angelo wrote:Dejuror Still got the point across about the Bayesian Theorem able to disprove the Jesus myth.

Corky wrote:[
Correctly using the historic method disproves the Jesus myth too. The HJers have instead invented their own method in the case of Jesus...who doesn't require any primary sources at all for them to believe in HIS existence.

HJers have no actual evidence from the 1st century and before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE and that is precisely why there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ.

All existing writings which mention Jesus of Nazareth are from the 2nd century or later.

The HJ argument is essentially baseless.

The Failed QUESTS for an HJ are well known after hundreds of years.

The Quest for an HJ has failed multiple times and has produced multiple irreconcilable versions without a shred of supporting evidence.

I think we can now lay down a "Law" for the HJ argument.

When a theory is found to be a consistent then a LAW can be introduced for such a theory.

Richard Carrier admitted that Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? is a FAILURE of Facts and Logic and argues that others like Maurice Casey are no different.

Essentially, all HJ arguments are failures of facts and logic as is evident when we examine the thousands of posts on this very thread.

1. There is NO actual existing pre 70 CE writings of Jesus and Paul.

2. No early manuscripts have been discovered in Judea.

3. No early manuscripts about Jesus have been discovered in Aramaic.

4. No known writer in antiquity admitted to have seen a human Jesus of Nazareth.

5. Jews do not acknowledge the advent of Jesus Christ.

We can lay down the Law which I call the "Richard Carrier LAW".

The HJ argument is a FAILURE of Facts and Logic

Essentially, Any one who attempts to argue for an HJ will always present an argument void of facts and logic.

After hundreds of years, The On-Going Quest for an HJ with multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable versions of an HJ is PROOF that the HJ argument is a FAILURE of Facts and Logic.

dejuror wrote:
Richard Carrier admitted that Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? is a FAILURE of Facts and Logic and argues that others like Maurice Casey are no different.

Richard Carrier admitted argued/explained/stated that Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? is a FAILURE of Facts and Logic ...

RealityRules wrote:

dejuror wrote:
Richard Carrier admitted that Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? is a FAILURE of Facts and Logic and argues that others like Maurice Casey are no different.

Richard Carrier admitted argued/explained/stated that Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? is a FAILURE of Facts and Logic ...

Who first argued that there was a force called Gravity?

We now have the Laws of Gravity!!

We now have a LAW concerning the HJ argument.

The HJ argument is a Failure of Facts and Logic.

Present any HJ argument from any person at any level it will always be a Failure of Facts and Logic.

I would personally like to call this Law ---"the Richard Carrier Law" since it was his finding and discovery.

There are some facts -

• There are no primary sources about the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth
  
  * No contemporary (early 1st C) documentation
  * No 1st [or 2nd C ?) artifacts
  * No 1st of 2nd C archaeology sites [/list]
  
  
  • The Paul epistles are quite different to the Canonical gospels (the Synoptics & John)

Because Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman are the sole experts on this subject from either side. Good to know. Confirmation bias alert.

willhud9 wrote:Because Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman are the sole experts on this subject from either side. Good to know. Confirmation bias alert.

Please name the experts on the subject?

Are the Bishops the experts?

RealityRules wrote:There are some facts -

• There are no primary sources about the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth
  
  * No contemporary (early 1st C) documentation
  * No 1st [or 2nd C ?) artifacts
  * No 1st of 2nd C archaeology sites [/list]
  
  
  • The Paul epistles are quite different to the Canonical gospels (the Synoptics & John)

Those facts do not support the HJ argument.

The HJ argument is based on Faith and known sources of Fiction--the Bible.

It is illogical to argue for an HJ without supporting facts.

RealityRules wrote:There are some facts -

• There are no primary sources about the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth
  
  * No contemporary (early 1st C) documentation
  * No 1st [or 2nd C ?) artifacts
  * No 1st of 2nd C archaeology sites [/list]
  
  
  • The Paul epistles are quite different to the Canonical gospels (the Synoptics & John)

Out of the 13-14 epistles attributed to Paul half or more are acknowledged by nearly all to be fakes. Couldn't they all be fakes? Besides, Paul never met the HJ, he claimed to have seen a light and heard voices. Not a very promising witness was he?

dejuror wrote:

RealityRules wrote:There are some facts -

• There are no primary sources about the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth
  
  * No contemporary (early 1st C) documentation
  * No 1st [or 2nd C ?) artifacts
  * No 1st of 2nd C archaeology sites [/list]
  • The Paul epistles are quite different to the Canonical gospels (the Synoptics & John)

Those facts do not support the HJ argument.

