Johnny Skeptic

Whether certain biblical people existed or not is certainly a legitimate basis for discussions, including Jesus, Noah, Abraham and Moses.

aa5874

If you think about it we do have facts about Jesus. Jesus was in fact fiction.

You have ALREADY pointed out the FACT that "we don't have a single credible evidence for any historical version of Jesus.

Think about it!!! Think about this FACT. We don't have a single scrap of credible evidence for ALL characters deemed to be fictional.

We don't have a single scrap of credible evidence for Homer's Achilles.

It's so easy. Achilles was fiction.


We don't have a single scrap of credible evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

It is getting easier. Jesus was like Achilles. We have a match.

Jesus was non-historical, too.

mountainman

I can assure you that I of all people in this forum understand this statement and its implications very well.


It cannot be disputed by any ancient historian that the first beginnings of the historical facts at least appear - rather explode - in the fourth century, if in fact they do not appear to exist earlier.

Therefore I would expect Carrier to deal with the fourth century facts in regard to the historicity of jesus, whereas all other "Biblical Historians" will simply sit there and pathologically trot out their understanding of Eusebius. Carrier does not have any particular high regard for Eusebius. I will be interested in how Carrier sums up Eusebius's historical involvement in the evidence for the HJ.


While I agree in principle with what you are saying, we may be surprised by Carrier's work. I am leaving things open for the moment.

In centuries not long passed the expert was the Pope and/or the Christian Church authority in your area. Today an expert is one who has sifted through all the evidence inside a certain scope and chronological period. Times are a-changing. Expertise is a matter of assessment, and we do have some facts on Jesus from the 4th century - so these must be factored into the story of "christian origins and/or the HJ". Lets see what he has to present.

David Deas

The historicity of Jesus is not so black and white. The question is more complex than that. And I do not necessarily agree that there was never a historical basis for the character of Jesus Christ found in the Bible. Until a scientific discovery is made that sheds light on the question, all speculation is essentially worthless, untestable garbage.

David Deas

We know what he has to present. Or at least, we have a good idea. I think its been made clear early on that he intends to attack the methodology of biblical scholars. Easy target absurdities like Meier's ridiculous claim that 'the criterion of embarrassment is a scientific tool' essentially seems to be what Carriers book will be dedicated to laughing at. The other part of the book seems to be dedicated to pointing out the fact that the evidence is inconclusive at best (ie; his mention of Bayes theorem).

Steve Weiss

There is little point debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as there are no angels. The bible is prima facie fiction and, therefore, analyzing anything in it is like discussing the reality of Batman. In fact, Batman has more credibility since we have original documents, a publishing company, artifacts like the Batmobile, and we can identify the author of these comics. None of those minima apply to that hideous book, the bible.

aa5874

But, the history of ALL characters deemed to be FICTIONAL is essentially WORTHLESS GARBAGE.

Read about Homer's Achilles.

The "history" of Achilles is essentially worthless untestable garbage.

The theory that Homer's Achilles was mythical/fiction is EXTREMELY good.

Read about Romulus by Plutarch.

The "history" of Romulus is essentially worthless untestable garbage.

The theory that Romulus was mythical/fictional is EXTREMELY good.

Now, read about Jesus of Nazareth in the NT Canon and Church writings.

The "history" of Jesus is essentially worthless untestable garbage.

The theory that Jesus of the NT was mythical/fictional is EXTREMELY good.

It must NEVER be forgotten, NEVER EVER, ALL FICTIONAL characters MUST have an history that is essentially WORTHLESS untestable GARBAGE.

Worthless untestable Garbage is a FUNDAMENTAL element of FICTION.

The theory that Jesus was JUST WORTHLESS untestable GARBAGE is VERY VERY VERY GOOD.

mountainman

But Steve the bible was first widely published to the Roman Empire around the year 325 CE and when it was published in Greek for the Constantinian pulpit, it was lavishly packaged with a number of histories and almanacs and gruesome martyrological narratives and quick-reference and ready-reckoner guides about which apostle agreed with another on the various atomic structures within the Holy Writ.

What if we cannot find earlier original manuscript evidence other than these Constantine Bibles?
If the entire bible is a work of fiction who authored it and when?
And did Constantine know about this author or authors?


We must continue to logically examine the evidence.
If you think it is a possible fiction then we have a possible fraud case against Eusebius.
Since his capacity was that of an Editor-In-Chief" instructed by Constantine to produce 50 copies.
The fraud is common pious forgery as described eloquently by the ancient historian Arnaldo Momiglianio

And did Constantine know about the authors of the "Historia Augusta"?
We may presume he did since part of the work is dedicated to him.
[The Historia Augusta is already recognised as an entire work of fiction.]

I will be disappointed if Richard Carrier does not mention the Historia Augusta.

Steve Weiss

If one grooves on tracing the source of fictional stories out of curiosity and from an interest in the development of cultural mythology, then by all means try, if one must, to locate authentic documents so as to fill in the missing chapters in a mystery story. However, no mountain of documents will validate stories like walking on water, virgin births, worldwide floods, the earth stopping in its rotation and magically starting again. Rip off the cover of the book named the bible, and you have something that anyone with two brain cells would laugh at as nonsense and bloodthirsty tribalism.

Loomis

:notworthy: