Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-11-2012, 07:44 PM

Richard Carrier blogs a review of Is This Not the Carpenter? (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

However, of these, I think Noll’s chapter is the most useful of all: he constructs his argument by proposing a very plausible model for how and why the Gospel Jesus came to be invented (in disregard for any historical truth about him, but nevertheless aiming to market what they said as historical truth) as a Darwinian strategy to win arguments (by inventing an authority figure to cite in defense of their claims), and then by showing how the Islamic development of the Hadith exemplifies exactly that model, providing a firm proof of concept. (Supplementing and supporting this part of his case is Robert Price’s development of the same analogy in Sources of the Jesus Tradition, pp. 109-17.) Anyone who has ever wondered, about the Jesus myth hypothesis’ proposed transformation from cosmic to earthly Jesus, “How could that have happened?” will want to read this chapter.

DCHindley · 07-11-2012, 07:46 PM

How was the historical Jesus invented?

With great difficulty.

DCH

stephan huller · 07-11-2012, 08:04 PM

How can anyone other than an expert on the Patristic literature answer that question?

Toto · 07-11-2012, 09:11 PM

K. L. Knoll does not appear to have specialized in the Patristics, but why is that a criterion? By the time the fathers of the church wrote, the historical Jesus had been created. They were there to justify the creation, not explain how it was done, or what strings were pulled off stage.

stephan huller · 07-11-2012, 09:24 PM

I disagree. Clement of Alexandria can be argued to have held Jesus was only divine. The case for Jesus the man had to be argued. Irenaeus does this first. He created the first arguments and introduces falsified witnesses, many of them. Without a comprehensive Patristic explanation the HJ argument cannot be meaningfully explained IMO

stephan huller · 07-11-2012, 09:34 PM

Admittedly, it would be very boring for most people but this is how history is usually developed

aa5874 · 07-11-2012, 09:41 PM

There is no need for all those conspiracy theories when the very authors of the Jesus stories STATED EXACTLY how they invented their character, Jesus the Son of God and Messiah.

After the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE and the desolation of Jerusalem a story was written to explain the cause of the calamity by unknown writers.

There was NO historical Jesus--the character was Fabricated from the Words of the Prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel.

Examine gMatthew--ALL the stories of Jesus are the Prophesied Words of God.

Matthew 1

Quote:

Now all this was done , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet..

Matthew 2

Quote:

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet..

Matthew 2

Quote:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet...

Matthew 2

Quote:

.....that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets , He shall be called a Nazarene.

Matthew 2

Quote:

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet...

Matthew 3

Quote:

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias...

.

Matthew 4

Quote:

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet...

Matthew 5

Quote:

... I am not come to destroy , but to fulfil .

Matthew 8

Quote:

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet...

Matthew 12

Quote:

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet...

Matthew 12

Quote:

.... there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas...

Matthew 13

Quote:

...That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.....

Matthew 16

Quote:

.... and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas...

Matthew 21

Quote:

All this was done , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet....

Matthew 24

Quote:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet....

Matthew 26

Quote:

...The Son of man goeth as it is written of him...

Matthew 27

Quote:

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet...

Matthew 27

Quote:

.... that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet...

The WORD of God was made Flesh John 1.

mountainman · 07-12-2012, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

How can anyone other than an expert on the Patristic literature answer that question?

The chances are that if the historical Jesus was invented then so was the so-called Patristic literature. Experts in the Patristics literature and experts in Hollywood literature may be highly related in their skills.

mountainman · 07-12-2012, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

How was the historical Jesus invented?

Book I. Chapter I.
The Plan of the Work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ancient History Thesis by Big E. submitted c.324 CE with revisions c.337 CE

1 It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own ....

Has Big E's thesis in ancient history been peer-reviewed yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCH

With great difficulty.

I am the first to enter upon the subject,
I am attempting to traverse as it were
a lonely and untrodden path.

sotto voce · 07-12-2012, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Patristic literature

Now that really is an invention.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2012, 07:46 PM	#2
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	How was the historical Jesus invented? With great difficulty. DCH

07-11-2012, 08:04 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	How can anyone other than an expert on the Patristic literature answer that question?

07-11-2012, 09:11 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	K. L. Knoll does not appear to have specialized in the Patristics, but why is that a criterion? By the time the fathers of the church wrote, the historical Jesus had been created. They were there to justify the creation, not explain how it was done, or what strings were pulled off stage.

07-11-2012, 09:24 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I disagree. Clement of Alexandria can be argued to have held Jesus was only divine. The case for Jesus the man had to be argued. Irenaeus does this first. He created the first arguments and introduces falsified witnesses, many of them. Without a comprehensive Patristic explanation the HJ argument cannot be meaningfully explained IMO

07-11-2012, 09:34 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Admittedly, it would be very boring for most people but this is how history is usually developed

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.