The Historical Jesus II

[Craig B]

Craig,
Can I request some equal courtesy in discourse?

Sorry, I didn't mean to be personally discourteous; just to disagree with the ideas you were expressing. But I have failed to get my argument across, because this is exactly what I was trying to refute.

I stated that several possibilities are AS LIKELY as each other because we have no idea WHERE these texts were created, by whom, and for what purpose.

No. I am aware that's what you are saying, and it's entirely wrong. Completely. It is a fallacy, and a known and common fallacy. The fact that we can't decide between two possible scenarios, because we have an equal amount of information (i.e. none) about whether either of them has occurred in the past, or will in the event definitely occur in the future, doesn't make them equiprobable.

You are saying: we don't know whether a was the case or b was the case, so we have an equal amount of knowledge of both (i.e. none at all); therefore anything I might say is equally known (that is, not known at all), therefore it is equally probable. No. Therefore I completely reject this, that you go on to write.

For instance, though you just rudely snipped the section out and - without any shown reason - declared them "fanciful speculation", each of those propositions stands JUST AS possible as what you wrote.

No. And again if they are "just as" possible as what I wrote, they must be "just as" possible as one another, or "just as" possible as any other proposal you might wish to advance. No. You're saying the same fallacious thing in a myriad different ways, and it is still wrong.

 

[JaysonR]

Look, I don't know the statistical values, so when I say just as..I mean both (more than both) cannot be ruled out.

I don't know about yourself, but I don't see how we can, for example, rule out the Anatolian theater option for John.
That is just one example...

 

[dejudge]

You believe the Bible contains the history of your Jesus as stated by Bible Paul.

Because Bible Paul doesn't give any history of Jesus at all. Read this.

Again, you write more fiction.

You should first read what you have posted.

You claimed that the Pauline Jesus was of the seed of David.

Read this.

Read excerpts of your own post #1254 of this very thread.

..... The human messiah Jesus appears in all the Gospels and in Paul, but was subsequently overlaid in the later Synoptics, before their texts were fixed, by more grandiose material, about divinely originated conception. By the way, that is a further indication of the early date of Paul who has, in Romans 1:3, a human messianic Jesus..

You write fiction!! Read this. An excerpt from your own post #1258 of this very thread.

And here's Paul.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

So, as a person, Jesus is a human being physically descended "according to the flesh" from the (human) house of David......

You made references to Romans 1 where you claimed Jesus was the descendant of David according to Paul.

You argue that Paul knew the lineage of Jesus and knew that Jesus was crucified and died.

You mis-represent own yourself .

Read this. In post #1264 you continue to use the Pauline Corpus as an historical source for Jesus.

....Paul says, born of the seed of David.

Read this---post #1269 of this thread.

...To Paul Jesus becomes supernatural at the Resurrection

You write so much fiction that you cannot remember what you have said.

You can't even remember that you have used the Pauline Corpus to argue for an historical Jesus.

Why have you used the Pauline Corpus to argue for an historical Jesus when you knew all along that "Bible Paul doesn't give any history of Jesus at all"?

Why have used Galatians 1.19, and Romans 1 when Bible Paul doesn't give any history of Jesus AT ALL?

I am afraid that you are not credible or have problems with memory.

I am having great difficulty following your fallacious arguments because you deny what you said.

 

[JaysonR]

Craig,

Take for example, your baptism bit.
That conclusion rests on one possible chronology and sequence of events.
If Matthew was first, as some propose, then the entire idea you presented falls apart.
I'm not arguing for one or the other, but pointing out how tenuous the idea is.

Further, the idea you presented on both matters treats all 4 texts as if they are all part of one line of tradition; that they hold one doctrine, one set of beliefs, one Jesus.
Yet this is hardly capable of being claimed.

For instance, look at Matthew 15:21 and Mark 7:24.
In Matthew we have a Jesus doing something wrong, by today's view of Jesus.
In Mark Jesus does not deny and do anything wrong.
So what; Mark was after Matthew and the embarrassing event of Jesus refusing ANYONE was retracted in Mark?

