Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[jimhabegger]

Jesus was (according to Paul) .... just as Bart Ehrman says .... "exalted" .... the SAME as the other Jewish apocalyptic heroes.

Were people saved from death by calling them "lord," and believing that they were exalted?

[Minimalist]

One of my questions was, why does the Jesus in the gospels look more Jewish than the Jesus in the letters of Paul? I was forgetting about the letter to the Hebrews, which puts Jesus in the role of a high priest.

One possible answer that I've thought of to my question is that when Paul was writing, there might have been a lot more hostility towards Jews than when the gospels were written, so in his letters to other people besides Jews he might have wanted to remove the Jewish context, and give it an anti-Jewish flavor, as much as possible. "All things to all people." Maybe when the gospels were written, there was less hostility towards Jews, and adding more Jewish background to the story might have been a way to make it seem more real.

Actually, the church "traditionally" ascribes Hebrews to this paul character but the word "Traditionally" is derived from the Latin word meaning "fucking made up bullshit."  

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent...he_Hebrews

The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the books in the New Testament. Though traditionally credited to the Apostle Paul, the letter is anonymous and most modern scholars, both conservative and critical, believe its author was not Paul himself but a member of the later Pauline Christian community.

Any time the church cites tradition it is probably best to take whatever they are saying and toss it in the shitter.

[Cavebear]

Wow, do you misunderstand!  First, I'm just a poster. 

Ah..... I thought you to be a boss here......  my mistake.  Sorry.

I'm probably not even especially liked sometimes.  Second, yes, I detest theists of any kind.  But that is my personal view.  Third, I am here for rational discussions free of theistic nonsense.

So you wouldn't or couldn't sit at a table with a New Age Druid to find out about that person's ideas, or, say, a Quaker? 
If that's true then you're never going to make any difference, ever, methinks.
I would take food or drink with anybody until their spitting hatred caused my to leave. And how about you?

 

The fewer theists here, the happier I am.  Fourth, I will debate some few theistic issues, mostly when they offend logic.  I will debate general ideas like "a deity created the universe, earth, and human ethics".  But I won't bother with fine details of superstitious worship practices. Or, at least I try not to.  That is sort of like debating which end of a hard-boiled egg to open...

Oh yes?  So you would debate the idea of a "a deity created the universe, earth, and human ethics"...would you? And which side of that debate would you imagine that I would be on?   You've obviously never figured out what 'friendly fire' is.

Your particular religious views are yours to believe utterly, engage in socially, or dread into your deathbed fearing Hell.  Believe what you want; that's not my concern.

Well, obviously it is your concern because you tell that you 'detest theists of any kind' so you're not going to be much use at causing any of them to consider, review their ideas.

But yes,  I would appreciate it if theists didn't clutter up the posts with their drivel...

You came to an HJ thread!!....in an 'Atheism/Theism' section.......  and you don't much like theist's viewpoints?  
OK........ let's see if you can find one post from this section full of theistic drivel that messed up your day so badly....show one. 

You begin to look like one of those folks who start screaming and shouting if a passing kid calls out 'merry christmas' to you.

To add, I suspect that most Historical Jesus "scholars" are utter and desperate theists.

Ha ha!   Tell Carrier that, or Crosson, or Vermes, or most of them! You haven't got the first clue about the average HJ researcher's beliefs, is mu guess. Of course there are Christian researchers but they give themselves away in their first paragraphs, I find.

By busting off communication with people that you disagree with, then that's just......... sad.

............

Nope, I'm just another poster. I might think I influence some discussions, but that is for others to decide.

I don't have to sit at a table with any theist to understand their views. I read about various ones frequently. I actually do understand their views as I am rather analytical and can get at their views. I just consider all of them to be nonsense. They all have a basic superstition in common. The differences between all theisms are relatively minor.

I would share a pizza and a pitcher of drink with anyone, so long as they don't get all religious at me.

If you were engaged in "friendly fire", then you would be promoting religious claims only as a rhetorical debate. I don't think you are doing that. It seems clear you are a theist. If you want to state, outright, that you don't have a belief in any sort of deity, feel free to say so. Bet you won't...

I am not here to "convert" theists to atheism (unlike theists who come here to do the opposite). My desire here is to discuss general world events among other atheists, free of religious claptrap.

"You came to an HJ thread!!....in an 'Atheism/Theism' section.......  and you don't much like theist's viewpoints?  
OK........ let's see if you can find one post from this section full of theistic drivel that messed up your day so badly....show one. 

I post infrequently in the HJ thread only because the supporters of HJ research claim they are not doing it for religious reasons and it is so obvious that they are. It is like someone who only watches the local sports teams but claims, "well I just love to watch sports". It is so obvious there is a focus there. LOL!

