Religion

[Octavian]

Paul never met Jesus nor did Mark Luke John etc etc. Paul had a vision...

In the desert, which was almost certainly dehydration inflicted.

 

[tonea2003]

You’ve just outed yourself here.

Paul’s Letters were written 20 years before the Gospels, so no, there wasn’t a “rockstar” status of the Gospels - why you keep using this word I don’t know - as they weren’t around.

With the confidence you reply on this subject, you should know that.

Paul likely relied on bit parts of scripture that had been penned way before the full gospels were put together to teach in his church and he very likely had only heard of Christians after the death of Jesus.

Christianity was only a few hundred people in the first few decades after Jesus’s death. This whole “rockstar” thing you keep saying doesn’t make any historical sense.

I’m an amateur secular scholar, I’m not making a case for the virgin birth or resurrection. I’m pulling you up on inconsistencies because you’re wrong and giving agnostic/atheism arguments against Christianity a bad name.

And again, no, not having contemporary writing in the ancient world isn’t a problem. Of course it’s a massive bonus if you get it but many historical figures were written about after the fact. The early Kings of England, detailed in the Anglo Saxon chronicle, were written about long after the first non Christian mentions of Jesus were. I’ve absolutely zero doubt they existed.

You’ve just outed yourself here.

Paul’s Letters were written 20 years before the Gospels, so no, there wasn’t a “rockstar” status of the Gospels - why you keep using this word I don’t know - as they weren’t around.

With the confidence you reply on this subject, you should know that.

Paul likely relied on bit parts of scripture that had been penned way before the full gospels were put together to teach in his church and he very likely had only heard of Christians after the death of Jesus.

Christianity was only a few hundred people in the first few decades after Jesus’s death. This whole “rockstar” thing you keep saying doesn’t make any historical sense.

I’m an amateur secular scholar, I’m not making a case for the virgin birth or resurrection. I’m pulling you up on inconsistencies because you’re wrong and giving agnostic/atheism arguments against Christianity a bad name.

And again, no, not having contemporary writing in the ancient world isn’t a problem. Of course it’s a massive bonus if you get it but many historical figures were written about after the fact. The early Kings of England, detailed in the Anglo Saxon chronicle, were written about long after the first non Christian mentions of Jesus were. I’ve absolutely zero doubt they existed.

bollocks i've outed myself' in your desperate attempt at one-upmanship

i know full well when pauls letters were written, the gospels paint a picture of man who does many miraculous deeds that would of been talked about by anyone and everyone
it is not unreasonable to think paul should of known of such a man, in his lifetime, if not only to discredit him as paul claimed the lord only came though him as per Galatians 1:16
you fail to acknowledge this as it would upset your status quo of Christianity

my use of rockstar is an analogy as you well should have known, to represent the status jesus should have held if indeed he was who you say he was
so again your attempt at a belittle has failed miserably

you are right the rockstar status doesn't make historical sense for the reason the gospels don't make much rational sense

please list the inconsistencies

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

... and john is way later

Just on this point, John Robinson in his book The Priority of John advanced an unusual theory about this gospel that is summarised here:

The Priority of John

My personal indebtedness to John Robinson is great. When I was a student at Cambridge I heard him lecture on the Fourth Gospel; and my own interest in John was largely kindled as a result of his teaching, just as it has been subsequently fostered by his personal influence and encouragement. So I...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Although I not especially invested in the outcome of any debate about whether Jesus actually existed and what kind of person he was, this territory does fascinate me, and I must get around to reading my copy of Robinson's publication at some point, as it is by far the most intriguing gospel.

That Maurice Casey book I referred to upthread is another one I also need to get stuck into, as it is apparently an incendiary work that specifically targets the arguments deployed by those who claim that Jesus is an entirely fictional/mythical invention.

A few years ago when I last looked into this, there were traces to be found online of an almighty spat between Casey and his critics. One example is this:

Critical Review of Maurice Casey’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus • Richard Carrier Blogs

So far only two contemporary books have been written in defense of the historicity of Jesus (nothing properly comparable has been published in almost a hundred years). They both suck. Which is annoying, because it should not be hard to write a good book in defense of historicity. And to be...

www.richardcarrier.info

Finally, Reza Aslan upset quite a few evangelicals when he wrote his fairly recent bestseller asserting that Jesus was aligned with the Zealot party (back then the Zealots were a terrorist group who wanted to expel the Romans from Judea by the use of force). Given that Aslan is a Muslim author, this didn't go down well with the barking mad fundamentalist constituency whose religious exclusivism makes them anti-Muslim.

