Historical Jesus

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

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Historical Jesus

#43361  Postby RealityRules » Mar 29, 2022 9:38 am

Stein wrote:I often sense a desire to take revenge on a faith that “betrayed” them

    bullshit

Stein wrote: It’s not their black or white approach that bugs me most though. It’s their insistence that they are rational vs. their refusal to apply their black and white approach to other sources from Antiquity. About all authors mixed fiction with fact. Separating the two is an obsession developed last couple of centuries. The task of historians of Antiquity is exactly to develop reliable methods to do that. But JMs don’t care. I find that appalling.

    bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, uses methodology for more bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

    The rest of your commentary is eccentric red herrings ie. essentially more bullshit
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2990

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43362  Postby proudfootz » Mar 29, 2022 10:03 am

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:I often sense a desire to take revenge on a faith that “betrayed” them

    bullshit


This is the standard 'atheists are angry at God' nonsense we hear from fundamentalists all the time. :roll:

Stein wrote: It’s not their black or white approach that bugs me most though. It’s their insistence that they are rational vs. their refusal to apply their black and white approach to other sources from Antiquity. About all authors mixed fiction with fact. Separating the two is an obsession developed last couple of centuries. The task of historians of Antiquity is exactly to develop reliable methods to do that. But JMs don’t care. I find that appalling.

    bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, uses methodology for more bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

    The rest of your commentary is eccentric red herrings ie. essentially more bullshit


Ironically, Law's paper does talk about how to separate fact from fiction, but the author of Stein's blog is too dumb to notice.

P2 Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.


When dealing with materials contaminated with bullshit the way to reduce scepticism about the plausible bits is to use corroborating evidence.

What an elegant solution to a problem that has stymied Bible scholars for centuries!
"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: 11041

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

Re: Historical Jesus

#43363  Postby Stein » Mar 29, 2022 5:16 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:I often sense a desire to take revenge on a faith that “betrayed” them

    bullshit

Stein wrote: It’s not their black or white approach that bugs me most though. It’s their insistence that they are rational vs. their refusal to apply their black and white approach to other sources from Antiquity. About all authors mixed fiction with fact. Separating the two is an obsession developed last couple of centuries. The task of historians of Antiquity is exactly to develop reliable methods to do that. But JMs don’t care. I find that appalling.

[list]bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, uses methodology for more bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

The rest of your commentary/list]


CORRECTION: This above piece is NOT by me; it's by

T I M
O ' N E I L L !!!

Duh,

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2492

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43364  Postby Stein » Mar 29, 2022 5:21 pm

proudfootz wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:I often sense a desire to take revenge on a faith that “betrayed” them

    bullshit


This is the standard 'atheists are angry at God' nonsense we hear from fundamentalists all the time. :roll:

Stein wrote: It’s not their black or white approach that bugs me most though. It’s their insistence that they are rational vs. their refusal to apply their black and white approach to other sources from Antiquity. About all authors mixed fiction with fact. Separating the two is an obsession developed last couple of centuries. The task of historians of Antiquity is exactly to develop reliable methods to do that. But JMs don’t care. I find that appalling.

    bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, uses methodology for more bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

    The rest of your commentary is eccentric red herrings ie. essentially more bullshit


Ironically, Law's paper does talk about how to separate fact from fiction, but the author of Stein's blog!


CORRECTION: This is NOT my blog; this comes from the blog of

T I M
O ' N E I L L !!!

Duh,

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2492

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43365  Postby proudfootz » Mar 29, 2022 8:24 pm

I should perhaps written 'the blogger Stein cites' instead.

But if history is any guide that would not prevent you from missing the point.
"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: 11041

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

Re: Historical Jesus

#43366  Postby dogsgod » Apr 02, 2022 7:05 pm

Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:I often sense a desire to take revenge on a faith that “betrayed” them

    bullshit


This is the standard 'atheists are angry at God' nonsense we hear from fundamentalists all the time. :roll:

Stein wrote: It’s not their black or white approach that bugs me most though. It’s their insistence that they are rational vs. their refusal to apply their black and white approach to other sources from Antiquity. About all authors mixed fiction with fact. Separating the two is an obsession developed last couple of centuries. The task of historians of Antiquity is exactly to develop reliable methods to do that. But JMs don’t care. I find that appalling.

    bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, uses methodology for more bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

    The rest of your commentary is eccentric red herrings ie. essentially more bullshit


Ironically, Law's paper does talk about how to separate fact from fiction, but the author of Stein's blog!


CORRECTION: This is NOT my blog; this comes from the blog of

T I M
O ' N E I L L !!!