And "Merry Christmas" to you if that is your thing. May Santa visit this year and deliver that one thing you always wanted and never got. I send out holiday cards each Winter Solstice. Solstice is actually "the reason for the season". In older times, when the daylight starting slowly increasing again, it was a time for joy. Warmth and food would come again. People would stop freezing in many places, animals would return, fewer people would starve, and it woul;d become gradually easier to move around outside in a few moons.

The Christians especially worked to take over more ancient holidays (probably not knowing the cause for them. Christmas is one of them. Is there a place in the bible that mentions the birth day of their Jesus? And that'ds not the only ancient celebration they took over on no basis. I'll leave that to you to find.

I'll leave the defense of HJ researchers with a positive view to the likelihood of one to you as I pay no attention to them myself. Can you name one that is not a theist?

Cavebear

[Cavebear]

How can anyone promote "eternal torture"?

I might have made a mistake there, including eternal torture in Paul's religion. He might not have ever said that.

I found this site which certainly seems to be actual and very religious.

A few quotes from it...

1.  "The first thing to note about Paul’s teaching on the fate of the wicked is that he says that these people are condemned and will suffer God’s wrath. 2 Thessalonians 2:12 says that “all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” Notice that Paul says that those who are condemned are those who do not believe the truth".

2.  "Paul continues his teaching of hell when he says in Romans 2:9, “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil.” Clearly, the afterlife is in view since, in our current world, those who do evil don’t always experience trouble and distress. The righteous are typically persecuted and go through tribulation (tribulation means trouble). Paul is teaching that those who reject God and do evil will experience trouble and distress in the next life."  The underline is mine for emphasis.

3.  "2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 is one of the most important passages about Paul’s teaching on hell. These verses say, “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction". Everlasting destruction sounds pretty much like Hell. If you want to compare versions of Hell, I am full-willing.

It goes on, but those are good examples...

[jimhabegger]

Here's an update on my thinking about how the gospels might have been written.

A man that I'll call "Frank" was crucified outside of Jerusalem some time during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate. Before he was crucified, he was promoting a virtual kingdom that people could enter by recognizing and accepting him as their lord, meaning that they were filled with a desire to serve and obey him. Some of his followers thought that he was a promised king of Israel, and he approved of that. He gave public talks and private lessons, using parables sometimes, including parables with himself as one of the characters. He was famous for a while, mostly or maybe only as a faith healer. In his public talks, there was nothing in his wisdom sayings that people hadn't heard before. The only thing that surprised people about his talks was his attitude. His sayings and parables, including parables about him, which he repeated many times, became popular, first with a small band of devoted followers, then with a continually growing number of their followers.

A few years later, maybe five or ten, a man that I'll call "Ernest," who was persecuting some of Frank's followers, had a vision of a person that he thought was Frank, and created a new religion, in which people think which later evolved into people thinking that they can go to heaven, escape from burning in hell forever, and/or live forever, if and only if they believe that Frank died to save us from our sins, and was resurrected. Some or all of the ideas about why and how Frank died and was resurrected might have come from stories that were popular at the time, about dying and rising gods.

Many years later, maybe as much as 90 years, the gospels were written by different authors, each promoting their own ideas for their own purposes, making up stories about Frank, calling him something like "Eeaysoos" or maybe "Eeay"and using some of his sayings that were still circulating among his followers, and some of his parables including the ones about him, which some people have thought are about what he actually did and what actually happened to him and around him.

The only reason that I've seen for thinking that my story is unlikely is that it would be impossible for those sayings and stories to continue circulating and being associated with that person's name from his time until the time that the gospels were first written. Does anyone have any other reasons for thinking that my story is very unlikely?

[Bucky Ball]

Jesus was (according to Paul) .... just as Bart Ehrman says .... "exalted" .... the SAME as the other Jewish apocalyptic heroes.

Were people saved from death by calling them "lord," and believing that they were exalted?

Was anyone saved from death by thinking that Jesus was an apocalyptic hero ?

[Cavebear]

The only reason that I've seen for thinking that my story is unlikely is that it would be impossible for those sayings and stories to continue circulating and being associated with that person's name from his time until the time that the gospels were first written. Does anyone have any other reasons for thinking that my story is very unlikely?
[/quote]

Incorrect/inaccurate ideas last a long time...

There are still flat-earthers.

There are still anti-evolutionists.

There are still cultists who think the world will end "next month". After saying the same the year before and the year before that.

There are people on the city sidewalks talking to God.

There are people talking to God at home at night and in fancy buildings dedicated to their prayers.

There are people who are certain aliens created our civilizations.

There are people who are certain that aliens created us.

There are people who believe humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

Need I go on?

Is that enough?

[jimhabegger]

Jesus was (according to Paul) .... just as Bart Ehrman says .... "exalted" .... the SAME as the other Jewish apocalyptic heroes.

Were people saved from death by calling them "lord," and believing that they were exalted?

Was anyone saved from death by thinking that Jesus was an apocalyptic hero ?