Well that would be at odds with the Baptismal retraction hypothesis.

So what can we say?

We can say that each text reperesents a DIFFERENT cultural view of the value and employment of Jesus and should not be taken as a saga of 4 texts in sequence with aim to sculpt ONE Jesus collectively, but with interest to sculpt ONE Jesus in EACH text based on whatever cultural values THEY had...not what WE have or sympathize with.

We do not know enough to claim that we know THEIR motives.

caps for italics due to phone.

 

[Craig B]

Look, I don't know the statistical values, so when I say just as..I mean both (more than both) cannot be ruled out.

I don't know about yourself, but I don't see how we can, for example, rule out the Anatolian theater option for John.
That is just one example...

We need not simply to be unable to rule it out but positively to be able to rule it in. What evidence do you have for it?

 

[Craig B]

Again, you write more fiction.
You should first read what you have posted.

You claimed that the Pauline Jesus was of the seed of David.
Read this.
Read excerpts of your own post #1254 of this very thread.
You write fiction!! Read this. An excerpt from your own post #1258 of this very thread.
You made references to Romans 1 where you claimed Jesus was the descendant of David according to Paul.
You argue that Paul knew the lineage of Jesus and knew that Jesus was crucified and died.
You mis-represent own yourself .
Read this. In post #1264 you continue to use the Pauline Corpus as an historical source for Jesus.
Read this---post #1269 of this thread.
You write so much fiction that you cannot remember what you have said.
You can't even remember that you have used the Pauline Corpus to argue for an historical Jesus.
Why have you used the Pauline Corpus to argue for an historical Jesus when you knew all along that "Bible Paul doesn't give any history of Jesus at all"?
Why have used Galatians 1.19, and Romans 1 when Bible Paul doesn't give any history of Jesus AT ALL?
I am afraid that you are not credible or have problems with memory.
I am having great difficulty following your fallacious arguments because you deny what you said.

I see the source of your misunderstanding. It arises from an equivocation about the meaning of the word "historical". Yes, Bible Paul believed in the real existence, recently on Earth, of a human Bible Jesus. In that sense the word "historical" means "really existing".

But Bible Paul doesn't tell us any story about Bible Jesus' life, or give any details of the things he did. He never writes a biography, or "history" of Bible Jesus. So in that different sense, there is no "history" in the Bible writings of Bible Paul. Does that clear things up in your mind?

There's an interesting implication here, isn't there? It means that the "histories" of Bible Jesus found in the Bible Gospels must have had some source different from Bible Paul.

 

[JaysonR]

We need not simply to be unable to rule it out but positively to be able to rule it in. What evidence do you have for it?

It would derail the thread, but I have written of it elsewhere before where you have been involved.

For brevity, let us remove Anatolian John and just move on to my next post.

But one quick mention...note that WHERE the text comes from contains an impacting variable.
If I did convince you of Anatolian John, an entirely different idea would present...and that is my critical point.


Where was Mark, Matthew, John, or Luke written????

 

[bit_pattern]

Saw this today - thought of this thread

https://theconversation.com/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-jesus-35319

 

[Craig B]

If I did convince you of Anatolian John, an entirely different idea would present...and that is my critical point.

With respect, if you did convince me that the Moon is made of green cheese, an entirely different idea would present. But that is not evidence of the Moon's composition.

Where was Mark, Matthew, John, or Luke written????

Do you have a personal viewpoint about this? If so, I would be interested to know what it is, and the reasons why you are of that opinion.

 

[Craig B]

Saw this today - thought of this thread

https://theconversation.com/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-jesus-35319

Lataster seems to me to be an arrogant fool. But google up the comments pro and con, and decide for yourself.

Carrier is evidently distancing himself from Lataster's work.

I have a request for all my readers. There is a new book summarizing a case that Jesus might not have existed, which has received some positive reviews (from the Arizona Atheist and John Loftus; also reader reviews at Amazon), and some predictably negative ones (from the nefarious Christian apologist J.P. Holding, whose promised Part 2 does not seem to have materialized yet, and an even longer harangue by Nick Peters).

The book I’m talking about was published by a doctoral student in religious studies, Raphael Lataster ... and entitled There Was No Jesus, There Is No God: A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism, based on his master’s thesis. The finished book you can buy for a very reasonable price ... I have not had (and likely won’t have) the time to thoroughly vet the book, much less check it against the copious Christian apologetical attacks on it (by Holding and Peters, linked above). I did read enough to note that there were some problems with it, but I’m curious to know if those were the only ones, and if anyone else would notice them (so I won’t mention them now).

Won't have time to vet the book. Won't mention the problems now. Come off it Carrier!

 

[dejudge]

I see the source of your misunderstanding. It arises from an equivocation about the meaning of the word "historical". Yes, Bible Paul believed in the real existence, recently on Earth, of a human Bible Jesus. In that sense the word "historical" means "really existing".

Again, you write more fiction. You openly mis-represent yourself. How could you argue that Paul believed in a real existing Jesus if he did NOT write about Jesus as historical [really existing]?

But Bible Paul doesn't tell us any story about Bible Jesus' life, or give any details of the things he did. He never writes a biography, or "history" of Bible Jesus. So in that different sense, there is no "history" in the Bible writings of Bible Paul. Does that clear things up in your mind?

You continue to write KNOWN fiction and mis-represent your own fallacious arguments in PREVIOUS posts.

You yourself have argued that the Pauline Corpus states that Jesus was born of the seed of David, born of a woman, that he had a brother called James, that he was crucified [KILLED by the Jews] and was buried, and had a title called CHRIST the Son of God.

See your own post #1254, #1258, #1264 and #1269.

 

[maximara]

I see the source of your misunderstanding. It arises from an equivocation about the meaning of the word "historical". Yes, Bible Paul believed in the real existence, recently on Earth, of a human Bible Jesus. In that sense the word "historical" means "really existing".

But Bible Paul doesn't tell us any story about Bible Jesus' life, or give any details of the things he did. He never writes a biography, or "history" of Bible Jesus. So in that different sense, there is no "history" in the Bible writings of Bible Paul. Does that clear things up in your mind?

There's an interesting implication here, isn't there? It means that the "histories" of Bible Jesus found in the Bible Gospels must have had some source different from Bible Paul.

If you mean difference sects of a much larger "Jesus" cult I agree. But as the variance with John Frum in the very early years (some of which survive into the present day) shows that doesn't really speak to any historical man behind the curtain.

If we accept the idea that Mark was the main reference for Matthew, Luke, and at some level John then every thing to some degree goes back to how historical Mark is.

 

[maximara]

Lataster seems to me to be an arrogant fool. But google up the comments pro and con, and decide for yourself.

Carrier is evidently distancing himself from Lataster's work. Won't have time to vet the book. Won't mention the problems now. Come off it Carrier!

"If I can't examine every pyramidiot scheme in a lifetime. I certainly can't examine every nutty scheme in hundreds of other fields besides. Hence my rule: unless thye get something published properly; I'm not warranted in spending any time on it That's the way it has to be.

So when I was approached by people claiming Jesus didn't exist, I simple assumed this was more of the same." (sic) Carrier OHJ pg 2

Carrier goes on to it wasn't until many people told him about Doherty who at least had one peer-reviewed paper published (in Journal of Higher Criticism) that he took a look at Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle and it was that work that led him into his own study.

Also you left out this part of Carrier's blog:

"So I’d like as many of my readers as seem inclined to read either or both parts of Lataster’s book and comment here on what they think, positive or negative. Though if negative, please give Lataster a hand by being specific so he has a chance to revise the work for a second edition, which I know he is interested in doing. This is basically my way of crowdsourcing an opinion and assessment of this book, since I haven’t the time to study it thoroughly myself. I’d especially love it if anyone compared their reading of Lataster’s book with its Christian critics, as linked above (quite a task, as their critiques are very long, and possibly tedious and frustrating, if history serves, so I’ll be especially impressed by anyone who voluntarily endures that and reports back here on their findings). Are the Christians being fair? Or are they doing a hatchet job? Specific examples of either would be helpful to Lataster." (sic)

 

[Craig B]

You yourself have argued that the Pauline Corpus states that Jesus was born of the seed of David

That means, Joseph was his father. Not a woo ghost with its head under its arm.

born of a woman

Not a virgin woman, as far as we can determine:

Gal 4:4 ... Born of a woman, born under the Law

... that he had a brother called James, that he was crucified [KILLED by the Jews] and was buried, and had a title called CHRIST the Son of God.