Of course not: they are pertinent facts, though. Against the proposition there was an HJ.

ie. HJ is merely a proposition; a proposition without satisfactory information other than theological texts.

angelo wrote:

RealityRules wrote:There are some facts -

• There are no primary sources about the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth
  
  * No contemporary (early 1st C) documentation
  * No 1st [or 2nd C ?) artifacts
  * No 1st of 2nd C archaeology sites [/list]
  
  
  • The Paul epistles are quite different to the Canonical gospels (the Synoptics & John)

Out of the 13-14 epistles attributed to Paul half or more are acknowledged by nearly all to be fakes. Couldn't they all be fakes? Besides, Paul never met the HJ, he claimed to have seen a light and heard voices. Not a very promising witness was he?

I have a few follow-up questions:

Do you think Paul as well is mainly mythical? If so, why was he invented? Why did people start attributing letters to him? (Or do you think he existed, but that he either didn't write anything or that his original writings are lost or that we just cannot know?)

Zwaarddijk wrote:Do you think Paul as well is mainly mythical?

Why would anyone care?

Exactly. Somebody else does.

Zwaarddijk wrote: Do you think Paul as well is mainly mythical? If so, why was he invented? Why did people start attributing letters to him? (Or do you think he existed, but that he either didn't write anything or that his original writings are lost or that we just cannot know?)

AD Loman has said -

"Christianity in its origin was nothing else than a Jewish-Messianic movement [with Peter as its central character] ... the figure of Jesus had never existed, but represented a symbolization and personification of thoughts that could only make full headway in the second century.

A Gnostic-Messianic community [with Paul as its representative] later appeared alongside the Jewish-Christian messianic community.

In the period between 70 and 135 CE the two groups opposed one another with bitter animosity.

"Only in the middle of the second century did they achieve a reconciliation, in which the gnostic community had Paul as its representative, and the Jewish-Christian community had Peter. The result of this process of reconciliation was the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. ... the letters of Paul are all inauthentic and represent the product of the newly-believing, gnostic-messianic community."

Paul not only existed, he is the real founder of the christian cult. But I do sometimes wonder whether he did exist. After all, like Jesus there is precious little evidence for his existence outside of the christian circles besides his epistles which as already known, more than half are forgeries. Written by someone or some group in his name which may be some evidence for his existence.

Googling...

http://www.radikalkritik.de/A_forgotten_chapter.htm

For these reasons, the Radicals considered the origin of Pauline Christianity in the Jewish-legalistic atmosphere of Jerusalem unacceptable. In their opinion the source of Christianity has to be looked for in the confluence of ideas of the Gnostic communities of Alexandria and of the Stoics in Rome. There the myth of redemption, alive in Gnosticism, was elaborated and connected with the Jewish idea of a Messiah, and it was this synthesis that brought the well-known figure of Jesus in Palestine into being. That is to say, gnosticism and Stoa were joined with the tradition of the Old Testament in the figure of Jesus.

angelo wrote:Paul not only existed, he is the real founder of the christian cult. But I do sometimes wonder whether he did exist. After all, like Jesus there is precious little evidence for his existence outside of the christian circles besides his epistles which as already known, more than half are forgeries. Written by someone or some group in his name which may be some evidence for his existence.

Paul in the NT was NOT the founder of the Jesus cult of Christians.

1. There is no actual evidence for the existence of Paul as claimed in Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

2. In Acts and the Pauline Corpus Paul was NOT the founder of the Christian cult.

3. In Acts and the Pauline Corpus Paul PERSECUTED those who PREACHED the Faith.

4. In Acts and the Pauline Corpus Paul was NOT the first to preach the Gospel.

5. Paul claimed he was the LAST to be seen of the resurrected Jesus.

6. In Acts, Peter and the disciples PREACHED about Jesus Christ BEFORE Saul/Paul.

7. In Acts, over 8000 PERSONS were converted to the Jesus cult BEFORE Paul converted.

8. A Pauline writers admitted the Jesus cult existed BEFORE he was converted.

9. A Pauline writer admitted they attempted to destroy the Jesus cult.

10. A Pauline writer claimed he went to Jerusalem to see the Apostles .

11. The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge the Pauline Epistles or the Pauline revealed Gospel..

12. The authors of the Gospels did NOT acknowledge the Pauline Epistles or the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

13. Early Christian writers like Aristides and Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

14. The earliest NON-Apologetic writer, Celsus, wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

15. The earliest dated Pauline manuscripts are dated around the mid 2nd century or later.

angelo wrote:Paul not only existed, he is the real founder of the christian cult. But I do sometimes wonder whether he did exist. After all, like Jesus there is precious little evidence for his existence outside of the christian circles besides his epistles which as already known, more than half are forgeries. Written by someone or some group in his name which may be some evidence for his existence.

The *story-about-the-Paul-character* is part of the foundation of Christianity; whether it is based on a real person may never be known, just as whether there was a real sage/preacher/messiah-dude as a seed for the 'Jesus character' may never be known.

The conclusions of the significant thorough investigations of the Dutch Radicals is worth considering-

Clive Durdle wrote:

... the Radicals considered the origin of Pauline Christianity in the Jewish-legalistic atmosphere of Jerusalem unacceptable. In their opinion the source of Christianity has to be looked for in the confluence of ideas of the Gnostic communities of Alexandria and of the Stoics in Rome. There the myth of redemption, alive in Gnosticism, was elaborated and connected with the Jewish idea of a Messiah, and it was this synthesis that brought the well-known figure of Jesus in Palestine into being. That is to say, gnosticism and Stoa were joined with the tradition of the Old Testament in the figure of Jesus

http://www.radikalkritik.de/A_forgotten_chapter.htm.

The following points by dejuror, in his post just before this one, are significant;

to me, these points align with & support the conclusions of the Dutch Radicals; including the conclusions of AD Loman that two previously-adversarial communities were merged to form Christianity (see the quote from AD Loman above) -

dejuror wrote:.
1. There is no actual evidence for the existence of Paul as claimed in Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

2. In Acts and the Pauline Corpus; Paul was NOT the founder of the Christian cult.

3. In Acts and the Pauline Corpus; Paul [initially] persecuted those who preached the Faith.

4. In Acts and the Pauline Corpus; Paul was NOT the first to preach the Gospel.

.

6. In Acts; Peter and the disciples preached about Jesus Christ BEFORE Saul/Paul.

7. In Acts; over 8000 persons were converted to the Jesus cult BEFORE Paul converted.

8. A Pauline writer admitted the Jesus cult existed BEFORE he was converted.

9. A Pauline writer admitted they attempted to destroy the Jesus cult.

10. A Pauline writer claimed he went to Jerusalem to see the Apostles [a reference to an impending merger?]

11. The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge the Pauline Epistles or the Pauline revealed Gospel.

12. The authors of the Gospels did NOT acknowledge the Pauline Epistles or the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

13. Early Christian writers - like Aristides and Justin Martyr - wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

14. The earliest NON-Apologetic writer, Celsus, wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

15. The earliest dated Pauline manuscripts are dated around the mid 2nd century or later.

Ehrman's new book "How Jesus Became God" is out apparently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/2 ... f=religion

But while working on this book, Ehrman arrived at a dramatic about-face on fundamental issues relating to the Christian religion. Ehrman had previously assumed that the deification of Jesus did not take place until some six decades after his Crucifixion, around the years 90 or 95.

Ehrman now acknowledges that Jesus’ followers — the inner circle who knew him personally — came to believe he was divine almost immediately after they became convinced of his Resurrection, a historical revision that moves up the timeline by several generations.

“This wasn’t just a kind of mind game, trying to figure out ideas of theology — it had much broader implications,” Ehrman said. “Among other things, it affected not only their worship but also their civic lives, since they were insisting that it was Jesus, not the Roman emperor, who was the Son of God. This did not put them in good stead with their pagan friends, families and neighbors, not to mention the ruling authorities.”

Yeah, because all their friends and neighbors totally believed Tiberius was the Son of God.

It'll be interesting to find out how and why devout Jews -- against all precedent -- began worshipping a man as God. It's also interesting that these people, after starting this unprecedented movement, disappear after 65 AD. Perhaps that will be in a separate book?

This did not put them in good stead with their pagan friends, families and neighbors, not to mention the ruling authorities.

Ehrman, who purports to be a historian, still believes that there was a religion called "Paganism" in ancient times. It was practiced by people who worshipped the god Pagan.

When it comes to John’s Gospel, Ehrman and some of his evangelical critics agree: The fourth Gospel should be understood as theological treatise and an imaginative re-enactment, not an eyewitness account containing verbatim quotes.

As has been observed here many times before, scholars admit that a "gospel" can be completely invented. But somehow, MM&L are not "theological treatises and imaginative re-enactments."

But wait, Ehrman's had a revelation!

Perhaps the biggest surprise for Ehrman was that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, had a very exalted view of Jesus, believing that Jesus existed in divine form before he was incarnate as a human being. Ehrman concludes that Paul must have believed Jesus was an angel who became human and afterward was exalted to godhood.

So Ehrman has finally come around to acknowledging the mythicist view.

That's not the mythicist view, but okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night.