My question was in relation to where authors of the gospels got their ideas. What I meant was, was there anything in any stories about those other heroes about people being saved from death by calling them "lord" and believing that they died and were exalted, for that purpose?

Also, asking me where did the wisdom sayings in Proverbs come from doesn't answer my question, where do you think the sayings in the gospels came from, unless you think they came from the wherever the sayings in the Proverbs came from. If so, where do you think those came from?

(later) Sorry, I think I created some confusion. You were talking about the Jewishness of Paul's Jesus, and my question really had little or nothing to do with what you were saying. I agree that some of what Paul says about Jesus might have been well grounded in some of the Judaism of his time. The part that does not look Jewish to me is where he says that a person can come back and live forever some day, after they die, if and only if they call Jesus "lord," and believe that he died and was raised up for that purpose.

[Cavebear]

Jesus was (according to Paul) .... just as Bart Ehrman says .... "exalted" .... the SAME as the other Jewish apocalyptic heroes.

Were people saved from death by calling them "lord," and believing that they were exalted?

Was anyone saved from death by thinking that Jesus was an apocalyptic hero ?

My question was in relation to where authors of the gospels got their ideas. What I meant was, was there anything in any stories about those other heroes about people being saved from death by calling them "lord" and believing that they died and were exalted, for that purpose?

Also, asking me where did the wisdom sayings in Proverbs come from doesn't answer my question, where do you think the sayings in the gospels came from, unless you think they came from the wherever the sayings in the Proverbs came from. If so, where do you think those came from?

Well, coming from a long history of possible Messiahs the Judeans were primed for one at any time. Not unlike Protestant cults whom they share many basic hopes with. That there never was one didn't/doesn't matter, it is/was always "tomorrow".

The sayings in the gospels always came from previous cultural human wisdom/experience. It doesn't require a deity to tell you that it doesn't work in a tribe to covet a neighbor's wife or steal from him, or to respect the experience of your elders. I mean, if you lived to 30, you "knew stuff". The arbitrary religious stuff like "honor some day of the week" was all just weird rules to get others to follow you and give you food for no reason.

People need a day off from work. But there is no particular reason it should be Sunday or Saturday and not Wednesday. Well, except Wednesday is annoying to spell...

But "heroes"? That is an unlikely term for people who aren't really documented. There are "heroes" in many cultures that are non-religious. Hercules, Ulysses, Theseus... And they are equally not documented either. Just that being written about doesn't make them true people.

[eider]

Nope, I'm just another poster.  I might think I influence some discussions, but that is for others to decide.

I don't have to sit at a table with any theist to understand their views.  I read about various ones frequently.  I actually do understand their views as I am rather analytical and can get at their views.  I just consider all of them to be nonsense.  They all have a basic superstition in common.  The differences between all theisms are relatively minor.

There are thousands of differing churches and creeds in Christianity (so I've heard...I know about ten) and they mostly think that their opinions differ considerably. They seem like nonsense to me but I'll bet that your ideas about the world and life in general could be a bit dodgy as well.  I would need to read your posts more often, but I would sit and listen to you in a cafe, for sure.

I would share a pizza and a pitcher of drink with anyone, so long as they don't get all religious at me.

I can listen to and acknowledge anybody's beliefs, I think that's important. I only get impatient if they want to sell it all to me.

If you were engaged in "friendly fire", then you would be promoting religious claims only as a rhetorical debate.  I don't think you are doing that.  It seems clear you are a theist.  If you want to state, outright, that you don't have a belief in any sort of deity, feel free to say so.  Bet you won't...

I'm a Deist which is the antithesis of being a theist. 
Deists are non-theists ....they do not believe in an aware, interested, involved God of any kind. The idea that a God of everything selected this planet out of trillions and took interest in a recently evolved species is.... daft.

Calling me a theist is a bit like me calling you a secret follower of Islam or something. If you don't like that then don't do it me.

I am not here to "convert" theists to atheism (unlike theists who come here to do the opposite).  My desire here is to discuss general world events among other atheists, free of religious claptrap.

...So you come to threads like 'Historic Jesus' eh?  You really should think carefully before you write, eh?

Here's an idea.......  The Christian forums that I know have many 'Christians only' sections within them. Maybe there could be an 'Atheists only' section for you to just discuss world events and stuff with other atheists? 
Good luck with that.   

I post infrequently in the HJ thread only because the supporters of HJ research claim they are not doing it for religious reasons and it is so obvious that they are.  It is like someone who only watches the local sports teams but claims, "well I just love to watch sports".  It is so obvious there is a focus there.  LOL!

Yeah yeah..... all historians are secret Christians, or Communists, or Nazis........   etc etc......  and you can tell em all.  I've heard all that bulldust in so many ways, so many undertakings, all my life. 
You are deceiving yourself if you think you can tell what folks are thinking. Why not just read what they write?

