Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

[Doulos]

The Romans inventing crucifixion has nothing to do with it. The point is that the writers used crucifixion as a way to tug at peoples heart strings by claiming that an innocent man was beaten and killed for their sake. It's supposed by a real tear jerker and that's the way the passion has always been presented to the public. The cursed tree hanging blasphemer is aimed at the very same thing. Here's this innocent man cursed on your behave. That strikes up a lot of emotion. And then from there people can be persuaded in various ways....

You're only ignoring the point the gospels were trying to make. This was not merely a man being killed... but God in flesh. As Thomas puts it, "My Lord and my God!”

Of course I'm not ignoring it. Would you prefer that I write God-Man instead? I just assumed that goes without saying here on this board. What else would they be calling him by the time of these myths?

Then explain how in your theory God's death on a cross equals 'tugging heart strings' vs completely shooting their primary point that he is God in the head.

If someone tells me XXX is God, then tells me they died in a horrific way, my reaction is not tears, but rather, "What kind of God dies? If he was God why didn't he magically escape?"

So the idea that they're going to 'make up' a story of crucifying a person they claim to be God simply does not make sense. God's don't die, especially in a cruel and horrendous way.

It makes perfect sense. And of course they did since pre-christian times. This motif was very old news by the time of gospel writing era.

Merely asserting it makes perfect sense does not make it so.

You note that there were other examples following this motif. Fine. Bring them up and let's analyze them instead of your simply asserting they match. Evidence and analysis Tat. Evidence and analysis.

[tat tvam asi]

Post enough posts in a row Stah, I mean Doulos?

The mods actually had to pass a rule about consecutive over posting due to Stahrwe's obsessive over posting. This must be a type of common reaction for apologetic trolls or something because how many consecutive posts did you just make for no apparent reason? Count'em out.

Where to begin?

Then explain how in your theory God's death on a cross equals 'tugging heart strings' vs completely shooting their primary point that he is God in the head.

If someone tells me XXX is God, then tells me they died in a horrific way, my reaction is not tears, but rather, "What kind of God dies? If he was God why didn't he magically escape?"

Obviously I left you a quick quote and a link to analyzing Mettinger's "The Riddle of Resurrection" which is aimed as dismantling JZ Smiths biased assertions against the dying-and-rising GOD motif in pre-christian times. And it dismantles your shallow minded contemplation's above as well. An apologetic troll came to the forum parading Mettinger's book around as if it proved that no dying-and-rising Gods were pre-christian, which, came back to bite him in the ass because it proves the very opposite.

Why wouldn't the mythic God simply escape death?

Because the point of the myth is to have the God or personified God-Man suffer a death and return again, obviously.

What kind of God dies?

Solar deities, organic life cycle figures, and the like. When you're addressing the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (spiritual or otherwise) it makes no sense whatsoever for the God or hero NOT to live, die, and return again.

Even if the some mundane Ehrman Jesus died a failure, this mundane figure was still eventually mythologized heavily and took on many solar and organic life cycle attributes which are plainly clear. The only difference with mythicism is that we suspect that the God-Man figure was a type of Gnostic deity and was later carnalized and historicized for the purpose of an exoteric presentation for converts.

The straw man is not mine Tat. You invented him, you take ownership of him

WTF???

Uh, you asserted that I claimed that an apologetic group was following ME around. Simply post the quote of me actually saying that. If you can't, then guess what, you just raised and strawman and then tried to blame shift it off onto me which makes no sense whatsoever. Stahrwe couldn't have played that one out any better than yourself Doulos. You actually screwed up the quote feature too which was another Stahrwe move that was extremely annoying as well. It's ironic just how similar you two actually are and it only seems to get worse as you try to distance yourself from it.

[youkrst]

If you're saying that it was a myth, then this would require evidence.

NO! you are saying it's not a myth THAT requires evidence.

when we come to the story of hercules everyone agrees it's a myth because it would be bloody stupid to take it literally.

when we come to the story of jesus it is obviously mythical, resurrection from dead, bread of life, water into wine etc etc satan falls like lightning etc etc

SO

if it's not a myth, well....

if someone says "hercules is a myth" no one says "oh, you're one of those.. you know... a mythicist"

indeed if someone says "hercules is real" they would be considered daft at best.

but because western culture is so saturated in millenia of "jesus propaganda" it gets inverted with loony literalists taking the high ground and saying "no mythicists must prove it" (easily done with a quick read through highlights of just a few authors)

now i say

it's a myth

give me one GOOD reason why it isnt

PS: most mythicists i know are staggeringly familiar with all the literalist arguments, most literalists i know dont even understand the basics of religious symbolism, or comparative religion.

where have I shown I'm not open to logic and new ideas?

in your refusal to countenance the suggestion that jesus is mythological not historical.

to me it seems most plausible, it explains the whole ridiculous mess brought about by literalism.