Duh,

Stein
It's one thing to acknowledge various theories including all the historical Jesus theories as well as the theories that may or may not necessarily include an historical Jesus, but believing a particular theory to be true and running with it is a fools errand. Believers claim to have the truth, you and O'neill are believers, so perhaps you are frustrated posting on a rational skeptic board. Cold hard facts are in short supply so no kind of faith is going to cut it here.

This thread is about the Jesus Puzzle, if I recall you won't read it, you won't acknowledge it because you believe.
dogsgod
 
Posts: 2043

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43367  Postby dejuror » Apr 02, 2022 11:00 pm

All HJ arguments are logically fallacious. There is no historical evidence or credible reference to the Jesus of Nazareth character, his family, his friends, his apostles and Paul.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4755

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43368  Postby dogsgod » Apr 03, 2022 6:41 pm

dejuror wrote:All HJ arguments are logically fallacious. There is no historical evidence or credible reference to the Jesus of Nazareth character, his family, his friends, his apostles and Paul.


Perhaps, but just the same, we don't know. If claims of an historical Jesus stem from the gospel of Mark there are problems in not knowing who the author of gMark was, where he wrote and when, we don't know his intent or if he had a particular itinerant preacher in mind or not when he put pen to paper. We just don't know and therein lies the problem of people claiming to know something. There isn't enough information to be reasonably certain of anything about the story so it seems reasonable for some to dismiss it entirely, but on the other hand perhaps it can't be entirely ruled out.

As far as this thread goes, some of the posters claiming to know something haven't read the topic of this thread, The Jesus Puzzle, which only goes to show that they don't know what they are arguing for or against. Trolls are like that, they refer to those that have read the book as 'mythers' in a pejorative sense in hopes of derailing the thread. It appears that those that claim an historical Jesus with certainty take on the characteristic of Jesus and his followers by casting aspersions towards those that have their doubts about Jesus having come to earth in the flesh.
dogsgod
 
Posts: 2043

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43369  Postby Stein » Apr 04, 2022 7:47 pm

dogsgod wrote:
Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
    bullshit


This is the standard 'atheists are angry at God' nonsense we hear from fundamentalists all the time. :roll:


    bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, uses methodology for more bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

    The rest of your commentary is eccentric red herrings ie. essentially more bullshit


Ironically, Law's paper does talk about how to separate fact from fiction, but the author of Stein's blog!


CORRECTION: This is NOT my blog; this comes from the blog of

T I M
O ' N E I L L !!!

Duh,

Stein
It's one thing to acknowledge various theories including all the historical Jesus theories as well as the theories that may or may not necessarily include an historical Jesus, but believing a particular theory to be true and running with it is a fools errand. Believers claim to have the truth, you and O'neill are believers


TIM O'NEILL IS AN

A T H E I S T ,

OF WHICH I BELIEVE

Y O U

ARE

W E L L

A W A R E.

This counts as willful misrepresentation of a fellow member of this board, which is an infraction of this forum's rules -- AND YOU VERY WELL KNOW THAT.

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2492

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43370  Postby proudfootz » Apr 04, 2022 9:57 pm

dogsgod wrote:It's one thing to acknowledge various theories including all the historical Jesus theories as well as the theories that may or may not necessarily include an historical Jesus, but believing a particular theory to be true and running with it is a fools errand. Believers claim to have the truth, you and O'Neill are believers, so perhaps you are frustrated posting on a rational skeptic board. Cold hard facts are in short supply so no kind of faith is going to cut it here.

This thread is about the Jesus Puzzle, if I recall you won't read it, you won't acknowledge it because you believe.


People who believe they know the truth are unwilling to even consider something outside of their comfort zone. It's a testament to how fragile such belief systems are that dissent cannot be tolerated.

For myself I think on balance the evidence indicates one thing - but if it turns out differently than what I provisionally concluded I don't fear the collapse of civilization, panic in the streets, or universities burning to the ground.
"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: 11041

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

Re: Historical Jesus

#43371  Postby dogsgod » Apr 04, 2022 10:21 pm

Stein wrote:
dogsgod wrote:
Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

This is the standard 'atheists are angry at God' nonsense we hear from fundamentalists all the time. :roll:



Ironically, Law's paper does talk about how to separate fact from fiction, but the author of Stein's blog!


CORRECTION: This is NOT my blog; this comes from the blog of

T I M
O ' N E I L L !!!

Duh,

Stein
It's one thing to acknowledge various theories including all the historical Jesus theories as well as the theories that may or may not necessarily include an historical Jesus, but believing a particular theory to be true and running with it is a fools errand. Believers claim to have the truth, you and O'neill are believers


TIM O'NEILL IS AN

A T H E I S T ,

OF WHICH I BELIEVE

Y O U

ARE

W E L L

A W A R E.