And "Merry Christmas" to you if that is your thing.  May Santa visit this year and deliver that one thing you always wanted and never got.  I send out holiday cards each Winter Solstice.  Solstice is actually "the reason for the season".  In older times, when the daylight starting slowly increasing again, it was a time for joy.  Warmth and food would come again. People would stop freezing in many places, animals would return, fewer people would starve, and it woul;d become gradually easier to move around outside in a few moons.

I live vin the UK and our Xmas here is riddled with ancient ways, customs and knowledge. You're preaching ( ) to the converted about this. 

The Christians especially worked to take over more ancient holidays (probably not knowing the cause for them.  Christmas is one of them.  Is there a place in the bible that mentions the birth day of their Jesus?  And that'ds not the only ancient celebration they took over on no basis.  I'll leave that to you to find.

Christianity reversed itself in to the very fabric of each, every and any community.   
And you just figured that out?

I'll leave the defense of HJ researchers with a positive view to the likelihood of one to you as I pay no attention to them myself.  Can you name one that is not a theist?

Cavebear

Just one?  Only one....out of scores of 'em?
Ummmm........  Carrier.
Happy?

[jimhabegger]

Minimalist, Bucky Ball, I thought that you were insisting, as a proven fact or at least very likely, that nothing or almost nothing in the gospels about what their Jesus says and does was taken from stories about a real person who was crucified during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate and who had some followers who thought he was a promised Messiah, but I'm thinking that maybe I misunderstood. Is that what you really think, or not?

[eider]

Yabbut, you are here in our club. You're just having a hard time conveying your views in a way that lets people see what you see. Or, they see it and don't think it's real. Or whatever reason - people don't agree.

Yep....fair enough.
I wandered on to your forum, looked about, and saw a section about HJ..... I've studied HJ for decades and so I thought I should join up.  There was a chance that some historians who are atheists could be posting in that section, is all.  I still learn about HJ, sometimes the tiniest details can spring out of a post, so I look about. 

Me - I don't care. Deism looks a lot better than a lot of other religions.  Or, is Deism even a religion?

Deism is not a religion, it's an idea. As far as I know we are individuals and the only common idea amongst us is that there is no god or diety that has any interest or awareness or involvement with mankind or anything else, at all. 
I don't know another deist in life....nobody I know is a deist. Where I live most folks are agnostics who sometimes go to church weddings, baptisms and funerals, but they use churches as meeting places. If they're scared stiff then they might say things like 'Oh God!' but that's a kind of rhetoric.

Before Covid I used to cycle distances on Sunday mornings and I would often stop at country churches to rest because their porches are usually unlocked here.  You can still sleep for a night in some porches. The biggest 8am service congregation that I have seen in years was 7 elderly folks ........  Christianity is dying here so fast...... I don't know a Christian in this road, although there is one Buddhist and one Muslim...that's it.

What you are describing is what I consider the amazing evolution of life on this planet. No gods needed.

Yes, agreed. 
The only idea that makes me a deist rather than an atheist is that I think that everything, every force and anything else is all part of a whole, and since I have no idea about how big that all is, probably vast, ...this universe might be tiny by comparison, then that's me.

[eider]

How old are you, 12?

What would you think of me if I would be 12? 

How old are you? 
Come on........ tell me about you, please.

[Cavebear]

Nope, I'm just another poster.  I might think I influence some discussions, but that is for others to decide.

I don't have to sit at a table with any theist to understand their views.  I read about various ones frequently.  I actually do understand their views as I am rather analytical and can get at their views.  I just consider all of them to be nonsense.  They all have a basic superstition in common.  The differences between all theisms are relatively minor.

There are thousands of differing churches and creeds in Christianity (so I've heard...I know about ten) and they mostly think that their opinions differ considerably. They seem like nonsense to me but I'll bet that your ideas about the world and life in general could be a bit dodgy as well.  I would need to read your posts more often, but I would sit and listen to you in a cafe, for sure.

I would share a pizza and a pitcher of drink with anyone, so long as they don't get all religious at me.

I can listen to and acknowledge anybody's beliefs, I think that's important. I only get impatient if they want to sell it all to me.

If you were engaged in "friendly fire", then you would be promoting religious claims only as a rhetorical debate.  I don't think you are doing that.  It seems clear you are a theist.  If you want to state, outright, that you don't have a belief in any sort of deity, feel free to say so.  Bet you won't...

I'm a Deist which is the antithesis of being a theist. 
Deists are non-theists ....they do not believe in an aware, interested, involved God of any kind. The idea that a God of everything selected this planet out of trillions and took interest in a recently evolved species is.... daft.

Calling me a theist is a bit like me calling you a secret follower of Islam or something. If you don't like that then don't do it me.

I am not here to "convert" theists to atheism (unlike theists who come here to do the opposite).  My desire here is to discuss general world events among other atheists, free of religious claptrap.

