The Ethno-Zionist-Revisionism-Old Testament-Bashing Megathread

[Martinus]

I though what sparked this all was Marty's bit about Americans never having heard of historians claiming Jesus never existed. Sure there are those who do, but it's a fringe position. The general consensus is that there was a historical Christ.

The link Raz posted also quoted historians that claim that Jesus may be an amalgam of a number of historical figures, or that while a Jesus-like figure existed, a lot of writings about him are fictional. I think the latter two positions are not that fringe.

[Berkut]

Marty, do you claim that it is reasonably accepted among scholars that the human being who inspired the biblical New Testament story never existed at all?

[Martinus]

The general consensus amongst historians, I think, is that there was certainly someone alive who inspired the Christ story, but that the details of his life and death are basically unknown almost completely.

This is NOT saying that Jesus did not exist...but it is putting the "historical Jesus" in a context that he becomes largely useless to Christians as a *historical* figure. The range of possibilities is so great as to the details around him that there is no utility to any religious arguments around what he did or did not do in a historical context.

This is pretty damning to fundy Christians who are wont to trot out things like "Lunatic, Liar, or Son of God" as actual arguments with atheists. So atheists point out the actual historical consensus that it is extremely unlikely that any human being that resembles the biblical Jesus existing in the fashion the bible describes. After all, the historical range of possibilities is very large, so the odds that the bible got more than the cursory details right are slim, so in that fashion one can say that the biblical Jesus probably never existed.

That *someone* existed that inspired the Jesus story is rather likely, IMO. That person could have been a married, violent  political radical who paid lip service to religion, for example. That is just as likely as the peaceful biblical Jesus. I think that reflects the historical consensus - not that he was anything in particular, but just that any particular description of the details is almost unknowable.

That is a pretty nuanced viewpoint compared to "Jesus never existed!". But of course that his how the debate is portrayed. Of course, I would also argue that that consensus is, for all practical religious purposes, nearly identical to the claim that he never really existed, since if you accept that view, you cannot give any credence that matters to the fundamentalist views of Christ. Which is, of course, what really pisses them off.

Yes, this is my understanding of the consensus as well.

[Martinus]

Marty, do you claim that it is reasonably accepted among scholars that the human being who inspired the biblical New Testament story never existed at all?

Nope. I claim it is a reasonably accepted consensus among scholars with no religious agenda that either (a) a number of historical figures inspired Jesus, and/or (b) some sort of political activist existed but he may have had little in common with details of biblical Jesus's life (the latter being largely inspired by Middle-Eastern mythology of numerous "sons of Gods").

Edit: Of course, I am not talking about clearly fantastic elements of biblical Jesus's life, as these are clearly unhistorical.

[Berkut]

I am pleased, in the spirit of Christmas, to reconcile us all to the same position.

[CountDeMoney]

Edit: Of course, I am not talking about clearly fantastic elements of biblical Jesus's life, as these are clearly unhistorical.

Most parables used in metaphorical narrative usually are.

Still doesn't change the fact that you're going to burn in hellfire for all eternity.  Not for all the cock, but for being a lawyer. 

[Razgovory]

I am pleased, in the spirit of Christmas, to reconcile us all to the same position.

What an odd question to ask Marty.  You keep talking about "fundies" here.  Who exactly are you talking about?

[crazy canuck]

But that doesn't strike me as the most likely explanation for the historical fact of the existence of the bible around the time it was written, and the rise of the largest religious movement in human history.

The Bible wasnt aorund at the time "it was written".  The Bible as we now know it was put together from selected pieces written over a long period of time and which were selected even later to be included in the book we now call the Bible.  Also, even amongst the books that were selected it is difficult for us to know with any certainty whether the version and translations we now have are accurate although scholars like Erhman have done their best to try to piece together what may be the most accurate versions by trying to filture out all the forgeries and poor translations which occurred over time.

What is more interesting imo are the pieces that didnt make the cut and were either discarded and lost to time or destroyed.  We probably will never fully know what was written at the time.  Only what made it through the political and religious battles that separate us from the time of the original writings.

As to what made Christianity "the largest religious movement in history", that has a lot more to do with becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire and then by default the religion of the West after the Roman Empire failed.   At the start Christianity was just another mystery sect which was particularly attractive to slaves.

[Martinus]

I am pleased, in the spirit of Christmas, to reconcile us all to the same position.

[Martinus]

Edit: Of course, I am not talking about clearly fantastic elements of biblical Jesus's life, as these are clearly unhistorical.

Most parables used in metaphorical narrative usually are.

Still doesn't change the fact that you're going to burn in hellfire for all eternity.  Not for all the cock, but for being a lawyer. 

I won't. I am holding out for that death bed conversion.

[crazy canuck]

Marty, do you claim that it is reasonably accepted among scholars that the human being who inspired the biblical New Testament story never existed at all?

Do scholars believe there was a human being who "inspired" the biblical New Testament story?  I doubt any scholars really take a position on it since there is no evidence one way or another.  The more interesting question that many scholars study is the mythological roots of the New Testament story.  One doesnt really need an actual human being to create a myth.

[Sheilbh]

Nope. I claim it is a reasonably accepted consensus among scholars with no religious agenda that either (a) a number of historical figures inspired Jesus, and/or (b) some sort of political activist existed but he may have had little in common with details of biblical Jesus's life (the latter being largely inspired by Middle-Eastern mythology of numerous "sons of Gods").

Edit: Of course, I am not talking about clearly fantastic elements of biblical Jesus's life, as these are clearly unhistorical.

I don't think that is the consensus at all. I mean (a) sounds like a nineteenth century controversialist.

From what I've read the general scholarly consensus is that there was a figure who was baptised by John the Baptist (there's more other sources on him than Christ), who did preach and possibly had issues with the Temple and was crucified. The rest of the Biblical account is rather questionable but those bare facts are broadly agreed on by all modern Ancient Historians I've read.

Beyond that there's not much that can be agreed from a historical perspective. But that doesn't actually matter because from a historical perspective the real Christ doesn't matter what matters is the cult he inspired.

Edit: And of course it's worth going back to Mark which is the oldest Gospel. The version that scholars now believe is the oldest starts with Jesus as a man getting baptised by John. Then there's preaching and calling disciples and the odd miracle - feeding the five thousand. It ends with crucifixion and an empty tomb, but not resurrection.

[Sheilbh]

As to what made Christianity "the largest religious movement in history", that has a lot more to do with becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire and then by default the religion of the West after the Roman Empire failed.   At the start Christianity was just another mystery sect which was particularly attractive to slaves.

Slaves and women.

[The Brain]

The distinction saddens me.

[Razgovory]

Marty, do you claim that it is reasonably accepted among scholars that the human being who inspired the biblical New Testament story never existed at all?

Do scholars believe there was a human being who "inspired" the biblical New Testament story?  I doubt any scholars really take a position on it since there is no evidence one way or another.  The more interesting question that many scholars study is the mythological roots of the New Testament story.  One doesnt really need an actual human being to create a myth.

I remember when you made similar claims used "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur to back them up.  I thought you had backed off that long ago when I showed some the more... peculiar claims that Harpur made, such as Chirst's name appearing in Ancient Egyptian over 18,000 years ago.