Did Jesus Exist Debate: Carrier VS MacDonald

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Whom do you mean? Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, Hercules, Aeneas, Beowulf, Ulysses, Arthur, Harry Potter, Orestes, Perseus, Medea, Robin Hood, James T. Kirk.  ...?

 

Which one of them lived a life that remotely impacted the world at the level the way the life and teachings of Jesus did?

 

Spoiler

None of them. Not even all of them combined.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Will Do

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Whom do you mean? Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, Hercules, Aeneas, Beowulf, Ulysses, Arthur, Harry Potter, Orestes, Perseus, Medea, Robin Hood, James T. Kirk.  ...?

 

Romans wasn't written to a church Paul founded or otherwise "seeded." Regardless, of the five accepted letters that were, if there was no need to reiterate "it" to the choir, then why did "it" come up at all?

The "business correspondence" argument has considerable force to explain why Paul's letters aren't full to the brim with gospel stories. The argument has no explanatory power, however, concerning why whenever Paul tells a gospel story, the story can never be fixed in time or space. Nor does it explain why in all the Gospel stories that Paul tells which are set during Jesus's natural life, the setting is either the first or last hours of Jesus's life.

We can't assume we have any where near the totality of what he wrote. Half of what we do have is probably not his at all, only attributed to him and Hebrews, for instance, almost certainly the work of another author. I've always thought it curious that his death coincides, by some accounts, with the start of the Jewish Revolt in 66 CE. It created a textual vacuum, with Christianity's written sources mostly external to it's point of origin. Certainly, in it's first decades after the Crucification, there would have been a paucity of written reference material, the Gospels not yet written. It may have left the nascent clergy often having to resort to flying by the seat of their pants.

How do come by the the opinion that Romans, a letter dictated to Tertius in Corinth, concerning his impending visit to the Church of Rome, is any more or less relevant? 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Will Do said:

Which one of those lived a life that remotely impacted the world at the level the way the life and teachings of Jesus did?

Why would Jesus need to be a real person in order for stories about him to have impact? So far as we can tell, Jesus had no great impact on the world around him for two or three generations after his supposed death. By then, and even more surely afterward, the people impacted could not possibly say based on their own knowledge whether Jesus had really lived or not. The impact, therefore, resided in the stories themselves, probably much enhanced by the impossibility of proving them completely false.

Cool story +  impossible to disprove completely = hope. Hope has impact.

 

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

We can't assume we have any where near the totality of what he wrote.

I don't. I am commenting on a curious feature of what we do have. What we do have = the evidence. We're discussing secular history; the evidence is what we discuss.

ETA (in answer to a question that I first saw after I posted):

Quote

How do come by the the opinion that Romans, a letter dictated to Tertius in Corinth, concerning his impending visit to the Church of Rome, is any more or less relevant?

I only distinguished Romans from the other letters addressed to churches, those where the readers would know what Paul had taught them and Paul would know what they knew from him. I didn't claim Romans was more or less relevant to the strengths and weaknesses of the "business correspondence" argument generally.

ETATA (in answer to a demand that I wriite the above which appeared while I was writing the above)

Quote

you didn't respond to my question concerning your assessment of Romans.

I responded to your question once I saw it.

Edited January 7, 2021 by eight bits

[+Hammerclaw]

9 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Why would Jesus need to be a real person in order for stories about him to have impact? So far as we can tell, Jesus had no great impact on the world around him for two or three generations after his supposed death. By then, and even more surely afterward, the people impacted could not possibly say based on their own knowledge whether Jesus had really lived or not. The impact, therefore, resided in the story themselves, probably much enhanced by the impossibility of proving them completely false.

Cool story +  impossible to disprove completely = hope. Hope has impact.

 

I don't. I am commenting on a curious feature of what we do have. What we do have = the evidence. We're discussing secular history; the evidence is what we discuss.

 

More like religious history in a secular context and you didn't respond to my question concerning your assessment of Romans.