...So you come to threads like 'Historic Jesus' eh?  You really should think carefully before you write, eh?

Here's an idea.......  The Christian forums that I know have many 'Christians only' sections within them. Maybe there could be an 'Atheists only' section for you to just discuss world events and stuff with other atheists? 
Good luck with that.   

I post infrequently in the HJ thread only because the supporters of HJ research claim they are not doing it for religious reasons and it is so obvious that they are.  It is like someone who only watches the local sports teams but claims, "well I just love to watch sports".  It is so obvious there is a focus there.  LOL!

Yeah yeah..... all historians are secret Christians, or Communists, or Nazis........   etc etc......  and you can tell em all.  I've heard all that bulldust in so many ways, so many undertakings, all my life. 
You are deceiving yourself if you think you can tell what folks are thinking. Why not just read what they write?

And "Merry Christmas" to you if that is your thing.  May Santa visit this year and deliver that one thing you always wanted and never got.  I send out holiday cards each Winter Solstice.  Solstice is actually "the reason for the season".  In older times, when the daylight starting slowly increasing again, it was a time for joy.  Warmth and food would come again. People would stop freezing in many places, animals would return, fewer people would starve, and it woul;d become gradually easier to move around outside in a few moons.

I live vin the UK and our Xmas here is riddled with ancient ways, customs and knowledge. You're preaching ( ) to the converted about this. 

The Christians especially worked to take over more ancient holidays (probably not knowing the cause for them.  Christmas is one of them.  Is there a place in the bible that mentions the birth day of their Jesus?  And that'ds not the only ancient celebration they took over on no basis.  I'll leave that to you to find.

Christianity reversed itself in to the very fabric of each, every and any community.   
And you just figured that out?

I'll leave the defense of HJ researchers with a positive view to the likelihood of one to you as I pay no attention to them myself.  Can you name one that is not a theist?

Cavebear

Just one?  Only one....out of scores of 'em?
Ummmm........  Carrier.
Happy?

Wow, so much you just don't comprehend.  I hardly know where to start.  But I love discussion, so here we go...

It seems like every street corner here has a small Protestant church on it.  Nothing much, just a small building that can hold a few idiots at a time.  They are usually named something along the lines of "Jesus We Meet You Tomorrow" or "Be Saved By Jesus Here".  I mostly just laugh at the empty small parking lot.  My guess is that the preacher grifts enough money from a half-dozen suckers to buy fast food across the street.  Well, beats having an honest job for some people.

My views on nearly everything are not very dodgy.  I'm pretty straight-forward about them.  I'm honest about politics, social issues, personal life, etc.  Can't say the same about you though.

Deist is not the antithesis of being a theist.  You actually can't see that "deism is a theism"?  I mean, maybe there is no popular religious movement or book about it, but it requires a belief in a deity to have started everything.  Atheists don't believe in any deity. It doesn't really matter if a deity is vague or specific.  I'll agree with "daft" though.

I have yet to meet an HJ researcher who wasn't essentially a theist.

The author "Carrier" huh?  Carrier contrasts the most credible reconstruction of a historical Jesus with the most credible theory of Christian origins if a historical Jesus did not exist. Such a theory would posit that the Jesus figure was originally conceived of as a celestial being [my bolds for emphasis] known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture; then stories placing this being in earth history were crafted to communicate the claims of the gospel allegorically..."

In other words a carefully-written defense of the existence of a religious HJ.  I laugh at such poor deception and illogic.

Calling you a theist is accurate.  Calling me a "secret follower of Islam or something" is nearly too laughable to be taken seriously.  It's like calling a bald guy "hairy".  

"Maybe there could be an 'Atheists only' section for you".  It's an atheist discussion forum.  You types really crack me up sometimes.   Maybe you could read the title page.  I know, I know. "everyone is welcome".  But seriously, it is (I hope) mostly intended for atheists.  Hence the title?

You say you are not a theist.  So type this sentence in and claim it for your own...

"I am not a theist.  There isn't and never was a deity of any sort in the universe at any time".  I'll print that out and post it on my computer wall, to remind you of that, LOL!

"Christianity reversed itself in to the very fabric of each, every and any community.   
And you just figured that out?"

Do you realize how silly that statement is?  First, Christianity (and I don't care about Christianity any more than other religions) has changed its beliefs many times.  Second,  what on Earth do you mean by "the very fabric of each, every and any community"?

I'll leave you with that...

[Dom]

The only idea that makes me a deist rather than an atheist is that I think that everything, every force and anything else is all part of a whole, and since I have no idea about how big that all is, probably vast, ...this universe might be tiny by comparison, then that's me.

For all we know our universe is a large being and we are but little bacteria living in his/her intestines and admiring the flora there. What I am trying to say is that we may be even tinier and more insignificant than we think. 

That still doesn't mean that there is a god involved. Since no one has ever seen a god or a gigantic being or anything of the sort, such an entity will always be a construct of our minds. Which means we can attach any attributes we like to it. No one can prove otherwise. That allows our imagination to go rampant.