This counts as willful misrepresentation of a fellow member of this board, which is an infraction of this forum's rules -- AND YOU VERY WELL KNOW THAT.

Stein


This thread is not about atheism. Atheists can believe all manner of nonsense, just not in God, so your point is moot, off topic, and disruptive.

Trolls are those that haven't read the book that this thread is about but choose to be disruptive because they presume it to go against their firmly held beliefs.
dogsgod
 
Posts: 2043

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43372  Postby proudfootz » Apr 05, 2022 12:33 pm

This counts as willful misrepresentation of a fellow member of this board, which is an infraction of this forum's rules -- AND YOU VERY WELL KNOW THAT.


The number of times people who are skeptical about the real historical existence of Bible characters have been willfully misrepresented as 'cult members' is greater than can easily be counted.
"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: 11041

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

Re: Historical Jesus

#43373  Postby RealityRules » Sep 05, 2022 11:56 am

The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told by Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

A comprehensive history of the evolution of Christianity ... this book is aimed primarily at perceptive individuals who may lack the necessary background knowledge and who would sincerely and genuinely desire to become more knowledgeable regarding the development and manifestation of Christianity and its contradictory dogmas. Accordingly, this encyclopaedic book has been carefully designed and set out in order to offer a step-by-step education.

Written by an expert in both the history of the ancient near East and Classical history, this book would be of enormous benefit for serious students of not only the primary branches of Judaism and Christianity but also Zoroastrianism, numerous polytheistic religions and the mystery religions.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2990

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43374  Postby Leucius Charinus » Sep 23, 2022 4:26 am

RealityRules wrote:The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told by Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

A comprehensive history of the evolution of Christianity ... this book is aimed primarily at perceptive individuals who may lack the necessary background knowledge and who would sincerely and genuinely desire to become more knowledgeable regarding the development and manifestation of Christianity and its contradictory dogmas. Accordingly, this encyclopaedic book has been carefully designed and set out in order to offer a step-by-step education.

Written by an expert in both the history of the ancient near East and Classical history, this book would be of enormous benefit for serious students of not only the primary branches of Judaism and Christianity but also Zoroastrianism, numerous polytheistic religions and the mystery religions.



Another book about the Good (Chrestos) Jesus Fraud? OMG. Well you know what they say about another brick in the wall. Straw by straw the balance appears to be moving away from investigating the Holy Trinity of Jesus H. Chrestos" to the investigating of the fabrication of the New testament and "Church history". Three cheers for the investigators !!!

FWIW RR I checked if there are any summaries of book publications having Jesus in the tile (like Jesus from Outer Space etc) and stumbled over this on WIKI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_about_Jesus

ETA: Carrier's book isn't listed

There's probably other books out there by investigators both professional and amateur about the forgery and fraud of the chuch industry which don't mention Jesus H. Christ in the title. Like "Forgery in Christianity". That's a great read.

Cheers.

.
"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: 907

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43375  Postby proudfootz » Sep 25, 2022 6:12 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
RealityRules wrote:The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told by Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

A comprehensive history of the evolution of Christianity ... this book is aimed primarily at perceptive individuals who may lack the necessary background knowledge and who would sincerely and genuinely desire to become more knowledgeable regarding the development and manifestation of Christianity and its contradictory dogmas. Accordingly, this encyclopaedic book has been carefully designed and set out in order to offer a step-by-step education.

Written by an expert in both the history of the ancient near East and Classical history, this book would be of enormous benefit for serious students of not only the primary branches of Judaism and Christianity but also Zoroastrianism, numerous polytheistic religions and the mystery religions.



Another book about the Good (Chrestos) Jesus Fraud? OMG. Well you know what they say about another brick in the wall. Straw by straw the balance appears to be moving away from investigating the Holy Trinity of Jesus H. Chrestos" to the investigating of the fabrication of the New testament and "Church history". Three cheers for the investigators !!!

FWIW RR I checked if there are any summaries of book publications having Jesus in the tile (like Jesus from Outer Space etc) and stumbled over this on WIKI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_about_Jesus

ETA: Carrier's book isn't listed

There's probably other books out there by investigators both professional and amateur about the forgery and fraud of the chuch industry which don't mention Jesus H. Christ in the title. Like "Forgery in Christianity". That's a great read.

Cheers.


Bart Ehrman doesn't merit a mention either.

