http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Richard Carrier PhD gives a good lecture on the historicity and myth of Jesus.

Pay attention at 10:48 where he mentions "Mormons" :)

It's fine if that is your conclusion -- you'll get no
major argument from me.

What I would ask, however, is which (if not all) of they
unique teachings promoted by the earliest Jesus followers
should be rejected, as the bogus fabrications of religious
con-men living in the second of third century?

Take, for example, the idea of freeing captives from unjust
bondage. Perhaps that really was a very early Jesus follower
belief and philosophy. --- But in 1844 Joseph Smith, jr.
took that basic principle to an extreme political position,
by promising to free convicted prisoners in all the country's
jails and penitentiaries. Is that an example of how a bogus
Jesus is harming human society?

Or, is it possible that some of the unique teachings of the
earliest Jesus followers really do deserve our respect and
support, even if their supposed source cannot be verified?

UD

To try and say; "But a few things were okay." is kind of like pointing out that the KKK folks have strong families.

Rebeckah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To try and say; "But a few things were okay." is
> kind of like pointing out that the KKK folks have
> strong families.

Well, I'm trying to sort things out -- chronologically, if
not doctrinally.

If my conclusion is to reject and hate the Klan, does arriving
at that decision automatically prevent me from searching
backward, to see how it originated, or what its earliest
members experienced?

At least our positing a non-existent son of Mary allows
us to drop all of the finger-pointing, shaming and blaming
that goes on amongst the anti-Christians these days. I'd
almost be happy to see the historical Jesus once and for
all declared a fabrication, so that I wouldn't have to
wade through all of that hostile rhetoric in talking to
folks about Mormon origins.

In other words, is there a positive purpose in denying the
origin of unique Jesus follower teachings, other than just
our attacking Christianity itself?

UD

I actually believe many of the teachings of Jesus (the character) were incredibly progressive, especially 2,000 years ago.

For example, the good Samaritan - that we treat all as our neighbors is extremely powerful.

To me the biggest irony is just how non-Christian Christians seem to act.

My guess on the historicity, is the gospels are very very loosely based on an actual faith healer.

Actually, the fact that I am pretty much convinced that Joseph Smith and his cronies made up the first vision and the other visitations of John the Baptist, Peter, James and John and the entire Books of Mormon and Abraham, makes it easier for me to believe that Jesus was as much a figment of somebody's imagination as Mormoni was.

If the power of the thought depends on whether or not it was said by a God then it does not deserve respect. If an idea is noble and good irregardless of whether it was said by a god or a beggar it is worth preserving and cherishing.

Personally I'm not sure anymore that Jesus existed, bit for the most part I agree with what "Jesus" stood for. I don't see any reason to furf the teachings, whether they were made up by jesus or someone else.

For instance, the little ditty about "I have not come to bring peace but a sword."

I'm no real defender of Jesus, but I can defend the concept of "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." I think to get this, one has to come to grips with the fact that it's not God killing people, it's not Jesus killing people, people are killing people.

People, good people, for example, are lying like rugs supporting TSSC (for example), because they really don't want to hurt their families, disappoint their parents, antagonize their children, destroy their relationships with their neighbors, not graduate, get fired, and get divorced. These good people are choosing to make peace--even if it costs lying and outwardly supporting a fraud--rather than draw the sword (or drop the bomb in modern vernacular).

Jesus did not bring peace-making. He wasn't violent, just that when confronted, people can get very violent in their efforts to suppress what can upset their apple cart. Gandhi, Mr Non-violence, was the source of tremendous violence, which eventually drove the British out of India and set off separatist violence that split Northern India. The American Civil Rights Movement was based in non-violence, yet the reactions to it were plenty violent.

When Jesus says, "I bring a sword," it means the violent will react violently to what he's got to say. But he will say it nonetheless, because his objective is not to preserve the peace.

All that means is that he came to shake things up. Not to go with the status quo. Not that he came to swing a literal sword. More like his mouth was a sword.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2013 02:19PM by snuckafoodberry.

The idea of shalom -- of God's peace -- was deep-rooted in
Middle Eastern culture 2000 years ago, and still is now.
It is the sort of teaching and hope that remains a part of
daily life there today -- in the greetings and blessings
voiced by Jews, Muslims and Christians.

I am not convinced that Jesus ever said such a thing, but
the earliest Christians must have experienced it, as they
looked upon their attempts at evangelizing in that day and age.

The ancient preservers of the Dead Sea scrolls would have
certainly agreed with a sword message -- a literal sword to
be used against the Roman occupiers and sons of darkness.

But, at its most probable, basic level, the tradition is one
that challenges the socio-religious status quo. It offers a
knowing insight into the fact, that preaching even the
Peaceable Kingdom advocated by Isaiah will result in conflict.

UD

albertasaurus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally I'm not sure anymore that Jesus
> existed, bit for the most part I agree with what
> "Jesus" stood for. I don't see any reason to furf
> the teachings, whether they were made up by jesus
> or someone else.

I think that there IS a reason -- although I cannot quite
put my finger on it at the moment.

However, arguing that there never was a Jesus seems to
me to be counterproductive, in any serious effort to attack
the earliest teachings -- most of which were rooted in the
primitive social justice of the Jewish idea of a covenant
community. Christ myth development obviously came later.

UD

And if Jesus did not exist, then how could he have told gordo to warn us about multiple earrings and flip flops?

Was there a talk about flip flops? I am asking because my sis use to wear them to church then one day my tbm mom did not want her to any more. I think they compromised on how often she could.

We might as well follow the code of Hammurabi as well.

Fact is the teachings of Jesus are not original or unique to him.

whatiswanted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Fact is the teachings of Jesus are not original or
> unique to him.

That's a fact that I've been attempting to communicate for
decades, both in and out of the pulpit -- but most people
do not care to hear such things.

What may have been unique about the very first Jesus followers
is how they sorted through longstanding traditions, and chose
to honor and practice them in a demanding social context.

Take the advice of "turning the other cheek," for example.

Two thousand years ago, in Palestine, if a boss or authority
figure slapped you in the face, he most likely would have
used the back of his hand.

Inviting a second slap, on the opposite side of the face
put that assailant in an embarrassing position. If, in anger
he followed through with a second slap, and used the palm
of his hand, he was tacitly admitting a family relationship
(or a close fraternal relationship). If he backed away and
resisted the urge of a second slap, it might lower his
claim to authority or greater righteousness.

This sort of subtle passive residence would have been unusual
in that part of the world 2000 years ago -- a tactic that a
modern Gandhi (or an ancient Diogenes) might have admired.

UD

didn't you guys get the memo?

clearly Carrier isn't a real scholar as scholars are in agreement that Jesus was a real boy

only uneducated hicks believe otherwise

Carrier is one of two scholars to hold that Jesus is myth,but his view is not accepted by the vast majority. His views are very unconventional and other scholars are not convinced. He is considered something of a.maverick

He says the same thing about himself. Yet, he adds that as he argues his position, that may change. He states WHY he disagrees with the commonly held, and he takes the arguments of his critics (including Ehrman) very seriously. he addresses them in his recent lectures, and in his new book. He was kind enough to allow me a copy.

I have read Ehrman, Hoffman, Price, and Carrier. I am impressed that there is a considerable case to be made for the mythicist position.

I have read Hoffman's blog. He is throws out ad hominid attacks, and is as vitriolic as any new atheist I have read (this includes them all).

There are times when consensus is wrong. It seems more and more likely that in Christian History that it, indeed, is.

HH =)

I've listened to Carrier before. Like others though, I think we have too little evidence to know if there was a literal man on which the mythology is based, and it doesn't really matter. If there were an actual person, his story has been distorted beyond recognition anyway. Wherever the myth originated, we can draw some good from it because it is revolutionary in ways and represents a unique package of cultural progress. There are lots of these "packages" to open, though. Buddhism, Confucianism etc... I just pick through them for things I find relevant instead of "taking them for gospel."

There's no proof any god exists, much less a Son of God who saved humans from death and a hell that hasn't been proved to exist either. Some radical rabbi? Sure, totally possible. But a deity in disguise? Nah.

A peaceful messianic movement during the time period of Jesus had about as much of a chance as a "We love Hitler Fan Club" in Auschwitz.

The Dead Sea Scrolls gave no indication of such a movement nor any other historical evidence of a pacifistic messianic movement.

Many people do not realize it was a war between the Jews and Romans at the time and it was bankrupting the Roman empire dealing with the Jews and it was not because the Messianic movement was about "Love your enemy and turn the other cheek"

People need to go back and read the books of Romans and Titus from the begging and read how they are all about submitting to those who rule over you. Pure propaganda

Topping for more discussion?

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/the-passion-of-the-christ-deniers/

Here is an article from The New Oxonian discussing the problems of the mythicists.Some of you might find it interesting.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/th
> e-passion-of-the-christ-deniers/
>
> Here is an article from The New Oxonian discussing
> the problems of the mythicists.Some of you might
> find it interesting.


There was one sentence there that jumped out at me:

>The mythtics don’t want history, they want a victory.
>They don’t want serious discussion or best interpretation,
>they want to score points...

I generally avoid casting such a wide net in stereotyping
people. But I will agree that folks who get a winner's
twinkle in their eyes, talking about bogus "myths,"
generally are more interested in evangelizing their beliefs
than they are in discovering facts. It is a look that I
saw more than once, while teaching English as a second
language to my Muslim students from the Middle East:

"So, Mr. Broadhurst, you concede that Jesus Christ is only
a wide-spread myth, concocted by the infidels!"

"Yes -- I concede: I also concede that I have a greater
respect for ancient myths than I do for modern Islam..."

(End of those sorts of discussions, then and there.)

UD

I think he made a good point. That is exactly what the mythicists for the most part want. I am sure there are exceptions, but it is important validation for many to believe there was no Jesus and they are not , for the most part, interested in the other side of the issue.Most of them are not all that familiar with the history of the period, the lack of sources for many other people and things of the time, the number of writings that have disappeared or with the methods historians use to determine what is true and what is not and they have little interest in learning about it. It is frustrating, but they aren't going to change.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...they have little interest in learning about it.
> It is frustrating, but they aren't going to change.

As I recall, my Freshman year in High School was the last
year that the local school board required Latin classes in
public education. I at least had to make the attempt of
pretending to be interested in Caesar and Virgil.

My great great-grandfather, living in England, still had
to read Aristotle and Homer -- or at least pretend to have
an interest in ancient Greek.

But the days of learning "dead languages" are now dead
themselves. Nobody is interested and studying the ancient
texts -- not even in vernacular English translations.

"There was never a Jesus!" Is the sort of statement I'd
not expect to hear from a person who seriously concludes
in his own mind, that there never was a Socrates or a Homer.
It is more the sort of statement I'd expect to hear from
the person at the family breakfast table who refuses to
touch her cereal bowl, because it isn't filled with Trix.

UD

argumentum ad hominem

Whatever, he made some good points and was right on about some of them

grubbygert nli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> argumentum ad hominem


"Gallia in tres partes divisa est..."

UD

I majored in Latin and took some classical Greek.I may be weird but I loved it. There are people who still study it and some high schools teach Latin.So do a couple of private elementary schools

If Jesus never existed, who got Mary pregnant? I'll bet Joseph will be ticked off if he finds out Mary conned him.

Thanks!

I think I posted this or a similar video.

I enjoy his stuff.