You are right, everything is a part of a whole, and once you dig deep into how all the organisms we can see function and interact, you are left in awe by the fine tuning of everything.

That is, though, the result of life forms adapting to environment, vast amounts of time passing while evolution worked on more and more fine tuning. There is good reason for every single little atom working the way it does. Nowhere, when following all that development and fine tuning, do we encounter a place where a god would be needed. Every step along the way leads to the next one. 

So, whether you insert a god is up to your imagination and nothing else. I don't see any reason to do so.

[Minimalist]

Minimalist, Bucky Ball, I thought that you were insisting, as a proven fact or at least very likely, that nothing or almost nothing in the gospels about what their Jesus says and does was taken from stories about a real person who was crucified during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate and who had some followers who thought he was a promised Messiah, but I'm thinking that maybe I misunderstood. Is that what you really think, or not?

I would agree with that. 

With the added understanding that "jesus" was a later invention who was back-dated to the first third of the first century.  The particular sect that invented all of this "virgin-birth," "phony census," "free a prisoner on Passover," shit and so on seems to have done so in the 2d century.


I have posted this quote from Ehrman's "Jesus Before The Gospels" elsewhere but it bears repeating.  Even if true ( which it isn't) there is a long gap between the supposed events and the time they were written down.  Even if true what was going on during that gap?

It was just a few years ago that I came to realize that the study of memory, as pursued by scholars who did not work on the New Testament, could provide some valuable and keen insights into such matters. These other scholars work in a number of disciplines well represented in the academy, such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Their insights may be especially relevant to understanding how the earliest Christians told and retold the stories about Jesus after his death but before the Gospels were written. This was a mysterious period of oral transmission, when stories were circulating, both among eyewitnesses and, even more, among those who knew someone whose cousin had a neighbor who had once talked with a business associate whose mother had, just fifteen years earlier, spoken with an eyewitness who told her some things about Jesus.

How were such people—those people at the tail end of the period of transmission—telling their stories about Jesus? Did they remember very well what they had heard from others (who had heard from others who had heard from others)? Were the stories they told accurate reflections of what they heard? Or, more remotely, of what Jesus said and did? Or had their stories been molded, and shaped, or even invented in the processes of telling, remembering, and retelling the stories? During the forty to sixty-five years between Jesus’s death and the first accounts of his life, how much had the stories been changed? How much was being accurately remembered?

A few paragraphs later Ehrman reminds the HJ crowd:

When it comes to Jesus, all we have are memories. There are no lifelike portraits from his day, no stenographic notes recorded on the spot, no accounts of his activities written at the time. Only memories of his life, of what he said and did. Memories written after the fact. Long after the fact. Memories written by people who were not actually there to observe him.

Critical scholars have long argued that the surviving records of Jesus—the Gospels—are not memories recorded by those who were eyewitnesses.1They are memories of later authors who had heard about Jesus from others, who were telling what they had heard from others, who were telling what they had heard from yet others. They are memories of memories of memories.

So really Jim, if you want to write "The Gospel According to Jim" it seems to me that you are as free as the original creators of the godboy to invent whatever you like.  You can make your "jesus" the guy who swept up camel shit from the caravans that entered the city (probably a more useful service than being some Galilean peasant!).  In that you would simply add one more HJ to the list of HJs which Crossan called "an academic embarrassment" but I would not deny your right to do so.  Have at it, sir!

[jimhabegger]

One reason that I've seen for saying that my story about the gospels is very unlikely, is thinking that it's very unlikely that memories of a person's sayings during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate could have continued to circulate as the sayings of one person from then until the time when the gospels were first written. Another reason that I've seen is that the gospels were written by different authors promoting different ideologies. Does anyone have any other reasons besides those, for thinking that my story is very unlikely?

My latest version of my story is here.

It might also be helpful to read Cavebear's version of my story.

[Rhythmcs]

Here's an update on my thinking about how the gospels might have been written.

The only reason that I've seen for thinking that my story is unlikely is that it would be impossible for those sayings and stories to continue circulating and being associated with that person's name from his time until the time that the gospels were first written. Does anyone have any other reasons for thinking that my story is very unlikely?

Why would it be impossible for those sayings to stay in circulation and be given attributions when they came to him in the form of wisdom sayings in the first place?  If that's how "Frank" got the stuff..then, surely, "Luke" and "Matt" can get it From Frank (wink wink, nudge nudge) the same way at a later date.

Havamal was an oral tradition right up until snorri sturlson transcribed it (...or made it up....). There are also those who point out that just as magic book appears to be romanized, pagan myths and legends taken down by monks appear to be christianized.

[jimhabegger]

Why would it be impossible for those sayings to stay in circulation and be given attributions when they came to him in the form of wisdom sayings in the first place?  If that's how "Frank" got the stuff..then, surely, "Luke" and "Matt" can get it From Frank (wink wink, nudge nudge) the same way at a later date.