[Doulos]

Post enough posts in a row Stah, I mean Doulos?

The mods actually had to pass a rule about consecutive over posting due to Stahrwe's obsessive over posting. This must be a type of common reaction for apologetic trolls or something because how many consecutive posts did you just make for no apparent reason? Count'em out.

If you feel there is an issue, then I suggest you call a mod and let them decide.

'Apologetic trolls, referring to me as people I'm not... all of these things are subtle personal attacks which are worse problems than splitting a reply up.

WTF???

Uh, you asserted that I claimed that an apologetic group was following ME around. Simply post the quote of me actually saying that. If you can't, then guess what, you just raised and strawman and then tried to blame shift it off onto me which makes no sense whatsoever. Stahrwe couldn't have played that one out any better than yourself Doulos. You actually screwed up the quote feature too which was another Stahrwe move that was extremely annoying as well. It's ironic just how similar you two actually are and it only seems to get worse as you try to distance yourself from it.

Your post from Wed May 30, 2012 9:34 pm:

No, it didn't fall apart and in fact the more you think about it the more clear it becomes actually. This is very telling indeed. We went from Stahrwe, to Ant, to you and seem to be getting much of the same from each. One apologist fades out and another is there promptly to replace him - like the teeth of a white shark.

Interesting.....

Kindly cut the innuendo and personal attacks and deal with the ideas being discussed. If you're bothered by the fact that people with differing viewpoints enter into your "atheist dominant board," then I'd suggest you find an isolated place where only people who agree with you can speak.

[Doulos]

Then explain how in your theory God's death on a cross equals 'tugging heart strings' vs completely shooting their primary point that he is God in the head.

If someone tells me XXX is God, then tells me they died in a horrific way, my reaction is not tears, but rather, "What kind of God dies? If he was God why didn't he magically escape?"

Obviously I left you a quick quote and a link to analyzing Mettinger's "The Riddle of Resurrection" which is aimed as dismantling JZ Smiths biased assertions against the dying-and-rising GOD motif in pre-christian times. And it dismantles your shallow minded contemplation's above as well. An apologetic troll came to the forum parading Mettinger's book around as if it proved that no dying-and-rising Gods were pre-christian, which, came back to bite him in the ass because it proves the very opposite.

Why wouldn't the mythic God simply escape death?

Because the point of the myth is to have the God or personified God-Man suffer a death and return again, obviously.

What kind of God dies?

Solar deities, organic life cycle figures, and the like. When you're addressing the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (spiritual or otherwise) it makes no sense whatsoever for the God or hero NOT to live, die, and return again.

Even if the some mundane Ehrman Jesus died a failure, this mundane figure was still eventually mythologized heavily and took on many solar and organic life cycle attributes which are plainly clear. The only difference with mythicism is that we suspect that the God-Man figure was a type of Gnostic deity and was later carnalized and historicized for the purpose of an exoteric presentation for converts.

The fact that someone writes a book does not 'dismantle' anything. Ideas do that. Sound ideas that can be analyzed and discussed... not simply assertions.

So let's look at some of your assertions:

What kind of God dies?

Solar deities, organic life cycle figures, and the like. When you're addressing the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (spiritual or otherwise) it makes no sense whatsoever for the God or hero NOT to live, die, and return again.

It does help if you post specific examples, so that actual details versus generalities can be considered.

So look at the list you posit: Solar deities, organic life cycle figures, and the like(?)

It appears you're looking at gods within a pantheon of other gods (I have to say appears since you've not specified more detail). Within these myths you're referring to, who killed the god in question?

Within the Osiris myth it is the god Set who kills him. Within the Canaanite Baal myth, it is the god Mot who kills him. Within the Babylonian Tammuz myth, he is killed by the god Nin-shach.

Are you catching the pattern? Each of these gods who die are killed by another god. This does not match with the idea of Jesus dying, since he was killed by men. Gods die by gods. Men die by men. A group seeking to establish Jesus' divinity would not have him killed by men to fit the pattern of other religions, because this was not the pattern.

You hit on a second problem when you comment on the "cycle of birth, death, and rebirth." Yes there is a cycle... an annual cycle because the gods killed were agricultural symbols (though its again hard to be exact since you don't actually list which dieties you're speaking of). Jesus does not do this however. He does not rise and die each year. Quite simply, he doesn't fit the pattern you talk about.