[eight bits]

22 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

More like religious history in a secular context

Whether somebody did or did not really live is a secular question

That is the topic of the thread.

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Why would Jesus need to be a real person in order for stories about him to have impact?

 

Because stories like those told about him would certainly not have had the impact they did, if Jesus wasn't a real person. 

You might say it's the evidence of his existence. 

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

So far as we can tell, Jesus had no great impact on the world around him for two or three generations after his supposed death.

 

Tell that to the hundreds if not thousands, who within a few years of his departure and of their own free will, submitted themselves to being brutally murdered for simply believing in the spiritual principles exemplified in how Jesus lived his life.

 

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Hope has impact.

 

So does faith. Enough apparently for many to give their lives for the sake of their friends.

Now that's impact.

Especially when it occurs without being observed nor given credit.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Will Do

[+Hammerclaw]

3 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Whether somebody did or did not really live is a secular question

That is the topic of the thread.

Perhaps, in the case of Jesus. Are you calling into question the existence of Paul as well? That's who I've responding to your posts about.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[eight bits]

2 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Tell that to the hundreds if not thousands, who within a few years of his departure and of their own free will, submitted themselves to being brutally murdered for believing in the spiritual principles exemplified in the example of how Jesus lived his life.

Tacitus, the only ancient author who can place unspecified but many state-imposed Christian deaths within a generation of Jesus's supposed death says the ones he knew about were falsely accused of arson. Yes, that would get you killed. When it became obvious that the persecution had degenrated into a witch hunt, the deaths continued anyway because Christians were notorious antisocial aholes. That, too, would get you killed back then.

Not a word about what these people believed, nothing about anybody asking them what they believed - just criminal and antisocial behavior. Tacitus thought the arson thing was a frame-up, but he seemed OK with the antisocial part.

All that and the victims may not have been Christians, but rather followers of a Claudian-era Jewish charismatic named or nicknamed Chrestus (a common enough lower-class and slave name back then). Long story.

Regardless, not much evidence that any large number of people who would know of their own knowledge the facts of Jesus's situation died because of their devotion to him. Thus, not evidence one way or the other about Jesus's existence.

 

21 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Are you calling into question the existence of Paul as well?

Not in this thread.

 

 

 

[jmccr8]

28 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Tell that to the hundreds if not thousands, who within a few years of his departure and of their own free will, submitted themselves to being brutally murdered for simply believing in the spiritual principles exemplified in the example of how Jesus lived his life.

Hi Will

Yes in as sense, what percentage of your number reflect real person experiences and yet even then they may likely only know a perception of who that person is. If he was as notoriously a  detractor then likely would have been met by soldiers at any city of note and there is no documentation that he was on a watch list so doesn't come across as a threat until much longer after his supposed death. Jesse James made an impact on how people support certain kinds of outlaws that are documented. 

jmccr8

Edited January 7, 2021 by jmccr8
Meh

[+Hammerclaw]

22 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Tacitus, the only ancient author who can place unspecified but many state-imposed Christian deaths within a generation of Jesus's supposed death says the ones he knew about were falsely accused of arson. Yes, that would get you killed. When it became obvious that the persecution had degenrated into a witch hunt, the deaths continued anyway because Christians were notorious antisocial aholes. That, too, would get you killed back then.

Not a word about what these people believed, nothing about anybody asking them what they believed - just criminal and antisocial behavior. Tacitus thought the arson thing was a frame-up, but he seemed OK with the antisocial part.

All that and the victims may not have been Christians, but rather followers of a Claudian-era Jewish charismatic named or nicknamed Chrestus (a common enough lower-class and slave name back then). Long story.

Regardless, not much evidence that any large number of people who would know of their own knowledge the facts of Jesus's situation died because of their devotion to him. Thus, not evidence one way or the other about Jesus's existence.

 

Not in this thread.