Havamal was an oral tradition right up until snorri sturlson transcribed it (...or made it up....).  There are also those who point out that just as magic book appears to be romanized, pagan myths and legends taken down by monks appear to be christianized.

I’m not thinking of Frank’s sayings being preserved by oral tradition.

To understand what I’m thinking, it might be helpful to think of Frank and his followers as one school among others, agreeing with each of them in some ways and disagreeing with them in some ways.

[Minimalist]

If you read Ehrman's book you'll see that the myth of infallible oral transmission has also been disproven by modern research.  There are still bards today who travel and tell stories and they tailor their versions to their audience.  No one knows because they had never been written down or recorded.

Even more interesting is this experiment.

On October 4, 1992, an El-Al Boeing 707 cargo plane that had just taken off from Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam lost power in two engines. The pilot tried to return to the airport but couldn’t make it. The plane crashed into an eleven-story apartment building in the Amsterdam suburb of Bijlmermeer. The four crew members and thirty-nine people in the building were killed. The crash was, understandably, the leading news story in the Netherlands for days.

Ten months later, in August 1993, Dutch psychology professor Hans Crombag and two colleagues gave a survey to 193 university professors, staff, and students in the country. Among the questions was the following: “Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building?” In their responses 107 of those surveyed (55 percent) said yes, they had seen the film. Sometime later the researchers gave a similar survey with the same question to 93 law school students. In this instance, 62 (66 percent) of the respondents indicated that they had seen the film. There was just one problem. There was no film.

These striking results obviously puzzled the researchers, in part because basic common sense should have told anyone that there could not have been a film. Remember, this is 1992, before cell phone cameras. The only way to have a film of the event would have been for a television camera crew to have trained a camera on this particular apartment building in a suburb of Amsterdam at this exact time, in expectation of an imminent crash. And yet, between half and two thirds of the people surveyed—most of them graduate students and professors—indicated they had seen the nonexistent film. Why would they think they had seen something that didn’t exist?

 


The moral of the story is quite clear.  Human memory is not to be trusted.

[airportkid]

The moral of the story is quite clear.  Human memory is not to be trusted.

I have a book called the Chronicle of the 20th Century, a fat coffee table tome published in the 90s, of every significant event from 1900 to the publish date.  I have personally experienced the last half of the 20th century, and vividly remember the Kennedy assassination, the Challenger explosion, the Moon landing, etc.

When in idle moments I browse the volume I am frequently shocked to discover that some event I remember actually occurred BEFORE (or AFTER) some other event I also remember by a space of YEARS!  While not the case, it's about equivalent to discovering Kennedy was assassinated AFTER the Moon landing, a 6 year differential in the wrong direction.

It's sad to reflect on how many people were convicted and imprisoned when human memory was believed to be THE gold standard for accuracy.  The needless tragedies we inflict on ourselves surely outnumber the "non-accidental" ones.

[eider]

For all we know our universe is a large being and we are but little bacteria living in his/her intestines and admiring the flora there. What I am trying to say is that we may be even tinier and more insignificant than we think. 

That still doesn't mean that there is a god involved. Since no one has ever seen a god or a gigantic being or anything of the sort, such an entity will always be a construct of our minds. Which means we can attach any attributes we like to it. No one can prove otherwise. That allows our imagination to go rampant.

You are right, everything is a part of a whole, and once you dig deep into how all the organisms we can see function and interact, you are left in awe by the fine tuning of everything.

That is, though, the result of life forms adapting to environment, vast amounts of time passing while evolution worked on more and more fine tuning. There is good reason for every single little atom working the way it does. Nowhere, when following all that development and fine tuning, do we encounter a place where a god would be needed. Every step along the way leads to the next one. 

So, whether you insert a god is up to your imagination and nothing else. I don't see any reason to do so.

I do like your idea of our universe being tiny, could even be an atom in some larger scale of physics, and even that could be so small.

I can agree with all the above, and don't perceive any god at any level in my imagination....... there is no thinking, aware or involved god in anything....... all I can perceive is that everything altogether makes some kind of wholeness...the only reason that I think of that wholeness as 'Oneness' is that I can just about perceive that all those atoms which make me at this time are part of that as well..... I don't know how, but that calms me.

There isn't anything more to my idea of Deism, it's just a sentence and there's nothing to sell, to control with, no scheme, no insidious pretences that I'm aware of.....

[eider]

Wow, so much you just don't comprehend.  I hardly know where to start.  But I love discussion, so here we go...

Lovely intro..........   I'm interested.

It seems like every street corner here has a small Protestant church on it.  Nothing much, just a small building that can hold a few idiots at a time.  They are usually named something along the lines of "Jesus We Meet You Tomorrow" or "Be Saved By Jesus Here".  I mostly just laugh at the empty small parking lot.  My guess is that the preacher grifts enough money from a half-dozen suckers to buy fast food across the street.  Well, beats having an honest job for some people.