I guess that full court press for his Jesus theory books didn't win him any converts among wikipediists.
"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: 11041

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

Re: Historical Jesus

#43376  Postby RealityRules » Sep 26, 2022 1:33 am

There's

    The Christian Fallacy: The Real Truth About Jesus and the Early History of Christianity
    by Paul McGrane

    published August 2017 (& may be out of print)

The publisher's summary from both goodreads and from Amazon:

It offers a completely new and comprehensive answer to the question, 'Who exactly was Jesus and how does that relate to what Christians came to believe after his death?' This new paradigm provides a revised chronology for events in the first half of the 1st century AD; identifies who all the key players really were at the time, including the 'historical' figure of Jesus himself; and shows how the religion we call Christianity evolved from Roman misunderstanding of Jewish messianic belief.



Two of the five reviews on the Amazon page (one of these is also on the goodreads page)

    The premise of the book is that the biblical Jesus (written in italics) did not exist but is an amalgam of several people one of them is the high priest at the Jewish temple (written without italics), as well religious marketing by Paul and those who wrote the Christian Bible for Rome.

    I really enjoyed that the author didn’t just look at historical contexts, but also at political and social contexts at the time the texts were written. Mr. McGrane analyzes the old texts and realizes that the traditional chronology must be rejects and rearranged to make sense.

    I don’t know if he’s right, but it sure makes an interesting read and food for thought.

    The author wrote about a very sensitive subject but did a good job at it.
    Would he convince a believing Christian that they’re wrong?
    Probably not, I’m sure many are well aware of the inconsistencies in the texts and those that are not are clearly like to be blissfully ignorant


    The Christian Fallacy is a well-written, generally easy-to-read, and thought-provoking book that attempts to provide an alternative view of the origin of Christianity.

    The author has a grand goal - to debunk Christianity – and claims that Christianity has “no basis in historical fact, is misguided, and wrong.” In his view, the early Christians were followers of a “Jesus Movement”, which developed not from Jesus’ teachings but from John the Baptist’s. They took ancient Biblical prophecies – particularly from the book of Zechariah – and reshaped and re-imagined them, inventing a first century person called Jesus to fulfil those prophecies. In other words, the Jesus of the Gospels was a figment of the imagination of the early Christians.

    Generally, the author presents his arguments clearly and logically, marshals his facts well, and argues his case with clarity. He is more difficult to follow when he comes up with very complex and tortuous arguments to shift the chronology of first century events.

    A big complaint I have about the book is that McGrane bases his arguments on two main texts: the works of the Jewish historian Josephus, and the Bible itself. However, while he quotes Josephus from a 21st century translation, for the Bible, he uses the original 1611 King James Version, which is so full of “thou” and “verily” and “hast” and “thy” to make it almost intelligible.

    I can only assume that he uses such an old translation because either (a) by ignoring four centuries of Biblical scholarship since 1611, McGrane is also ignoring discoveries that do not support his new paradigm, or (b) he is deliberately obfuscating, by making the Biblical texts seem obscure and unclear.

    Interestingly, in his book, McGrane suggests that the writer of the Book of Acts “deliberately obfuscated his account to fit a preconceived myth.”


Another of the reviews on the goodreads page

    The central thesis of this book is that the Jesus we are familiar with from traditional Christian teachings did not exist, but is an invention based on another Jesus from an earlier time.

    Paul McGrane takes historical documents including books of the old and new testaments and subjects them to rigorous literary analysis. He attempts to establish when they were written, who wrote them - and who the intended audience was. The historical and political context of the time of the writing has a huge influence on what we know about the past - history, as they say, is written by the victors. His analysis has led him to reject the traditional chronology and brought him to the conclusion that the Jesus of the gospels was not a historical figure.

    You don't need an in-depth knowledge of Christianity or the bible to follow the reasoning, although a familiarity does help. Is he cherry-picking the sections that support his theory? It certainly doesn't seem so - he takes care to only use texts where the translations are undisputed and he is thorough in explaining each event, where it fits in his revised chronology and why


And there's this review:

... Mr McGrane maintains that Christ as we know him, did not even exist. Therefore, since all we are left with is a fiction or a myth, we may as well substitute the Bible for Homer.

The premise of this book: that the story of the life of Christ was invented to gratify a need, will shock many people. Of course, there is no hard and fast evidence, but there is no hard and fast evidence behind the Gospels either, as McGrane damningly maintains. Worse still, the Gospels are apparently riddled with errors, misconceptions and falsehoods. If, writes McGrane with reference to the Bible,

    “we are told that God will consign humanity to eternal bliss or damnation on the basis of what these texts say (…) the least He could do is make sure they are clear and unambiguous and free of mistakes. A perfect God cannot (presumably) endorse a less than perfect revelation.”
The Gospels then, are not historical truth or any truth at all, and should not be read as such. We have been, for the past 2000 years, “mistaking fiction for fact”. The argument that the New Testament has been basically mostly plagiarised from the Old Testament is convincingly put.