If you post more detail on what you base your belief on, then we could analyze those as well.

The point is simple though. While there are superficial similarities, Jesus does not fit with the dying-rising god motif.

[Doulos]

in your refusal to countenance the suggestion that jesus is mythological not historical.

to me it seems most plausible, it explains the whole ridiculous mess brought about by literalism.

I suggest you read a bit more carefully and literally before you make baseless statements.

My posts:

If you post more detail on what you base your belief on, then we could analyze those as well.

You note that there were other examples following this motif. Fine. Bring them up and let's analyze them instead of your simply asserting they match.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas and content of Mettinger's book, then that sounds like fun.

So the idea that they're going to 'make up' a story of crucifying a person they claim to be God simply does not make sense. God's don't die, especially in a cruel and horrendous way.

Merely saying, "I'm guessing" or "it might have been" is very Ehrmanesque... but isn't the whole point that we should be basing things upon the evidence? Other than conspiracy theories, there is no real evidence for the conjecture. If you have something that you consider 'solid' evidence, I would be happy to talk it through with you.

[Robert Tulip]

Hi Robert,

That ignores the comple backdrop of economic and social relations between Christians and Jews. It is rather like saying the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland have hated each other because of specifically religious differences, when it is obvious these differences are primarily the surface markers of deeper questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism.

I agree with your comment on social and economic backdrop, but in trying to place this in a political context of tribal conflict, war and imperialism, I feel you're ignoring the very historical backdrop you're seeking to point to. In the earliest period of the Jesus 'path' his followers were mainly Jews, and so met in the synagogues. Over time, the gentile and later Jewish followers of the Jewish rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef were barred from the synagogues, and formed into a distinct group apart from Judaism. This definitely is an identity issue, but I'm not sure how this can be stretched to mean war and imperialism.

Since I never have confused ant and Doulos, I thought I would go back through the thread since the magnificent entry of Doulos to refresh my familiarity with the debate. I think some one else may have confused them (why I don't know), but not me. I always attribute quotes using the quote function. I fear neither of them read very carefully.

Anyway, I came across this pearler from Doulos, in which he suggests "in trying to place this in a political context of tribal conflict, war and imperialism, I feel you're ignoring the very historical backdrop you're seeking to point to."

When Doulos makes comments like this it is hard to know where to start. One place would be The Jewish War by Josephus. Also Pliny's letter to Trajan complaining that the imperial ban on gatherings prevented people from fighting fires (this is the letter used by apologists as "evidence" for Jesus despite being late hearsay).

The emergence of the Roman Empire is the historical context for the rise of Christianity. This is important, because we have to interpret the Gospels as a response to this context. It makes perfect sense that after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, a Jewish sect considered that invention of a messiah was the best way to undermine imperial legitimacy. Although their efforts were later co-opted by the very empire they opposed, this seems to me the most parsimonious and plausible hypothesis. Certainly better than God intervening uniquely on earth.

It is intriguing that Jesus is presented as dining with sinners such as imperial tax collectors, implying that he is willing to forgive the empire if it repents. That set the Jesus story markedly apart from the zealots.

[Doulos]

Hi Robert,

That ignores the comple backdrop of economic and social relations between Christians and Jews. It is rather like saying the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland have hated each other because of specifically religious differences, when it is obvious these differences are primarily the surface markers of deeper questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism.

I agree with your comment on social and economic backdrop, but in trying to place this in a political context of tribal conflict, war and imperialism, I feel you're ignoring the very historical backdrop you're seeking to point to. In the earliest period of the Jesus 'path' his followers were mainly Jews, and so met in the synagogues. Over time, the gentile and later Jewish followers of the Jewish rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef were barred from the synagogues, and formed into a distinct group apart from Judaism. This definitely is an identity issue, but I'm not sure how this can be stretched to mean war and imperialism.

Since I never have confused ant and Doulos, I thought I would go back through the thread since the magnificent entry of Doulos to refresh my familiarity with the debate. I think some one else may have confused them (why I don't know), but not me. I always attribute quotes using the quote function. I fear neither of them read very carefully.

Anyway, I came across this pearler from Doulos, in which he suggests "in trying to place this in a political context of tribal conflict, war and imperialism, I feel you're ignoring the very historical backdrop you're seeking to point to."

