Tim Callahan, religion editor at the popular freethinking magazine "Skeptic" (www.skeptic.com), engaged Gary Habermas, the scholar who surveyed all the academic literature he could find that addressed the question of Jesus' resurrection. Callahan wrote a book ("Secret Origins of the Bible") where he promotes the old skeptic theory that Jesus' Resurrection was nothing but a myth recycled from other myths of "dying- rising" pagan gods like Osiris, Horus, Adonis, or Dionysus.

He claims that "the evidence for it (ie, the Resurrection of Jesus) is lacking".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PbExDzozUxU

So Habermas throws the question at him, "Tim, If you're going to hold to a 'dying-rising god' before Jesus, then where's the evidence?"

As a skeptic who just said the Resurrection evidence was lacking, Tim would, as expected, drop tons of evidence from his book.

As religion editor of a popular magazine, he'd as expected drop a name or two of atheist/agnostic scholars specializing in this field, say Bart Ehrman or Babara Thiering, quote their work, and thus offer a reasonable defense for his pet theory.

Too bad, that isn't what happened.

What he gives is nothing but the lamest atheist superstition ever... The kind atheists in this forum recite to each other like a Mormon testimony.

After that discussion, back in skeptic.com, Tim did muster the energy to refer his readers to a book that debunks the Resurrection, "The Golden Bough" a book first published in 1890. That's the most recent scholarship a skeptic like him can ever find. A book from the previous century.

Mormons do better, they have abandoned almost everything from that century.

Correction: 1890 is on the century previous to the previous century...:-)

*The Golden Bough* is a good example of early Anthropology, and it does a decent job of establishing a lens through which all religions and their myths can be viewed.

As for resurrection stories, Joseph Campbell's *Power of Myth* discusses them in the chapter on Goddess myths.

Yes.

I just finished reading DM Murdock's 'The Christ Conspiracy'.

There are mountains of evidence against a historical Jeezus.


The hornet's nest has been disturbed. Good luck.

Did Washington chop down the cherry tree? Did a new star appear in the sky when Kim Jung Il was born?

did some one say "cherry tree" ?

Joseph Smith chopped down the "cherry tree" too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUu0DxGvZ0w

Sure, there is no doubt that God is kind, fair, loving and just, just as the world that He has created is kind, fair, loving, and just. And there is no doubt that a kind, fair, loving and just god would see the wisdom, virtue and merit in having himself born as a mortal, so He could then be horribly tortured to death as a symbol of his goodness and love for all mankind. After having his mortal body so ravage as a sign of His good will!, god would then want to resurrect that body -repair it enough to make it alive again, but NOT repair it enough to do away with the nail holes in his hands and feet that were created when he was tortured to death, in order to maintain those wounds as symbols of his divinity. SO now that the true nature of Jesus has been established, now the really relevant question can be asked about Jesus: Is Jesus really an appropriate party guest? I mean, those bloody tracks on carpet from the wounds in his feet, and the bloody finger prints left on his wine glass, and the red (blood) tinge in the water if he gets in the pool might be a huge turn off to other guests.

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and the red (blood) tinge
> in the water if he gets in the pool might be a
> huge turn off to other guests.

A pool full of wine! AWESOME!!!!! So that is how he turned water into wine in the bible!

If you want to believe in a resurrected Jesus then go right ahead. Scholars and historicists ASSUME that miracles like resurrections do not occur. Resurrections do not happen now so it is assumed that they never did. No further evidence of non-resurrection is required.

The evidence that we have suggests that Jesus' resurrection was not widely believed at the time. If Jesus had been "resurrected" then the Romans would have assumed that either Jesus had survived his wounds or that his disciples had stolen the body. If Jesus had survived then there would have been a man-hunt for the person who had escaped the death penalty. If the body had been stolen then there would have been a man-hunt for the people who stole the body, because stealing a body was a major crime. And yet, there is no story of the Romans investigating either possibility, which is not realistic given the laws of the time.

The lack of realistic behavior, combined with the contradictions between different accounts of the resurrection indicate that the resurrection stories are probably fictional. If you want to bet against the odds then be my guest.

Yeah, and there could be a Pepsi machine on Pluto, that is something else one can believe if they want.

