Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Historical Jesus

#43261  Postby Stein » May 27, 2021 6:18 am

Good description here of what typifies conspiracy theorists like the mythers --

"[P]artisan bloggers .... reinforce their mutual preconceptions by echoing them back and forth, referencing each other, accepting only what evidence confirms their beliefs and ignoring the rest (when they reference evidence at all.) This is the modus oper[a]ndi of dogmatists, and it can become a prison which is difficult [to] escape"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st12586443

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2471

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43262  Postby proudfootz » May 27, 2021 1:07 pm

Stein wrote:Good description here of what typifies conspiracy theorists like the mythers --

"[P]artisan bloggers .... reinforce their mutual preconceptions by echoing them back and forth, referencing each other, accepting only what evidence confirms their beliefs and ignoring the rest (when they reference evidence at all.) This is the modus oper[a]ndi of dogmatists, and it can become a prison which is difficult [to] escape"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st12586443

Stein


Reinforcing mutual preconceptions by echoing them back and forth?
Referencing each other?
Only accepting evidence that reaffirms their beliefs?
Ignoring or minimizing disconfirming evidence?

Sounds like Bible studies in academia!

According to respected Bible expert Bart Ehrman no one thought to even examine the fundamental question of Jesus's historical existence until he published his Jesus book in 2013 - up to then it had merely been thoughtlessly assumed.

:ask:

:coffee:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43263  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 28, 2021 12:17 am

proudfootz wrote:Reinforcing mutual preconceptions by echoing them back and forth?
Referencing each other?
Only accepting evidence that reaffirms their beliefs?
Ignoring or minimizing disconfirming evidence?

Sounds like Bible studies in academia!


Biblical studies is a politically motivated education industry that has a history extending back to the Christian revolution of the 4th century. During this epoch the Christians conducted a hostile take-over of the pagan religious sector including the education sector in general, A monopoly business was accomplished by top-down sponsorship of the Christian Roman emperors, including imperial legislation to legalize the scam.


"We must not see the fact of usurpation;
law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable.
We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin,
if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end."


~ Blaise Pascal, "Pensees"
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 856

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43264  Postby RealityRules » May 28, 2021 3:05 am

.
Questioning Jesus’ Historicity, by Raphael Lataster, August 2019

... So what does Ehrman think of the Christian sources? What most competent scholars would think. They are terrible sources. They are not contemporaneous, they are not from eyewitnesses, they are biased, full of contradictions, fabrications, and implausible claims. How then can a respected expert in his field like Bart Ehrman use these horrid sources to argue that what are effectively minimalists of the New Testament are completely wrong? Simple: hypothetical sources. Apparently, we can trust these untrustworthy sources because of the sources behind them. Okay, let us verify these sources’ contents. Where are the manuscripts? Nowhere to be found. They are [merely] hypothetical sources ...

... this appeal to hypothetical sources is laughable, pathetic. We can have no idea of the content of these sources had they existed, the true authors, their intent, and so forth. Worse still, we can wonder why it is that Ehrman, a historicist, is allowed to posit hypothetical sources, and so many of them, to bolster his preferred theory ... Sadly, Ehrman does not feel the need to justify his non-existing sources ‘approach’ ...

Apart from his use of hypothetical sources, Ehrman highlights two key points that apparently make Jesus’ existence a sure bet. The first is Paul’s relationships with Peter and James, who surely knew a historical Jesus. The big problem is that we know of this from later documents. Ehrman and other scholars read the later documents into the earlier Epistles. Reading the Epistles without Gospel-tainted glasses will lead to some intriguing possibilities, as we shall soon see. There are other problems, too, such as the general unreliability of the Epistles (just as with the Gospels), and the fact that such passages were tampered with (as Ehrman himself published on; see his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, 1993, pp.238-239).

The second is that Jews would apparently never invent a suffering Messiah. This is utter nonsense. Ehrman is wrong in principle and in fact. Judaism is and always was very diverse, and we know about the religious beliefs of only a small fraction of the Jewish population, as is made obvious by Josephus and Ehrman himself. But there is also evidence, thanks to recent discoveries, that several Jews believed in all sorts of different Messiahs, including suffering ones, dying and rising ones, celestial ones, and so forth. And that is what Ehrman brings to the table. Apart from, in the years since, publishing much that undermines his own work in Did Jesus Exist?

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... istoricity
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43265  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 31, 2021 3:38 am

"no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time". (archaeologist Nowell Myres)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Historicity
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 856

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43266  Postby RealityRules » Jun 01, 2021 1:29 am

"Christianity": a response to Roman-Jewish conflict, Markus Vinzent
RÉSUMÉ
The beginning of Christianity is often associated with biblical protagonists (Jesus, Paul, the Apostles etc.) and often linked to historical events taking place around the mid-1st century. This article takes a different view, beginning with the assumption that what was later called "Christianity" should not be anachronistically projected back onto the first century. Even though it built on gradual developments taking place over the course of 140 years, "Christianity" was a novel concept, no older than the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 CE). As most of the early "Christian" writings cannot be dated with certainty, we do not know whether Jews started calling themselves "Christians" prior to this time. The first texts to report such self-descriptions are Marcion’s Antitheses from around the year 144 CE and Ignatius’ Letters (middle recension) which together, and supported by growing scholarship, I take to be from after the mid second century. Before this point, "Christian" texts describe the word as a deprecating exonym (Acts 26:28 attributes use of the term to a cynical Agrippa; 1 Peter 4:16 associates "Christian" with suffering and shame). In what follows I hope to show why and how Marcion created "Christianity" as a label for a third way between Jerusalem and Rome, an innovation which proved successful and was quickly picked up by a number of "apologists" in the late years of Hadrian and the early years of Antoninus Pius. https://books.openedition.org/efr/5307
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43267  Postby proudfootz » Jun 01, 2021 1:36 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:"no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time". (archaeologist Nowell Myres)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Historicity


It sometimes makes me sad the resources that have been lavished on this Jesus character. I guess it's understandable if it's thought he was/is God Incarnate and knowledge about him is the ticket to avoiding infinite torture in a lake of fire and all that. Highly motivational!

But The Historical Jesus? The best case scenario is his life and words are a mere footnote in the history of christianity, no sooner cooling off in his grave than people started lying about him and turning him into a sock puppet for their own batshit ideas.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43268  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 06, 2021 1:30 am

proudfootz wrote:It sometimes makes me sad the resources that have been lavished on this Jesus character. I guess it's understandable if it's thought he was/is God Incarnate and knowledge about him is the ticket to avoiding infinite torture in a lake of fire and all that. Highly motivational!


Such tickets have been continuously dispensed to the populace by the the church industry since the 4th century. Here in the 21st century we still have a tertiary sector in which the church industry pumps out accredited clergy to operate the turnstiles into heaven and hell. It's a sad dystopian state of affairs. But highly motivational modern prophets - such as Saint George Carlin - make us laugh out loud at this religious bullshit ticket dispensing racket.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 856

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43269  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 06, 2021 1:36 am

RealityRules wrote:.
Questioning Jesus’ Historicity, by Raphael Lataster, August 2019


Lataster has staked out his position sitting on the the agnostic 50% historicity fence, in contrast to the 100% historicity apologetic staked position and Carrier's 33% historicity gambit. It's a poker game. Everyone's bluffing.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 856

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43270  Postby Stein » Jun 07, 2021 7:28 am

Yes, I am admittedly full of exasperation and visceral impatience because I've been steeped in the world of professional

S E C U L A R

historians since childhood, including my father who was an atheist like many of his colleagues. So I know just how demanding that world can be.. The admiration I had for the sheer rigor and the scruples of both my father and his colleagues and the routine peer-vetting they went through for all their work is seared into my brain. The flak that those who dared to focus on ancient Middle East history regularly received, from religious associates, colleagues outside of the historian profession, friends and family, is also seared into my brain. Terming such staunch pioneers against the forces of superstition as mere sellouts to religious woo, as the woefully historiography-ignorant mythicists always do like programmed robots, is just like terming Harriet Tubman nothing but a stooge for the Confederate establishment of the 1850s -- the very opposite of what she effing was. It is both the vilest possible slur and grossly ignorant. We would still be in the primitive world of Biblical inerrancy and ubiquitous superstition today, pal, without these intrepid academic researchers who followed and follow the facts in the face of headwinds that would terrify those of lesser fiber.