When Doulos makes comments like this it is hard to know where to start. One place would be The Jewish War by Josephus. Also Pliny's letter to Trajan complaining that the imperial ban on gatherings prevented people from fighting fires (this is the letter used by apologists as "evidence" for Jesus despite being late hearsay).

The emergence of the Roman Empire is the historical context for the rise of Christianity. This is important, because we have to interpret the Gospels as a response to this context. It makes perfect sense that after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, a Jewish sect considered that invention of a messiah was the best way to undermine imperial legitimacy. Although their efforts were later co-opted by the very empire they opposed, this seems to me the most parsimonious and plausible hypothesis. Certainly better than God intervening uniquely on earth.

It is intriguing that Jesus is presented as dining with sinners such as imperial tax collectors, implying that he is willing to forgive the empire if it repents. That set the Jesus story markedly apart from the zealots.

While I'm very glad you don't confuse me and Ant, you may also want to read my post to you more carefully. I know it was awhile ago, but you seem to have forgotten which post it was referring to. My point was in reply to your post to DWill (Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:34 am) asserting that Christian hatred of the Jews was rooted in "questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism.'

While your post here on possible reasons for the gospel to arise at this time is interesting, I don't think it addresses the actual comment I made, which was about your assertion that Christian hatred of Jews was rooted in "questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism.'

How do you see this in light of the Jewish origins of Jesus and the early church?

[tat tvam asi]

WTF???

Uh, you asserted that I claimed that an apologetic group was following ME around. Simply post the quote of me actually saying that. If you can't, then guess what, you just raised and strawman...

Your post from Wed May 30, 2012 9:34 pm:

No, it didn't fall apart and in fact the more you think about it the more clear it becomes actually. This is very telling indeed. We went from Stahrwe, to Ant, to you and seem to be getting much of the same from each. One apologist fades out and another is there promptly to replace him - like the teeth of a white shark.

Interesting.....

Kindly cut the innuendo and personal attacks and deal with the ideas being discussed. If you're bothered by the fact that people with differing viewpoints enter into your "atheist dominant board," then I'd suggest you find an isolated place where only people who agree with you can speak.

So there's the root of your strawman. You took my statement about "WE", the BT forum members, all of us, and twisted it around as if I made a personal appeal to an apologetic group following "Me" around personally. And I made it more than clear that it's BT the forum which has been approached by Stahrwe making claims of a wider audience following all of the theistic verses atheistic debates going on at BT.

Be careful, because if you raise a strawman like this it won't go unchecked. You'd be wise to pick and choose your assertions carefully...

You hit on a second problem when you comment on the "cycle of birth, death, and rebirth." Yes there is a cycle... an annual cycle because the gods killed were agricultural symbols (though its again hard to be exact since you don't actually list which dieties you're speaking of). Jesus does not do this however. He does not rise and die each year. Quite simply, he doesn't fit the pattern you talk about.

Oh really? That's odd, because yes the gospel tale - if not originally - was eventually oriented intentionally around such older patterns. To be brief, here's a video in passing that calls attention to the general outline of the gospel myth according to what can be analyzed about the versions we know about:

[Robert Tulip]

...about your assertion that Christian hatred of Jews was rooted in "questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism.'
How do you see this in light of the Jewish origins of Jesus and the early church?

My view is that the Gospel of Mark, upon which the other Gospels were primarily based for their story of a historical Jesus, was probably written in Alexandria in Egypt after the exodus of the Jews from Israel following the Roman War and the destruction of Jerusalem. Christianity was originally aimed at linking Jews and Greeks as 'all one in Christ Jesus' as Paul puts it in Galatians 3:28. However, over time Christianity became primarily a religion for non-Jews, since continuing Judaism rejected the messianic claims around Jesus. Across the diaspora, the Jews retained a tribal identity through Torah and synagogue. As Christianity evolved into an imperial religion, providing moral legitimacy for Christendom, the existence of Jews as unbelievers in Christ became more of an anomaly.

The anti-Semitic lines in the Bible, especially Matthew's blood guilt line at 27:25, then came to serve a racist propaganda purpose. My view is that the Gospel authors sought to blame the Romans and the Jews equally for failing to understand Christ. However, as Christianity was co-opted by empire, the Jews were scapegoated and the Roman guilt was minimised.

The situation of the Jews was most certainly a product of tribal identity shaped by Empire. The mixing of all people in the common era left the Jews as recalcitrants who refused to worship Caesar, rejecting what the Gospels call the 'abominating desolation in the temple'. This old insistence on maintaining their cultural identity was a main reason for the emergence of racism against them among the dominant culture.