult fusions were commonplace with other religions. He names specific examples, but I don't remember them or feel digging up the Kindle right now, but it's not either/or with Christian origins. It's Jewish chocolate in Pagan peanut butter. The original Palestinian Jewish cult (whether there was an HJ at the center of it or not) was not Christianity. Christianity is what happened to the cult after it went into the Empire and after the original Palestinian cult disappeared after the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction Jerusalem.

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

Perhaps you may want to open a thread here to discuss the book written by Dr. Carrier.

I get the feeling it won't be accepted as a separate thread. But as I go along I'll post some observations and we'll see what comes of it.

I don't have an electronic version, so any quotes will be typed manually and not copy/pasted.

iskander wrote:
In the early Christian writings forum, Diogenes the Cynic wrote; Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:18 pm , page 15

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:... Carrier thinks it [Christianity] was definitely a hardcore Jewish origin at it's most inceptional level - fanatically Jewish even - but that it became fused with Mystery Cult traditions once it got outside of Palestine and into the Empire. Carrier points out that such Mystery Cult fusions were commonplace with other religions. ... Christianity is what happened to [Judaism] after it went into the Empire, and after the original Palestinian cult disappeared after the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction Jerusalem.

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Carrier .. says [Christianity] started as a Jewish mystic (I say mystic although he uses the more blunt term, "schizotypal") sect in the vein of Qumranites or Essenes or that naked Banias nutjob that Josephus talked about training with - people who saw themselves as exemplars of the Jewish prophetic tradition (many significant historicist scholars say that Jesus himself presented in this tradition, not as a Messiah) and/or people who thought they were able to discern secret, secondary messages in Scripture (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are full of this).
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

iskander wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

iskander wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

There is an element of tit-for-tat on every thread.

Meanwhile I've just received a book on the historicity of Jesus by a modern historian.



We'll see if anyone's interested in discussing that...

I haven't read it.
In the early Christian writings forum, Diogenes the Cynic wrote this:

Diogenes the Cynic » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:18 pm , page 15

Carrier does not reject a Jewish origin for Christianity and explicitly says that it started as a Jewish mystic (I say mystic although he uses the more blunt term, "schizotypal") sect in the vein of Qumranites or Essenes or that naked Banias nutjob that Josephus talked about training with - people who saw themselves as exemplars of the Jewish prophetic tradition (many significant historicist scholars say that Jesus himself presented in this tradition, not as a Messiah) and/or people who thought they were able to discern secret, secondary messages in Scripture (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are full of this). Carrier thinks it was definitely a hardcore Jewish origin at it's most inceptional level - fanatically Jewish even - but that it became fused with Mystery Cult traditions once it got outside of Palestine and into the Empire. Carrier points out that such Mystery Cult fusions were commonplace with other religions. He names specific examples, but I don't remember them or feel digging up the Kindle right now, but it's not either/or with Christian origins. It's Jewish chocolate in Pagan peanut butter. The original Palestinian Jewish cult (whether there was an HJ at the center of it or not) was not Christianity. Christianity is what happened to the cult after it went into the Empire and after the original Palestinian cult disappeared after the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction Jerusalem.

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

Perhaps you may want to open a thread here to discuss the book written by Dr. Carrier.

I get the feeling it won't be accepted as a separate thread. But as I go along I'll post some observations and we'll see what comes of it.

I don't have an electronic version, so any quotes will be typed manually and not copy/pasted.

It is sufficient to state what the book says and the page number. Type as little as possible . The direction of his main argument is sufficient and the book could be explained as an answer to the pertinent questions.

It's necessary to test a minimal theory of historicity (such that if even that theory isn't true, then none are) against a minimal theory of myth( such that if that theory isn't true, then no other is likely to be). And this test must be logically valid, and give the best possible opportunity to either theory, before before whatever conclusion we reach can be considered fair. (p.7)

But just as there are countless theories of historicity, there are also countless Jesus myth theories. Indeed, just as with historicism, there are almost as many Jesus myth theories as there are experts to pronounce them...But even the, whatever theory is proposed, it is often immediately weighed down with an enormous array of elaborations, which are often less defensible than the core theory alone would have been. Yet one should never propose more than is necessary to explain the evidence. The more complex a theory has to be, the less likely it is to be true. (pp 7-8)

This book will advance the debate in two respects. It will survey the most relevant evidence for and against the historicity of Jesus, and it will do so with the fewest unnecessary assumptions, testing the simplest theories of historicity and myth against one another. (p. 13)

However, I do allow that I can be proven wrong about that, on this matter as in anything else, if someone ever presents evidence presently unknown to me that adequately supports some other theory. And in Proving History I laid out a sound method by which that could be done. The same method I will use here. (p. 8)

RealityRules wrote:

iskander wrote:
In the early Christian writings forum, Diogenes the Cynic wrote; Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:18 pm , page 15

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:... Carrier thinks it [Christianity] was definitely a hardcore Jewish origin at it's most inceptional level - fanatically Jewish even - but that it became fused with Mystery Cult traditions once it got outside of Palestine and into the Empire. Carrier points out that such Mystery Cult fusions were commonplace with other religions. ... Christianity is what happened to [Judaism] after it went into the Empire, and after the original Palestinian cult disappeared after the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction Jerusalem.

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

I think lots of things point to this: All the early writings with strongly indicated places of writing are outside Palestine; up to the beginning of the 3rd century.