Having been dumb enough in the past to imagine I can enlighten effing mythicist robots on facts (remember those?), I now come to groups like these expressly to call out the anti-academic woo of the mythicists that I've seen on line everywhere and the ignorant stereotyping they apply to any professional specialists who dare to apply simple parsimony to the data for a STRICTLY HUMAN NON-MIRACULOUS HISTORICAL Jesus. Mythicists, in their ignorance and kneejerk suspicion of modern historiography, effectively carry water for all the bigoted religious forces that were arrayed against my father and his beleaguered colleagues when I was growing up. No, I don't have any personal acquaintance with Bart Ehrman, for instance. But I can recognize him as a worthy scrupulous historian. He has received all the flak from religious bigots my father's colleagues received, and then some. When someone like him stoutly maintains that Jesus was a simple mortal, and that J was also historical, that is NOT said to please the church or anyone remotely affiliated with it. It is a statement of the utmost integrity.

So yes, from now on, I come here with no intention of suffering fools gladly. I now come here to call out those mythicists whose ignorance and hatred of professional historiography is no whit different from the inexcusable hatred of science coming from the fundamentalists. It's of the same piece of cloth, the same filthy stench-ridden horse____: an ignorance of serious hard research that morphs into unreasoning hatred for what it lacks the discipline and simple brains to understand.

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2471

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43271  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 07, 2021 9:44 am

Stein wrote: No, I don't have any personal acquaintance with Bart Ehrman, for instance. But I can recognize him as a worthy scrupulous historian. He has received all the flak from religious bigots my father's colleagues received, and then some. When someone like him stoutly maintains that Jesus was a simple mortal, and that J was also historical, that is NOT said to please the church or anyone remotely affiliated with it. It is a statement of the utmost integrity.


What Ehrman says about his own opinion on the historicity of Jesus, and the forgery of Christian manuscripts is fine. He is entitled to it. So is everyone. The problem is that Ehrman also has the opinion that those who deny the historicity of Jesus are comparable to "holocaust deniers". Hyperbolic. He equates an evaluation of evidence from antiquity (whether the NT Jesus existed) with an evaluation of evidence from the 20th century (whether a holocaust occurred). This kind of exposes Bart's understanding and evaluation of available historical evidence. This is not a sound comparison.

Bart and others are also not identifying all the evidence when they claim that mythicism only appeared in the 17th/18th/19th century. They claim it is a modern invention. But they don't mention the negative evidence such as the laws of blasphemy or indeed the "Index of Prohibited Books" run by the utterly corrupt Vatican church industry.

As much as we are amateur historians we should be prepared to admit that our conclusions can only ever be hypothetical and provisional.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 856

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43272  Postby Stein » Jun 07, 2021 1:25 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Stein wrote: No, I don't have any personal acquaintance with Bart Ehrman, for instance. But I can recognize him as a worthy scrupulous historian. He has received all the flak from religious bigots my father's colleagues received, and then some. When someone like him stoutly maintains that Jesus was a simple mortal, and that J was also historical, that is NOT said to please the church or anyone remotely affiliated with it. It is a statement of the utmost integrity.


What Ehrman says about his own opinion on the historicity of Jesus, and the forgery of Christian manuscripts is fine. He is entitled to it. So is everyone. The problem is that Ehrman also has the opinion that those who deny the historicity of Jesus are comparable to "holocaust deniers". Hyperbolic. He equates an evaluation of evidence from antiquity (whether the NT Jesus existed) with an evaluation of evidence from the 20th century (whether a holocaust occurred). This kind of exposes Bart's understanding and evaluation of available historical evidence. This is not a sound comparison.