And the incidents, the teachings, the miracles? Nothing, or hardly a word.

The only things Bible Paul gives us are standard messianic attributes, with two exceptions; that Bible Jesus had a brother called James. How did Bible Paul know? Because he met this James. And Bible Jesus was crucified. The disciples knew that, and could have told Bible Paul. But as to his biography and his teachings, more or less nothing.

Bear also in mind, that Christ doesn't mean Son of God. It means anointed, like a King or a high priest. Anointed and Son of God are both titles of kings of the Bible Davidic Dynasty. We've been through that, dejudge. Bible Paul says Bible Jesus was of the seed of Bible David, so it follows that these titles were appropriate.

 

[Craig B]

If you mean difference sects of a much larger "Jesus" cult I agree. But as the variance with John Frum in the very early years (some of which survive into the present day) shows that doesn't really speak to any historical man behind the curtain.

The sources and the cultural milieux in which they were generated are so different in the cases of Jesus and John Frum, that proclaiming the name of Frum is really not helpful in determining the historicity of Jesus. At best it tells us that imaginary or at least untraceable figures can quite quickly be conjured up in human minds; but I think people have always known that anyway.

If we accept the idea that Mark was the main reference for Matthew, Luke, and at some level John then every thing to some degree goes back to how historical Mark is.

Most things, probably, but by no means everything. The birth and resurrection stories are found (in disparate forms) in Mt and Lk but not in Mk; as are also (disparate) genealogies. However, I agree that the historicity of Mark is exceedingly important.

I attach little significance to the material in John, from the point of view of historicity. As I have pointed out, gJohn's story about Jesus' legs not being broken on the cross looks like an account of an occurrence, but it is pretty certain that John is concerned merely to identify Jesus with the Passover Lamb, of which no bone is to be broken.

 

[dejudge]

You yourself have argued that the Pauline Corpus states that Jesus was born of the seed of David

That means, Joseph was his father. Not a woo ghost with its head under its arm.

That means you are a confirmed fiction writer. Where do you get your fiction stories from?

Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus in the ENTIRE Canon. It was the Holy Ghost or the God of the Jews.

In the Pauline Corpus it is written that Jesus was the SENT son of God, the Lord from heaven, the second Adam who was made a Spirit.

In addition, Apologetic writers who mentioned the birth of Jesus ADMITTED their Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father and that Joseph was NOT the father of the Son of God.

The only things Bible Paul gives us are standard messianic attributes, with two exceptions; that Bible Jesus had a brother called James. How did Bible Paul know? Because he met this James. And Bible Jesus was crucified. The disciples knew that, and could have told Bible Paul. But as to his biography and his teachings, more or less nothing.

Oh, What fiction you write!!!

You just claimed that "Bible Paul doesn't give any history of Jesus at all"

Bear also in mind, that Christ doesn't mean Son of God. It means anointed, like a King or a high priest. Anointed and Son of God are both titles of kings of the Bible Davidic Dynasty. We've been through that, dejudge. Bible Paul says Bible Jesus was of the seed of Bible David, so it follows that these titles were appropriate.

When will you stop writing fiction and logically fallacious arguments?

Bible Paul claimed Jesus was the Lord from heaven and identified his parents as GOD and a Woman.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

The NT Canon is in AGREEMENT with the teachings of the Church that Jesus of Nazareth was GOD'S OWN SON born of a Ghost and a Virgin, God from the beginning, God Creator, the Logos, the Lord from heaven, equal to God, God Incarnate who WALKED on the sea before he Transfigured and resurrected on the Third day.

It is absurd [void of logic] to assume that the Pauline Corpus is contrary to the teachings of the very Church which Canonized the letters.