 

[tonea2003]

In the desert, which was almost certainly dehydration inflicted.

so more than likely not a real vision an imagined one

 

[tonea2003]

Just on this point, John Robinson in his book The Priority of John advanced an unusual theory about this gospel that is summarised here:

The Priority of John

My personal indebtedness to John Robinson is great. When I was a student at Cambridge I heard him lecture on the Fourth Gospel; and my own interest in John was largely kindled as a result of his teaching, just as it has been subsequently fostered by his personal influence and encouragement. So I...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Although I not especially invested in the outcome of any debate about whether Jesus actually existed and what kind of person he was, this territory does fascinate me, and I must get around to reading my copy of Robinson's publication at some point, as it is by far the most intriguing gospel.

That Maurice Casey book I referred to upthread is another one I also need to get stuck into, as it is apparently an incendiary work that specifically targets the arguments deployed by those who claim that Jesus is an entirely fictional/mythical invention.

A few years ago when I last looked into this, there were traces to be found online of an almighty spat between Casey and his critics. One example is this:

Critical Review of Maurice Casey’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus • Richard Carrier Blogs

So far only two contemporary books have been written in defense of the historicity of Jesus (nothing properly comparable has been published in almost a hundred years). They both suck. Which is annoying, because it should not be hard to write a good book in defense of historicity. And to be...

www.richardcarrier.info

Finally, Reza Aslan upset quite a few evangelicals when he wrote his fairly recent bestseller asserting that Jesus was aligned with the Zealot party (back then the Zealots were a terrorist group who wanted to expel the Romans from Judea by the use of force). Given that Aslan is a Muslim author, this didn't go down well with the barking mad fundamentalist constituency whose religious exclusivism makes them anti-Muslim.

be careful mate you'll have octavian seething now you've dared to quote carrier

 

[Octavian]

so more than likely not a real vision an imagined one

Yes.

The point you’re missing is I’m not making a case for it being true. I just think it’s pretty conclusive that the figures mentioned in the Gospels at least mostly existed, specifically Jesus the man.

I think it’s disingenuous to our side of the debate to suggest he didn’t and does the debate no favours.

 

[Octavian]

be careful mate you'll have octavian seething now you've dared to quote carrier

That’s because a significant number of atheist scholars think he’s a charlatan.

 

[tonea2003]

Yes.

The point you’re missing is I’m not making a case for it being true. I just think it’s pretty conclusive that the figures mentioned in the Gospels at least mostly existed, specifically Jesus the man.

I think it’s disingenuous to our side of the debate to suggest he didn’t and does the debate no favours.

i'm not saying jesus the man didn't exist i never have, it is quite possible for a preacher/prophet call him whatever you will to be knocking around at that time, the name jesus was one of the most popular of its day so logic dictates a sage of some description was knocking about, what i am saying the man in the gospels and all his daring deeds is unlikely for the very reasons i have mentioned before.
you sort of agree by the fact you have said you are not making a case for a virgin birth or a resurrection, the basic tenets of Christianity
that is not an outlandish suggestion and i'm not sure why you are so put out by it

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

That’s because a significant number of atheist scholars think he’s a charlatan.

According to Casey himself, Carrier was awarded a Ph.D. at Columbia University for a dissertation entitled, ‘Attitudes Toward the Natural Philosopher in the Early Roman Empire (100 b.c. to 313 a.d.). He was also awarded an M. Phil. for a thesis on Herod the Great.

Have to say, Carrier’s prose in that review is stridently emotivist, though. It doesn’t do him any favours.

In the past, I have very much enjoyed reading books by Elaine Pagels and E.P. Sanders on the formative period of Christianity and I am not at all averse to liberal Christian scholarship when it comes to Biblical criticism. Hopefully, Casey will prove to be similarly inspirational when I finally get around to his publications.

 

[Fiftyyearsandcounting]

Yes.

The point you’re missing is I’m not making a case for it being true. I just think it’s pretty conclusive that the figures mentioned in the Gospels at least mostly existed, specifically Jesus the man.

I think it’s disingenuous to our side of the debate to suggest he didn’t and does the debate no favours.

Jesus "The Man" was born to a virgin "Who had not known Joseph" (in the biblical sense). Puzzled as to where Jesus got the male 23 chromosomes from.