 

 

 

Oh, I know the story well. There is, of course absolutely no evidence that a trouble maker name Chrestus ever existed, or that the Roman's could distinguish a Jew tainted with the Christian heresy from one who was not. The Romans were not enamored of the population of the Trastevere, the foreign quarter across the Tiber, full of what they considered Jewish former slaves with separatist tendencies.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[Will Due]

27 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Regardless, not much evidence that any large number of people who would know of their own knowledge the facts of Jesus's situation died because of their devotion to him. Thus, not evidence one way or the other about Jesus's existence.

 

It's probably not knowledge of the facts of Jesus's situation.

It's more likely to have been the recognition of Jesus's message.

It's better to be fed to lions in an open arena, than to be impacted, hiding out like Jesse James. 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Will Do

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Will Do said:

It's better to be fed to lions in an open arena, than to be impacted, hiding out like Jesse James. 

Hi Will

There was no internet ,cellphone cameras or a whole lot of we got that they didn't then so hiding is subjective, where is god can you tell me where he is all the time is he hiding or not just not seen seems like to me nobody was saying anything because some people thought that Jesse and Frank were right and toke their fight up with people that were forced by unwilling landowners to give up their land or die like their mother did. All real and documented

Lion, Volkswagen what difference does death make?

jmccr8

[Will Due]

15 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

what difference does death make?

 

Well according to the message of a supposedly non-existent man, it depends.

Because whosoever will lose his life shall find it, but whosoever will save his life shall lose it.

I guess that's the difference. 

 

 

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Well according to the message of a supposedly non-existent man, it depends.

Hi Will

Yes I suppose religious people who get run over by a Volkswagen had a better death then getting mauled by a lion but in the end they both believed and died.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

Yes I suppose religious people who get run over by a Volkswagen had a better death then getting mauled by a lion but in the end they both believed and died.

jmccr8

 

Or they both believed and live. 

 

 

[jmccr8]

Just now, Will Do said:

 

Or they both believed and live. 

 

 

Hi Will

Your position was that because they believe made a difference as to dying by lion is different than someone who has no belief because you made belief a qualifier as an abstract of how many people who believed in Jesus died by lion over how many people have been killed by lions, audiences are not a requisite death by lion is.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

44 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

Your position was that because they believe made a difference as to dying by lion is different than someone who has no belief because you made belief a qualifier as an abstract of how many people who believed in Jesus died by lion over how many people have been killed by lions, audiences are not a requisite death by lion is.

jmccr8

 

Almost Jay.

No, I'm not focusing on an abstract of what to believe the message is but rather, an abstract of recognizing what the message is.

I doubt anyone who's ever submitted themselves to being killed for spiritual principles did it for what someone told them to believe. I would certainly never do that and I'm pretty sure neither would you. But in recognition of the value and meaning of the message, I wouldn't hesitate, and I'd bet, neither would you.

It's in the recognition of the fact of all of this that it subjectively becomes evidence that he really did exist.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Will Do

[jmccr8]

18 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

Almost Jay.

No, I'm not focusing on an abstract of what to believe the message is but rather, an abstract of recognizing what the message is.

I doubt anyone who's ever submitted themselves to being killed for spiritual principles did it for what someone told them to believe. I would certainly never do that and I'm pretty sure neither would you. But in recognition of the value and meaning of the message, I wouldn't hesitate, and I'd bet, neither would you.

It's in the recognition of the fact of all of this that it subjectively becomes evidence that he really did exist.

 

 

Hi Will

Pretty sure the guy that is doing the dying is the one with the problem however us passive observers do not share the same fate. Does it matter what a person believes when a lion kills them willing or not? Quite sure some Christians tried to be the alpha and by the ay is there any Christian or other documentation that shows god stopped lions from killing men to me that would be significant saved by faith?

Cultists have killed themselves as part of a re-birth how is that different?

