Which does not mean it isn't true.
Jesus Myth Theory
- Thread starter N_igma
- Start date
Which does not mean it isn't true.
The Power Of Myth
“Mythology is not a lie, mythology is poetry, it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth--penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words. It is beyond words. Beyond images, beyond that bounding rim of the Buddhist Wheel of Becoming. Mythology pitches the mind beyond that rim, to what can be known but not told.”
"Straight up it
No foreplay"
“Mythology is not a lie, mythology is poetry, it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth--penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words. It is beyond words. Beyond images, beyond that bounding rim of the Buddhist Wheel of Becoming. Mythology pitches the mind beyond that rim, to what can be known but not told.”
"Straight up it
No foreplay"
CFY
As the great Rory saith, myth is a form of truth.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
There probably was a Nazareth but it was too small to even appear on a map. There are contemperaneous documents that simply refer to this figure as 'The Nazarene' because he was literally the only person who came from there that anyone had heard of.
I'm not sure your expectations of archeological evidence are realistic given the amount of time that has elapsed, the conditions at the time in the area and since etc (reminds me of Robert Tombs' stuff about hardly anyone being massacred during bloody week in the Paris Commune because he's done an exhaustive search and can only find records of deaths and burials for a couple of thousand so that's all it was - and that's not a good thing). Also, wouldn't the tomb only be empty if Jesus was the son of God risen again, which I don't think anyone here has claimed of him.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
I think I read somewhere that it may be a case of lost in translation and that it may be a reference to the word
Nazirite which means being bound by a vow to God. The Nazirites are mentioned a lot in the OT for example.
Yeh I accept your second point all right.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I don't pretend to be completely up to date with the historiography and debates surrounding this - most of what I know is taken from Reza Aslan's Zealot and for me at least he makes a persuasive case for there having been a nazareth at the time (there certainly was something there, some kind of settlement) and for the nazarene referring to Jesus of Nazareth.
If you're interested I found a pdf of it here
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Good point.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Israel Antiquities Authority
"An archaeological excavation the Israel Antiquities Authority recently conducted has revealed new information about ancient Nazareth from the time of Jesus. Remains of a dwelling that date to the Early Roman period were discovered for the first time in an excavation, which was carried out prior to the construction of the “International Marian Center of Nazareth” by the the Association Mary of Nazareth, next to the Church of the Annunciation."
Combustible
Well-Known Member
Jesus almost certainly didn't have a tomb empty or otherwise. Crucifixion victims were typically left on the cross for several days to be fed on by scavengers before being buried in unmarked pits. The earliest account of people encountering Jesus post death from Paul suggests people had visions of him, with the stuff about Jesus emerging from tomb only coming later in the gospels. In particular the later gospels embellish the story to emphasise that it was the physical flesh and blood body which came back to life.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Lots of people,like Jesus but I can't say I'm over keen. You're meant to believe he's God but there's nothing surprising there - just some pious woo that had already been done a million times.
Even his followers completely ignore him.
Oh yeah, the topic.
I think he was real.
Like Robin Hood.
Even his followers completely ignore him.
Oh yeah, the topic.
I think he was real.
Like Robin Hood.
ska invita
back on the other side
BUMP
Excellent lecture here, fact filled, peer-reviewed....includes some early christian and pre-chrisitan history which makes the case the jesus didnt exist at all very convincingly. the fact that there was already a Jesus that existed in Jewish angelography, and an angel in direct opposition to Satan at that, I found particularly interesting. Too much here to summarise at this time of the morning
tldw theres a sort of summary here, but its not a very good read, whilst the lecture is crystal clear
en.wikipedia.org
Excellent lecture here, fact filled, peer-reviewed....includes some early christian and pre-chrisitan history which makes the case the jesus didnt exist at all very convincingly. the fact that there was already a Jesus that existed in Jewish angelography, and an angel in direct opposition to Satan at that, I found particularly interesting. Too much here to summarise at this time of the morning
tldw theres a sort of summary here, but its not a very good read, whilst the lecture is crystal clear
Richard Carrier - Wikipedia
Last edited:
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
BUMP
Excellent lecture here, fact filled....includes some early christian and pre-chrisitan history which makes the case the jesus didnt exist at all very convincingly. the fact that there was already a Jesus that existed in Jewish angelography, and an angel in direct opposition to Satan at that, I found particularly interesting. Too much here to summarise at this time of the morning
tldw theres a summary here, but tis not a very good read, whilst the lecture is crystal clear
Richard Carrier - Wikipedia
Interesting
You are just getting up - so good morning
I'm off to bed
ska invita
back on the other side
woke up too earlyInteresting
You are just getting up - so good morning
I'm off to bed
goodnight!