Well there is, but good luck getting it restocked.

I also have some ocean front property in AZ, for you I will let it go for cheap.

BTW, the aliens that put it there run a restock service.

Coke resents that (mention of Pepsi)! (just like Catholics resent the mention of the MORmON version of Jesus !)

And just how would one research, provide evidence, etc., that a mythical event didn't happen?

Provide evidence that the only remotely contemporary discussion of the event is only contained in the Bible? Done.

Extra-biblical evidence of the event? None exists.

Provide evidence that there is no archaeological evidence of the event? Done (quite frankly, it would be impossible to find archaeological evidence of a miracle.)

What other lines of research are there that would be applicable?

Yep.

As Murdock points out; if Jeezus had been historical, the world would have developed radically different and practically overnight.

What we know is that the alleged 'Advent of Jeezus' did not change the world one iota at the supposed time of the event.

Not one person wrote of it. No one remembered it happening, etc.

End of discussion.


I will be awaiting the arrival of our very own 'bona dea'...

Murdock is the real name of the infamous Achyra S. She is a laughing stock among real scholars. She claims to have an advanced university degree,but the university has no record of her. Hmmm. Real credible. Yes,I would say the resurrection is a myth,but that doesnt mean there was noJesus or that Murdoch has any credibility.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2015 03:00PM by bona dea.

You do believe the in the myth of the Historical Jesus.

Now you just need to give up the belief in the myth and read Richard Carrier's new book

Interesting how you mock mainstream secular scholarship while espousing such nonsense as Jesus was the result of an hallucinogenic mushroom cult.

If you are referring to Allegro's thesis about Amanita muscaria, I tend to agree with you.

But considering the existing wall art of Egypt, and its iconography, combined with what we know of the cult of Isis and Osiris, it is entirely plausible that the death and resurrection motifs, and the "living sacraments" idea that communicants literally eat the flesh of a god and receive his spirit into themselves, came out of Egypt. The iconography and mythos of Osiris is clearly portrayed in some temples as being associated with a grain/ergot fermentation. The fermentation was ritually buried, and later re-opened, broken into bits, and ritually consumed by priests and other initiates to receive the spirit of the god Osiris.

The same Egyptian cult was later adopted by the Greeks in the Dionysus/Demeter cult of Eleusis, wherein a psychoactive fungal preparation exactly like that portrayed in Egypt was consumed as a "living sacrament" that imparted the spirit of the god into the communicants. This fungus was derived from the ergot fungus Claviceps purpurea, cultured on malted wheat and brewed into a beer with a mint containing an anti-vasoconstrictive agent. Extremely powerful visionary compound, allowing the experience of death and rebirth for the communicants.

It is not important what is the most recent study of Jesus like myths existing prior to Jesus, what is more important is how much evidence of those myths have been around since before the jesus myth.
If there was solid evidence prior to 300 years ago and that evidence still holds then that is all that is required.

Ofcourse if there is no valid evidence which still holds up to scrutiny that says nothing of the truth of the highly unlikely and to this date unproven claim that Gods come to earth and rise from the dead... or hand out gold plates to farm hands.

On the one hand, that the resurrection was a myth follows inevitably from not believing in any biblical Jesus. And that is based on lack of reliable evidence that any such thing happened combined with the naturalist assumptions that resurrections are impossible (atleast without sci-fi high-tech equipment we still don't have).

From this point of view the idea of the ressurection story being inspired by the various similar stories of the surrounding culture are ofcourse noncontroversial and almost self-evident. That's how all stories are created, it is very rare indeed that something novel doesn't have deep roots in already existing patterns. But I would absolutely agree to call bs on the more elaborate conspiracy theories of the mythology like such in line with the zeitgeit nonsense of fabricated facts to support this idea. One doesn't need to fabricate Horus being born on dec 25th to recognize the numerous heroic tales of the times with celestially begotten sons. Or the obvious connection of death and ressurection symbolism in the solar stices.

Of COURSE it's a myth!!!!

If you want a more modern book on the topic, try Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why we Might Have Reason to Doubt." The book takes a look at both sides of the argument, that Jesus was either historical (the most likely version of this case where he was later deified), or whether he was mythical and later euhemerized (thrown into history in the same way that the Greek Gods were). Carrier started as a believer in the historical Jesus (though was still an atheist), but as he investigated the research, he became convinced that it is far more likely that he didn't actually exist. The book is peer-reviewed, and Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History, with a focus on the Roman Empire and its science and philosophy.

Carrier make the best case I have seen that Jesus never existed. He and Bart Ehrman are at odds thiugh, because Ehrman thinks Jesus was a real person, just not divine and all the miracles and resurrection are horse biscuits. They don't like each other very much, as Carrier has been rather critical of Bart's books. It's an interesting controversy, but there's no way to really know whether there was an actual person. It could even be a composite of several Myths. Everything is a remix.

Take it from someone that has asked people in the after life ------ who know now even when they believed in him while in the flesh!

No Jesus (God incarnate spoken of in the Bible) ------ Sorry!

Too bad I can't prove this scientifically or we could change the world!

Acharya! I love Acharya... It's great with boneless bangus and garlic fried rice.

Okay so you all think she's one heckuva scholar? Why then did Tim Callahan not drop her name when asked for evidence about dying and rising gods pre-dating the Resurrection of Jesus?

Oh, you think Richard Carrier is a an expert on this field... Tim would have remembered his name too.

Nope. Neither Acharya nor Carrier can ever find a scholar that actually agrees with them, not within our century or the last. They haven't done serious research on this field. Or else they will have to deal with Habermas.

Carrier does have academic credentials but has little respect among his peers. Many of his books are self published and instead of working for a major university, he writes for an atheist blog. I cant even say that about Achyra. She is a joke and much of her work has been debunked.As far as Callahan, I cant even find any info on his credentials but the dying/rising god theory has been largely debunked too. Most of those gods didnt die or rise and if they did, there are major differences between them and Jesus. There may have been some borrowing by Christians but Jesus is not a carbon copy or even close to the so called dying/rising gods-many of whom neither died or were resurrected.The Golden Bough has also been somewhat debunked as, at best , it is about theories of how religion was practiced in prehistoric times. Uh, we dont really know because there are no records. DUH.Frazier was quessing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2015 06:14PM by bona dea.

Bona Dea, why are you so insistent that there was a historical Jesus? There is absolutely zero evidence, and everything we now know about that time and place only bolsters the case for his non-existence.

Why is it so important to you that he lived, even as an ordinary man, when the all the facts say no? Your attitude borders on being obsessive-compulsive.

Because ancient history is my field and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for Jesus including the church, the writings near the time such as the NT,Josephus,both references only one of which is disputed, Tacitus, Pliny etc, the fact that no one at the time denied his existence. The simplest explanation is usually right and the simplest explanation is that Jesus founded a movement which grew into the Christian church. If he didnt, you are left with an improbably conspiracy theory.
Also, the fact that amost all historians accept the existence of Jesus as a given. Anyone who doubts it, and there are only three with relevant credentials, are considered kooks. These guys are often non religipus and actually know how to evaluate ancient sources and evidence unlike mythicists.



Mythicists demand a ridiculous and unreasonable amount of evidence that couldnt possibly exist for an illiterate peasant who was unknown outside of Palestine during his own life. They also ignore the fact that even if every historian of the time had written about him, which is ridiculous, those works would not all have survived. Most ancient writings are lost,Jesus was a peasant, his followers were illiterate and it is hardly shockinng that everyone and his dog didnt write about him.What other kinds of contemporary evidence would you like? Statues, pictures? His followers didnt have the money for that and they were Jews who were forbidden to make images. Churches? Jesus worshipped in a synagogue. Churches came later.Videotapes maybe? LOL. No one but kings, emperors or other famous leaders had that kind of evidence left behind and JESUS WAS A PEASANT WITH A LOCAL MOVEMENT. You dont believe Jesus existed, you explain who founded Christianity, why they did it and how come people of the same time and didnt notice that this person didnt exist. I care because it is an historic fact and it is my field and Iam more thana little tired of ignorant people who know nothing about the subject promoting idiot conspiracy theories. Like it or not and believe.it or notmythicism is an extreme fringe theory which is laughed at by scholars



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2015 09:18PM by bona dea.