It's like they retro-fitted the story into Palestine, a story set in an earlier time, so people first hearing the stories where they were first written and disseminated could not dispute them. By the time the stories came to Palestine the people that had been alive at the time the stories were set - the early 1st century - were long dead.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Carrier .. says [Christianity] started as a Jewish mystic (I say mystic although he uses the more blunt term, "schizotypal") sect in the vein of Qumranites or Essenes or that naked Banias nutjob that Josephus talked about training with - people who saw themselves as exemplars of the Jewish prophetic tradition (many significant historicist scholars say that Jesus himself presented in this tradition, not as a Messiah) and/or people who thought they were able to discern secret, secondary messages in Scripture (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are full of this).
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:

MS2 wrote:

IanS wrote:


More juvenile frothing at the mouth toys out of the pram stuff from you.

You invent a completely fictitious scenario which is nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus and the bible, and then say the imaginary historian is analogues to you yourself; is that what you say?

But in your analogy your historian is said to examine 2000 year old religious scrolls. OK, so when did you examine 2000 year old bible scrolls? And are you a biblical historian?

Please be sure to answer that first. Because if you are not a professional biblical historian who has personally examined 2000 year old biblical scrolls, then your analogy-argument is dead in the water right there.

However, assuming you are in fact a professional bible historian who has indeed personally examined the 2000 year old scrolls that you are talking about -

- next you are castigating me in repeatedly expletive terms of saying "shit this and shit that, and fucking this and fucking, fucking that" etc. etc, because I said that in your analogy your historian knew from other external investigations that the mountain was an active volcano (or that's what he believed to be the case). And now you say, ahh ... no, my historian did not actually investigate to confirm it was really an active volcano. OK, well here is the actual quote of the sentence you wrote -

"Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. "....

... right, so even in your own words of your own invented analogy, you say the historian did think that particular mountain was actually volcano. Fine. So why did he think that? That idea did not come from the religious writing in his 2000 year old scrolls did it! No, it did not, not according even to your very own words ... because in your own invented words, what the scrolls said was not that it was a volcano, but that it was a god in the mountain causing the fire and smoke. Right, so your imaginary historian could only get his belief that it was actually a volcano from somewhere else ... so where did he get that idea unless he investigated it by other means outside of those 2000 year old scrolls which specifically did NOT say it was a volcano?

Do you want to try saying that perhaps he did not personally investigate that particular mountain to check if it was an active volcano 2000 years ago? You really want to try a defence as stupid as that?? OK, well whether he personally checked that it was a volcano, even if you want to say something as disingenuous and as tenuous as "well, he would have known that some mountains are volcanic, so he thought that was probably the answer" ... that's still factual information which he has learnt from outside of your imaginary 2000 year old scrolls, isn't it!

Remember that your analogy specifically does NOT have the religious scrolls saying it was a volcano ... according to you the scrolls specifically said the opposite and claimed it was a god causing the fire in the mountain. But the reason your historian thinks that was wrong is (as I already explained to you) because he has other completely external non-religious information suggesting to him that the mountain in question was actually a volcano.

And that by the way is vastly more explanation than your idiotic childish tantrum of an analogy ever deserved.

How sad. I didn't think it was possible for you to embarrass yourself any more. But you just have. You should have listened when I advised you to let it drop some time ago. On well, you've only yourself to blame.

Blatant 100% evasion.

Are you a trained biblical "historian"? Yes or No?

Have you personally examined 2000 year-old biblical manuscripts? Yes or No?

In your stupid infantile analogy, did your Historian get the idea that it was a volcano from the imaginary religious scrolls, or did he get that idea from some other information entirely? Yes, or No?

Please please stop, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you myself.

It's clearly not stupid or infantile or you wouldn't have spent the last numerous posts trying but failing to refute it.

The blatant evasion is all yours given your repeated failure to answer the question posed.

I'm not going to respond to your question while you continue to evade mine.

MS2 wrote:@IanS
Let's say a historian found some 2000 year old scrolls in which the priests of a religion talked about their god living in the nearby mountain and breathing fire and smoke. Then the historian said he thought the best explanation was the mountain was an active volcano 2000 years ago. Would you accuse him of 'having faith' because he was relying on evidence from religious believers?

proudfootz wrote:

RealityRules wrote:

iskander wrote:
In the early Christian writings forum, Diogenes the Cynic wrote; Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:18 pm , page 15

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:... Carrier thinks it [Christianity] was definitely a hardcore Jewish origin at it's most inceptional level - fanatically Jewish even - but that it became fused with Mystery Cult traditions once it got outside of Palestine and into the Empire. Carrier points out that such Mystery Cult fusions were commonplace with other religions. ... Christianity is what happened to [Judaism] after it went into the Empire, and after the original Palestinian cult disappeared after the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction Jerusalem.

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

I think lots of things point to this: All the early writings with strongly indicated places of writing are outside Palestine; up to the beginning of the 3rd century.

It's like they retro-fitted the story into Palestine, a story set in an earlier time, so people first hearing the stories where they were first written and disseminated could not dispute them. By the time the stories came to Palestine the people that had been alive at the time the stories were set - the early 1st century - were long dead.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Carrier .. says [Christianity] started as a Jewish mystic (I say mystic although he uses the more blunt term, "schizotypal") sect in the vein of Qumranites or Essenes or that naked Banias nutjob that Josephus talked about training with - people who saw themselves as exemplars of the Jewish prophetic tradition (many significant historicist scholars say that Jesus himself presented in this tradition, not as a Messiah) and/or people who thought they were able to discern secret, secondary messages in Scripture (both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament are full of this).
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140

At the moment that seems to be where the evidence leads.