Bart and others are also not identifying all the evidence when they claim that mythicism only appeared in the 17th/18th/19th century. They claim it is a modern invention. But they don't mention the negative evidence such as the laws of blasphemy or indeed the "Index of Prohibited Books" run by the utterly corrupt Vatican church industry.

As much as we are amateur historians we should be prepared to admit that our conclusions can only ever be hypothetical and provisional.


Bart Ehrman is right: Those who deny the historicity of Jesus ARE comparable to holocaust deniers.

The 17th to 18th centuries DID mark the first appearance of mythicism.

Professional historians' conclusions deal in balanced LIKELIHOODS, not hypotheticals.
Stein
 
Posts: 2471

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43273  Postby proudfootz » Jun 07, 2021 3:02 pm

Again, another effusion which is more indicative of the author than enlightening on the topic.
Stein wrote:Yes, I am admittedly full of exasperation and visceral impatience because I've been steeped in the world of professional

S E C U L A R

historians since childhood, including my father who was an atheist like many of his colleagues. So I know just how demanding that world can be.. The admiration I had for the sheer rigor and the scruples of both my father and his colleagues and the routine peer-vetting they went through for all their work is seared into my brain.


I admire my Daddy, too! :cheers:

The flak that those who dared to focus on ancient Middle East history regularly received, from religious associates, colleagues outside of the historian profession, friends and family, is also seared into my brain.


I had no idea it was so dangerous to study ancient Middle East history. The regular seminars in the recurring Quests for Jesus no doubt lead to participants losing their reputations, their positions, and their careers. I wonder if the number of these brave persons who suffered for their daring can be substantiated?

Terming such staunch pioneers against the forces of superstition as mere sellouts to religious woo, as the woefully historiography-ignorant mythicists always do like programmed robots, is just like terming Harriet Tubman nothing but a stooge for the Confederate establishment of the 1850s -- the very opposite of what she effing was. It is both the vilest possible slur and grossly ignorant. We would still be in the primitive world of Biblical inerrancy and ubiquitous superstition today, pal, without these intrepid academic researchers who followed and follow the facts in the face of headwinds that would terrify those of lesser fiber.


The courage of Harriet Tubman should not be sullied by comparing what she faced in her work with professional cattiness among the denizens of academic Bible studies. Such histrionics do a disservice to genuine heroism, buddy.

Having been dumb enough in the past to imagine I can enlighten effing mythicist robots on facts (remember those?), I now come to groups like these expressly to call out the anti-academic woo of the mythicists that I've seen on line everywhere and the ignorant stereotyping they apply to any professional specialists who dare to apply simple parsimony to the data for a STRICTLY HUMAN NON-MIRACULOUS HISTORICAL Jesus.


The Thought Crime the so-called mythicists seem to be guilty of is carrying on this parsimony too far, much the way atheists can be accused of having one less god than monotheists.

Mythicists, in their ignorance and kneejerk suspicion of modern historiography, effectively carry water for all the bigoted religious forces that were arrayed against my father and his beleaguered colleagues when I was growing up. No, I don't have any personal acquaintance with Bart Ehrman, for instance. But I can recognize him as a worthy scrupulous historian. He has received all the flak from religious bigots my father's colleagues received, and then some. When someone like him stoutly maintains that Jesus was a simple mortal, and that J was also historical, that is NOT said to please the church or anyone remotely affiliated with it. It is a statement of the utmost integrity.


If the slings and arrows aimed at Ehrman equals or surpasses the hazards the doughty pioneers of secularism in Bible studies faced, I can only reflect that his uninterrupted career in the field, lionized both inside and outside the academy, whose work is eagerly published and publicized would seem to be a rather comfortable one.

So yes, from now on, I come here with no intention of suffering fools gladly. I now come here to call out those mythicists whose ignorance and hatred of professional historiography is no whit different from the inexcusable hatred of science coming from the fundamentalists. It's of the same piece of cloth, the same filthy stench-ridden horse____: an ignorance of serious hard research that morphs into unreasoning hatred for what it lacks the discipline and simple brains to understand.

Stein


Again with the risible comparison between scholars parsing religious literature with scientists studying medicine, climate, biology, physics, and any number of disciplines producing testable results appears to either elevate deep thinking about the Bible beyond reason or to denigrate the hard sciences by association.

You just can't compare a paper about how The Real Jesus was a Feminist to a study that produces a life-saving medicine.

:coffee:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43274  Postby proudfootz » Jun 07, 2021 3:13 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Stein wrote: No, I don't have any personal acquaintance with Bart Ehrman, for instance. But I can recognize him as a worthy scrupulous historian. He has received all the flak from religious bigots my father's colleagues received, and then some. When someone like him stoutly maintains that Jesus was a simple mortal, and that J was also historical, that is NOT said to please the church or anyone remotely affiliated with it. It is a statement of the utmost integrity.


What Ehrman says about his own opinion on the historicity of Jesus, and the forgery of Christian manuscripts is fine. He is entitled to it. So is everyone. The problem is that Ehrman also has the opinion that those who deny the historicity of Jesus are comparable to "holocaust deniers". Hyperbolic. He equates an evaluation of evidence from antiquity (whether the NT Jesus existed) with an evaluation of evidence from the 20th century (whether a holocaust occurred). This kind of exposes Bart's understanding and evaluation of available historical evidence. This is not a sound comparison.

Bart and others are also not identifying all the evidence when they claim that mythicism only appeared in the 17th/18th/19th century. They claim it is a modern invention. But they don't mention the negative evidence such as the laws of blasphemy or indeed the "Index of Prohibited Books" run by the utterly corrupt Vatican church industry.

As much as we are amateur historians we should be prepared to admit that our conclusions can only ever be hypothetical and provisional.


There is literally tons of evidence that the Nazis exterminated millions of people.

The evidence cited by scholars such as Bart Ehrman for his Jesus could be written on the cover of a matchbook.

Anyone suggesting there is any parity between the two is trivializing the Holocaust.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43275  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 08, 2021 1:26 am

Stein wrote:Bart Ehrman is right: Those who deny the historicity of Jesus ARE comparable to holocaust deniers.


Here Bart Ehrman is preaching to the converted. He is using the theological method, not the historical method.


The 17th to 18th centuries DID mark the first appearance of mythicism.


"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

~ Emperor Julian 362 CE



Professional historians' conclusions deal in balanced LIKELIHOODS, not hypotheticals.


By definition all likelihoods are hypothetical and all conclusions are provisional.

Unless you have some inside information:

"Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders."


ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS, Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987
Chapter 1: Biblical Studies and Classical Studies - Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

p.3
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 856

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43276  Postby proudfootz » Jun 08, 2021 6:12 pm

As early as the 2nd century christians had to defend themselves against the charge of making up their Jesus from whole cloth:

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves..."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43277  Postby Hermit » Jun 08, 2021 10:47 pm

Stop it already, will you? You ARE comparable to Kool Aid drinking, Trump voting holocaust deniers, and a crank. A CRANK, I tell you!

And your mothers smell of elderberries.

Image
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4661
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43278  Postby RealityRules » Jun 10, 2021 12:56 am

Stein wrote:... conspiracy theorists like the mythers --

    Mythicism is NOT a conspiracy theory
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43279  Postby proudfootz » Jun 10, 2021 1:43 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:... conspiracy theorists like the mythers --

    Mythicism is NOT a conspiracy theory


It's a convenient canard to include when trying to frighten low information readers. It's distressing that educators like Bart Ehrman engage in such defamation when using their position to misinform their audience. It betrays a more political than scholarly approach to the subject.

There are something like 8000 verses in the New Testament, about half a dozen of which can be construed to be referring to The Historical Jesus. If 'myth' = 'conspiracy' then the HJ hypothesis is 99.9% conspiracy theory from the get-go.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43280  Postby proudfootz » Jun 12, 2021 2:09 am

An article about how the Christ became Jesus.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18485
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 11006

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 15 guests