Sometimes, as McGrane demonstrates, even the story of Moses appears to have been re-hashed to fill in the fiction of the story of Jesus, its details cobbled together to satisfy the variety of contradictory ‘prophecies’ in the Old Testament relating to the Nativity. And all done so effectively that “we still have our children re-enact the story every Christmas without pausing to notice how completely unlikely the whole narrative is.” But what about the teachings of Jesus, believers may ask; what about the Sermon on the Mount? McGrane, in typically dry tone, delivers the reality check. The Sermon on the Mount, he writes, owes much to pagan influences. The fictitious Jesus was not so much delivering fresh ideas as reusing old Greek ones. The material was there, waiting.

But all this does not mean that McGrane refutes the existence of a man called Jesus. According to his analysis of sacred texts, the character of Jesus was modelled on a Jewish priest who lived some four hundred years before the Jesus Christ of the Gospels – although he was not the Son of God and he did not die on a cross. To find out why the real historical figure called Jesus became the Jesus of the Bible, you will have to read Mr McGrane’s book ... McGrane’s justification for the paradigm he exposes, however, is undeniably right. In his preface he says,

    “With the rise of religious fundamentalism of all kinds, that threatens to curtail the hard-won liberal freedoms that we all enjoy, we need secularism in our societies now as never before. Only that way can those of religious faith and those with none, live and work together in mutual tolerance and peace.”
So much of the chronology and historical accuracy of the Bible is called into question that the implications for the Christian Church are jaw dropping. But what is particularly fascinating is the way McGrane takes the Acts of the Apostles to pieces; as he tries to shift past the allegorical meaning back to the real sense (even though at times the Acts are so muddled that analysis is a painstaking challenge), it is hard not to see his point: the Gospels were written by people who needed to believe in the fiction they created. It was not, he maintains, that they were “setting out to deceive people right from the start, but ‘unfortunately, for more than 2000 years, that is what (they) did.’ As McGrane succinctly puts it: “Isn’t it about time we woke up?”

https://bookmunch.wordpress.com/2017/07 ... l-mcgrane/

User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2990

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Questioning the Historicity of Christ

#43377  Postby JemStone » Oct 03, 2022 11:11 am

There are several authors who debate that Christ was not an historic person.
One book in particular shows the idea of a real person is a fiction.

Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity
by James S Valliant & Warren Fahy 2018
See review at http://volumesofvalue.com/2022/09/18/creating-christ/

Has anyone else read this and have thoughts on the thesis?
JemStone
 
Name: James LaRoche
Posts: 1

Country: US
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the Historicity of Christ

#43378  Postby RealityRules » Oct 04, 2022 12:12 pm

JemStone wrote:There are several authors who debate that Christ was not an historic person.
One book in particular shows the idea of a real person is a fiction.

Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity
by James S Valliant & Warren Fahy 2018
See review at http://volumesofvalue.com/2022/09/18/creating-christ/

Has anyone else read this and have thoughts on the thesis?

It doesn't seem plausible to me that Christianity was created by the Roman state. Especially not by the Flavians.

If the Flavians had commissioned texts to establish Christianity, it's unlikely we would see the uncertainties and vagaries about and of the texts that we see through the 2nd century CE and beyond. I don't think the coin or the dolphin stuff is good evidence, either.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2990

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the Historicity of Christ

#43379  Postby proudfootz » Oct 04, 2022 9:40 pm

JemStone wrote:There are several authors who debate that Christ was not an historic person.
One book in particular shows the idea of a real person is a fiction.

Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity
by James S Valliant & Warren Fahy 2018
See review at http://volumesofvalue.com/2022/09/18/creating-christ/

Has anyone else read this and have thoughts on the thesis?


I haven't read the book, but this hypothesis has been touched on in this thread.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1462618
"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: 11041

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

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#43380  Postby RealityRules » Oct 04, 2022 10:13 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:
nunnington wrote: the striking parallels between the story of Jesus' ministry in the gospels and the historical facts of the Flavian war in Judea

    doesn't mean the Flavians or other Romans concocted or wrote the Christian narrative/s.

    There is, however, good scholarship that argues that Christian narratives use and reflect aspects of tropes and history of aspects of the Roman Empire and persons therein, including the Flavians and other emperors, and the works of Josephus.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2990

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 13 guests

cron