Another point: If you espouse a theory that is almost unanimously rejected by scholars in relevant fields, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. Perhaps you should check the qualifications of those sources you are reading. Other than Carrier,Price and Doherty, none of them have advanced degrees in ancient history or Biblical studies, but feel free to belief the new age gurus, geologists, German teachers etc. and reject those who have devoted their careers to ancient history. What could they possibly know? The atheist bloggers, self published books which are filled with misinformation and red herrings have all the answers.Yes, I am a bit obsessive about my field. I worked hard for my degree and am a bit tired of people who dont know anything about history telling me I dont know what I am talking about. It is getting really old.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2015 09:37PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, the fact that amost all historians accept
> the existence of Jesus as a given.

I've pointed out your fallacious use of that statement before, and it bears doing so again.

"Almost all historians" don't study or research the "history" of "Jesus." They have no more knowledge on that subject than anybody else. So their opinion on the subject has no merit. The professional organization, the American Historical Association, lists upwards of 16,000 members. Of those, only 26 list their area of research as "New Testament" or "bible" related.
Your claim is both hyperbolic and false. "Almost all historians" don't have any professional interest in or knowledge of any supposed "history of Jesus."

Now, if you meant to say "almost all historians who specialize in the area of the New Testament or Jesus," then you might be onto something. But you'd still be making a combination appeal to authority/popularity fallacy. Because it's not their opinions that matter, it's what the evidence shows. And the evidence is not just controversial, it's pathetic. And with very few exceptions, it falls exactly along religious lines -- those who religiously believe in "Jesus" think he existed, those who don't, don't. Ehrman is one of the very few exceptions.

So please, for honesty's sake, stop saying "almost all historians." Almost all historians have no professional opinion on the matter.

and you claim there is evidence for this jesus character ?

I'm all ears.

There is no evidence to support the claim that "Jesus rose from the dead." That makes that claim meritless.

It's not necessary to make an opposite or counter claim -- that the story is entirely a myth -- to give the original claim no merit. Pointing out that ONE claim has no supporting evidence doesn't require making or providing evidence of some other claim.

I don't know if the bible story is a myth or not. I don't have ample evidence to factually demonstrate it IS a myth, so I won't make that claim. I do know that with no evidence to show it correct, the claim it's factual is entirely without merit. So I don't "believe" it. I don't have to prove the opposite to not believe that claim.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no evidence to support the claim that
> "Jesus rose from the dead." That makes that claim
> meritless.
>
> It's not necessary to make an opposite or counter
> claim -- that the story is entirely a myth -- to
> give the original claim no merit. Pointing out
> that ONE claim has no supporting evidence doesn't
> require making or providing evidence of some other
> claim.
>
> I don't know if the bible story is a myth or not.
> I don't have ample evidence to factually
> demonstrate it IS a myth, so I won't make that
> claim. I do know that with no evidence to show it
> correct, the claim it's factual is entirely
> without merit. So I don't "believe" it. I don't
> have to prove the opposite to not believe that
> claim.

The stories about Jesus are not backed up outside of the Bible; in fact, he's completely absent in every single account of the time and place the Bible puts him in.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There was never a Jesus, not even as a regular rabbi.

Read my post above

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read my post above

If Josephus actually did mention Jesus, it was only a paragraph and it was written 50 years after Christ's supposed life ended.

Tacitus only said that Christianity was a 'mischievous superstition' based on someone called Chrestus and that was 100 years 'after Christ'. Tacitus thought Hercules was a real person as well. So please don't use that to bolster your "historical Jesus" claim.

Pliny the younger didn't say anything about Jesus of Nazareth, only about Christus, which based on what he was talking about could well have meant a completely different group of religious followers. If we assume Pliny's letter was about Christians, followers of Jesus of Nazareth, then so what? Not only was this long after Jesus' death, but he never once spoke about Jesus himself or any of his supposed actions; he referred only to the followers of Jesus.

You'll have to do better than to use long-debunked sources as your "proof" that Jesus lived.

What you give is nothing but the lamest theist superstition ever.

Thanks for the loud laughter.

Your idiocy is quite entertaining.