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Tacitus, the only ancient author who can place unspecified but many state-imposed Christian deaths within a generation of Jesus's supposed death says the ones he knew about were falsely accused of arson. Yes, that would get you killed. When it became obvious that the persecution had degenrated into a witch hunt, the deaths continued anyway because Christians were notorious antisocial aholes. That, too, would get you killed back then.

Not a word about what these people believed, nothing about anybody asking them what they believed - just criminal and antisocial behavior. Tacitus thought the arson thing was a frame-up, but he seemed OK with the antisocial part.

All that and the victims may not have been Christians, but rather followers of a Claudian-era Jewish charismatic named or nicknamed Chrestus (a common enough lower-class and slave name back then). Long story.

Regardless, not much evidence that any large number of people who would know of their own knowledge the facts of Jesus's situation died because of their devotion to him. Thus, not evidence one way or the other about Jesus's existence.

 

Not in this thread.

 

 

 

Actually Christians were  "not liked" by the romans because they said there was only one god 

The romans had no problem with many gods, but the concept of only one god was a crime against the state, because the emperors were considered gods 

Most of the executions etc were for this reason  (It reminds me of current Chinese policies in Hong Kong ) 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Dreamer screamer]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually Christians were  "not liked" by the romans because they said there was only one god 

The romans had no problem with many gods, but the concept of only one god was a crime against the state, because the emperors were considered gods 

Most of the executions etc were for this reason  (It reminds me of current Chinese policies in Hong Kong ) 

isn't this what they're trying to do today where there is only one GOD under LUCIFER?   

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Oh, I know the story well. There is, of course absolutely no evidence that a trouble maker name Chrestus ever existed, or that the Roman's could distinguish a Jew tainted with the Christian heresy from one who was not. The Romans were not enamored of the population of the Trastevere, the foreign quarter across the Tiber, full of what they considered Jewish former slaves with separatist tendencies.

Not to get in the weeds, but the Claudian troublemaker Chrestus is attested by Suetonius. (Claudius 25.4)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,1348,015:25

So, there is "absolutely" some evidence that he existed.

In Nero 16.2, Suetonius notes that Nero imposed restrictions on Christians (not Chrestians, Christians). Let's go to Penelope for that:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Nero*.html

Suetionius was a Roman. So there is "absolutely" some evidence that some Roman could distinguish between the two terms.

Yes, non-citizens were subject to expulsion from Rome. That imposition fell upon the Jews more than once (including a massive conscription of Roman Jews for military service under Tiberius, when Jesus would have been a young adult).

None of which has anything to do with Tacitus being the only source for a sizeable persecution of Christians within a generation of Jesus's supposed lifetime, and that one source attributes the persecution to false accusations of arson and less clearly false accusations of antisocial activity, not beliefs about Jesus.

 

8 hours ago, Will Do said:

It's more likely to have been the recognition of Jesus's message.

Fine. "Jesus's message" doesn't require a unique historical Jesus. The meaning of just about every saying attributed to him can be found elsewhere.

Although I had some fun with a classic rhetorical fail of Paul's (If you owe taxes, pay them), by and large, Paul's message wasn't so unattractive: Maybe you - literally the persons whom he was addressing - will never die - meaning physical death. And when he wanted to, Paul could say things very well. I went to an atheist's memorial service, and one of the readings was 1 Corinthians 13 - widely recognized as one of the great Greek prose-poems of late antiquity.

The roster of those who've died for love is, I suspect, lengthy.

 

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually Christians were  "not liked" by the romans because they said there was only one god 

While I disagree, nevertheless there's no reason for me not to grant it arguendo iin this thread. We'd simply agree that by and large they didn't die because of their opinions about whether or not Jesus was a real man who actually lived, and the opinion of anybody after two or more generations wouldn't be evidence anyway.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

Maybe the difference between gentile and Jewish should be weighed in sestertius or shekels for the clearer picture... 