YeaH? YOu can't be a Brit then, because I've never seen any church boards like that. 
Anyway...... go on......

My views on nearly everything are not very dodgy.  I'm pretty straight-forward about them.  I'm honest about politics, social issues, personal life, etc.  Can't say the same about you though.

So you're a straight-forward, honest, decent guy? ......  Bright? Strong Intelligence quotient?
And me, not so much?  
OK./...... go on......

Deist is not the antithesis of being a theist.  You actually can't see that "deism is a theism"?  I mean, maybe there is no popular religious movement or book about it, but it requires a belief in a deity to have started everything.  Atheists don't believe in any deity. It doesn't really matter if a deity is vague or specific.  I'll agree with "daft" though.

And so Deism is the same as Theism....?  Of course it is!  .......... for you, Cavebear.

I have yet to meet an HJ researcher who wasn't essentially a theist.

Well I never did.........  You've rubbed shoulders with Professors, Scholars and Graduates within the HJ debates......  I am so impressed.   

The author "Carrier" huh?  Carrier contrasts the most credible reconstruction of a historical Jesus with the most credible theory of Christian origins if a historical Jesus did not exist. Such a theory would posit that the Jesus figure was originally conceived of as a celestial being [my bolds for emphasis] known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture; then stories placing this being in earth history were crafted to communicate the claims of the gospel allegorically..."

In other words a carefully-written defense of the existence of a religious HJ.  I laugh at such poor deception and illogic.

Calling you a theist is accurate.

Brilliant!   You've finally caught him!   So Carrier isn't a screaming myther about the Jesus story but a secret insidious skulking....... Christian......   I like you more by the sentence, Cavebear.

By the way, all those 

 Calling me a "secret follower of Islam or something" is nearly too laughable to be taken seriously.  It's like calling a bald guy "hairy".  

I said 'If'.........  but you just carried on with your insults anyway.  But I like you, because you've initiated a whole new idea for me to look in to......... 

You say you are not a theist.  So type this sentence in and claim it for your own...

"I am not a theist.  There isn't and never was a deity of any sort in the universe at any time".  I'll print that out and post it on my computer wall, to remind you of that, LOL!

Do you realize how silly that statement is?  First, Christianity (and I don't care about Christianity any more than other religions) has changed its beliefs many times.  Second,  what on Earth do you mean by "the very fabric of each, every and any community"?

I'll leave you with that...

You've left me with so much.....too much, really.   
But what has emerged is a question about extremist views and event horizons, more of an impenetrable wall rather than a line in sand.

Extremists cannot cope with grey areas, margins of any kind between their views and their opposing views.   A possible analogy might be the event horizon of a black hole.   For example, anybody who believes in something where you don't , then they cannot possibly be reasonable, must be an idiot..... no margins for doubt there. That's over the event horizon.
An atheist like Carrier who makes the entire HJ account a myth, copied mostly from Paul's ideas....is still an Historical Jesus researcher, and that word 'Jesus' has to kick Carrier in to being a secret theist...... over the event horizon.
No grey areas for you, Cavebear.......  
Question:   Do you perceive yourself to be an extremist of any kind?  
I can be honest, Cavebear, and honestly, I think you are, rather........   

Oh boy..........   extremism and 'event horizons'....a new idea born out of a bunch of your insults.

[Inkubus]

Extremists cannot cope with grey areas, margins of any kind between their views and their opposing views.   A possible analogy might be the event horizon of a black hole.   For example, anybody who believes in something where you don't , then they cannot possibly be reasonable, must be an idiot..... no margins for doubt there. That's over the event horizon.
An atheist like Carrier who makes the entire HJ account a myth, copied mostly from Paul's ideas....is still an Historical Jesus researcher, and that word 'Jesus' has to kick Carrier in to being a secret theist...... over the event horizon.
No grey areas for you, Cavebear.......  
Question:   Do you perceive yourself to be an extremist of any kind?  
I can be honest, Cavebear, and honestly, I think you are, rather........   

Oh boy..........   extremism and 'event horizons'....a new idea born out of a bunch of your insults.

[jimhabegger]

I've listed two reasons that I've seen for thinking that my story about where the sayings in the gospels came from is very unlikely:
1. It's very unlikely that memories of a person's sayings during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate could have continued to circulate as the sayings of one person from then until the time when the gospels were first written.
2. The gospels were written by different authors promoting different ideologies.

I'm thinking of adding another one:
3. Similarities between some beliefs about Jesus and some other stories about dying and rising gods.

I'm not sure if that's anyone's reason for thinking that my story is very unlikely, but I've seen that sometimes in responses to my posts.

I'm interested in any other reasons that anyone can think of for thinking that my story is very unlikely.