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
BUMP
Excellent lecture here, fact filled, peer-reviewed....includes some early christian and pre-chrisitan history which makes the case the jesus didnt exist at all very convincingly. the fact that there was already a Jesus that existed in Jewish angelography, and an angel in direct opposition to Satan at that, I found particularly interesting. Too much here to summarise at this time of the morning
tldw theres a sort of summary here, but its not a very good read, whilst the lecture is crystal clear
Richard Carrier - Wikipedia
The Wikipedia article, which may have been rewritten since you posted, says that he isn't taken very seriously.
And here is Bart Erhman putting the boot into him.
Last edited:
ska invita
back on the other side
i'll check the link in due course but of course he is currently in a minority in academia, where through centuries of scholarship the gravity has been drawn to an existing jesus - it cant be denied that christian culture, including within universities, has had a sway on that formation of study.
He addresses why the consensus for a historic jesus exists and why the challenge to it is problematic in the Q&A section of the lecture. He suggests that so many of the sources of evidence are passed down in academia as fact and not considered and critiqued afresh - people assume meaning citing previous work without looking at it for themselves. He challenges his peers not to agree with the overall probable-conclusion he draws but on points of source reference, and suggests there is a reluctance from others to do so. I cant comment on that - ive no idea wether thats the case or not.
He also makes clear in the lecture from the start, and again at the end, that dealing with such scant and flawed evidence means you are left with probabilities rather than concrete conclusions. He is open to a historic Jesus existing, and puts the odds of that being at around 30%. Ultimately we will never know the truth as a certainty. I find his account here and other similiar ones more plausible....the too long timeline...the commonplace culture of rewriting...the comparable methods of religious formation of the period.....the pre christian lore...the echoing stories across the mediterranean etc etc...all seem to point to a future myth creation overlayed on an imagining of an earlier period, one that hangs on historically accurate events, precisely to give credibility.
ultimately my view of religion of this period isnt altered wether some very minor cult figure existed or not and is the source for future myth, the general trends and methods of religion at this time seem beyond dispute. i was mainly watching this to try and sleep tbh
but it failed
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
BUMP
Excellent lecture here, fact filled, peer-reviewed....includes some early christian and pre-chrisitan history which makes the case the jesus didnt exist at all very convincingly. the fact that there was already a Jesus that existed in Jewish angelography, and an angel in direct opposition to Satan at that, I found particularly interesting. Too much here to summarise at this time of the morning
tldw theres a sort of summary here, but its not a very good read, whilst the lecture is crystal clear
Richard Carrier - Wikipedia
I quite enjoyed that.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Is that much of his work actually peer reviewed? Can you cite examples? Most of the stuff I've read about him, during my in depth research on the DLR, so far suggests that it isn't.
Here is another academic peer having a go:
Richard Carrier is Displeased, Again - History for Atheists
Two years ago I wrote a detailed critique of Richard Carrier’s argument that Josephus does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth in Antiquities XX.200. Strangely, the normally hair-triggered Carrier has been slow to respond to my analysis. This did not go unnoticed by his fans, who repeatedly asked him...
historyforatheists.com
In addition there are allegations of predatory sleaziness.
Perhaps, he's just another charismatic preacher, who makes his money telling people what they hey want to believe.
Seems like a rather convenient figure to suddenly pop up.
'Richard' - meaning strong king, or strong in rule, like Jesus is himself a holy king. 'Carrier' - a messenger: who else is a messenger? An angel or a prophet are both messengers of God. A carrier pigeon in particular may bring to mind the Holy Spirit, often portrayed as a dove.
'Richard' - meaning strong king, or strong in rule, like Jesus is himself a holy king. 'Carrier' - a messenger: who else is a messenger? An angel or a prophet are both messengers of God. A carrier pigeon in particular may bring to mind the Holy Spirit, often portrayed as a dove.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
There were loads of guys in First Century Palestine called Jesus. It's like claiming there are no guys called Josh in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Last edited:
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Our Argentinean tech support team has guy called Jesus on it. Can verify that Jesus is a nice guy, but he has confirmed he is unable to convert mundane materials into recreational pharmaceuticals.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's all a load of auld shite (not ehrman, the historical jesus nonsense)
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
This whole topic can get pretty meaningless. At what level does Jesus get to exist? Born of the Virgin Mary? Well no, that's just myth. OK, born of Mary and Joseph? No, not necessary. From Nazareth? No, not necessary. Wise men, shepherds, no room at the inn? No, just detail. Impossible to substantiate. Slaughter of the innocents? No, some stuff in Bible is just made up, possibly. OK, what about all the miracles and stuff? No, no, no, we can't be expected to prove any of that bollocks. So the crucifixion, rising from the dead, everything else? Well that kind of thing is just down to faith, innit?
What's left? A bloke, possibly called Jesus, who liked fish?
What's left? A bloke, possibly called Jesus, who liked fish?