~

[+Hammerclaw]

46 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Not to get in the weeds, but the Claudian troublemaker Chrestus is attested by Suetonius. (Claudius 25.4)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,1348,015:25

So, there is "absolutely" some evidence that he existed.

In Nero 16.2, Suetonius notes that Nero imposed restrictions on Christians (not Chrestians, Christians). Let's go to Penelope for that:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Nero*.html

Suetionius was a Roman. So there is "absolutely" some evidence that some Roman could distinguish between the two terms.

Yes, non-citizens were subject to expulsion from Rome. That imposition fell upon the Jews more than once (including a massive conscription of Roman Jews for military service under Tiberius, when Jesus would have been a young adult).

None of which has anything to do with Tacitus being the only source for a sizeable persecution of Christians within a generation of Jesus's supposed lifetime, and that one source attributes the persecution to false accusations of arson and less clearly false accusations of antisocial activity, not beliefs about Jesus.

 

Fine. "Jesus's message" doesn't require a unique historical Jesus. The meaning of just about every saying attributed to him can be found elsewhere.

Although I had some fun with a classic rhetorical fail of Paul's (If you owe taxes, pay them), by and large, Paul's message wasn't so unattractive: Maybe you - literally the persons whom he was addressing - will never die - meaning physical death. And when he wanted to, Paul could say things very well. I went to an atheist's memorial service, and one of the readings was 1 Corinthians 13 - widely recognized as one of the great Greek prose-poems of late antiquity.

The roster of those who've died for love is, I suspect, lengthy.

 

While I disagree, nevertheless there's no reason for me not to grant it arguendo iin this thread. We'd simply agree that by and large they didn't die because of their opinions about whether or not Jesus was a real man who actually lived, and the opinion of anybody after two or more generations wouldn't be evidence anyway.

 

 

There is historical contention as to whether Suetionius was talking about a person or about Christ in the abstract causing trouble. Indeed, his reference to Christians in that timeframe is disputed. After all, he wasn't even born yet when the events in question occurred.

Roman citizenship could be acquired by freedmen and the children born of freedmen were automatically cives Romani. Freedmen themselves were first granted the rights of the Latini. Rome prided itself on being a city founded by refugees, outcasts and runaway slaves. To keep Rome operating there had to be a constant influx of new arrivals to mitigate the high mortality rate from injury, childbirth and disease. 

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

isn't this what they're trying to do today where there is only one GOD under LUCIFER?   

I see your misapprehensions extend beyond economics and politics into religion   

Sorry; that is unfair, until you explain  about which "They," you are speaking. 

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

 

 

While I disagree, nevertheless there's no reason for me not to grant it arguendo iin this thread. We'd simply agree that by and large they didn't die because of their opinions about whether or not Jesus was a real man who actually lived, and the opinion of anybody after two or more generations wouldn't be evidence anyway.

 

 

The y could have prevented death by renouncing their beliefs and accepting the standard  empire beliefs  

I accept that people will, and do, die for beliefs which have no foundation  but these people were part of a church/organisation which originated around 30AD and had an ongoing continuous existence.

  Certainly people were being killed in the later centuries, but conflict began almost immediately   

Christianity began immediately after Christ's death (or while he was teaching ) There were churches, shrines, groups of worshippers,  across part of the empire well within a lifetime of Christ.  Paul lived in the same period  The romans recognised Christians as separate from  Jews, around 40 years after his death 

Their evidences writings etc are part of the evidence.

Those from 100 years later are directly linked to, and part of, the ongoing church/faith    

I can give you  a lot of evidenced information about ww1 because my grandfather fought in it, was gassed, received medals, brought home photos and  postcards, and hundreds of others in the community KNEW  he had done this. (some, including his brother,  had even served with him) 

Its unlikely that  in 2000 years time,  any of that evidence will still exist,  but 100 years after the event i have it .  If I write about it  (my grandfather's involvement ) it is with personal  knowledge of its truth