Apologetic writers used the Pauline Corpus to argue that Jesus was GOD Incanate and God of God.

Apologetic writings of antiquity description of their Jesus matches the myth fables of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

The Pauline Jesus is a MYTH like Romulus, the mythological founder of Rome.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

 

[Craig B]

That means you are a confirmed fiction writer. Where do you get your fiction stories from?

Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus in the ENTIRE Canon. It was the Holy Ghost or the God of the Jews.

In the Pauline Corpus it is written that Jesus was the SENT son of God, the Lord from heaven, the second Adam who was made a Spirit.

In addition, Apologetic writers who mentioned the birth of Jesus ADMITTED their Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father and that Joseph was NOT the father of the Son of God.

You spout this gibberish because you are unable to understand simple writings!

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

So Bible Jesus was a physical descendant of human ancestors while he was alive, and all this Son stuff happened after he was resurrected, according to Bible Paul. That's like Bible David who was the son of a person, Bible Jesse, before he was anointed as King: then he was acknowledged as Son of God. Again, Bible Paul is simply calling Bible Jesus a Messiah. Most people can understand these words, dejudge. This is not a "history" of Bible Jesus' life.

 

[dejudge]

The sources and the cultural milieux in which they were generated are so different in the cases of Jesus and John Frum, that proclaiming the name of Frum is really not helpful in determining the historicity of Jesus. At best it tells us that imaginary or at least untraceable figures can quite quickly be conjured up in human minds; but I think people have always known that anyway. Most things, probably, but by no means everything. The birth and resurrection stories are found (in disparate forms) in Mt and Lk but not in Mk; as are also (disparate) genealogies. However, I agree that the historicity of Mark is exceedingly important.

The birth narratives for Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel are not found in gMark, gJohn, gMatthew or gLuke.

Based on your logically fallacious argument Satan the Devil and the angel Gabriel are figures of history.

There is NO birth narrative for Marcion's Son of God or the God of the Jews so they too must have been born based on your fallacies.

I attach little significance to the material in John, from the point of view of historicity. As I have pointed out, gJohn's story about Jesus' legs not being broken on the cross looks like an account of an occurrence, but it is pretty certain that John is concerned merely to identify Jesus with the Passover Lamb, of which no bone is to be broken.

The Entire gJohn is riddled with fiction and events that did not and could NOT have happened.

It is pretty certain that the very first verse of gJohn declares that the WORD was God and was the Creator.

gJohn's Jesus was a MYTH from the Beginning just like the Pauline Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

The birth narratives for Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel are not found in gMark, gJohn, gMatthew or gLuke.

Based on your logically fallacious argument Satan the Devil and the angel Gabriel are figures of history.

You attribute to me the belief that the non mention of a birth in the Gospels is proof that it happened? So you think I think that the Bible Serpent really existed because the Book of Genesis doesn't state what egg it hatched out of?

 

[dejudge]

You spout this gibberish because you are unable to understand simple writings!

You spout fiction. You believe the gibberish in Galatians 1.19 from your Auditory Hallucinator. Even Christians writers REJECTED the gibberish in Galatians 1.19.

Virtually Every Christian writer who mentioned Galatians 1.19 or the parents of James the Apostle REJECTED the claim that James the Apostle was the actual brother of the Son of God.

The Canonised Pauline Corpus is in AGREEMENT with the teachings of the Church that Jesus was God of God.

Christians writers of antiquity used the Pauline Corpus to argue that Jesus was God of God.

So Bible Jesus was a physical descendant of human ancestors while he was alive, and all this Son stuff happened after he was resurrected, according to Bible Paul. That's like Bible David who was the son of a person, Bible Jesse, before he was anointed as King: then he was acknowledged as Son of God. Again, Bible Paul is simply calling Bible Jesus a Messiah. Most people can understand these words, dejudge. This is not a "history" of Bible Jesus' life.

You write fiction and logically fallacious arguments.

The Jesus story was NO different to the Myth fables of the Greeks and Romans where it is believed that Myth Gods had sons and daugthers who were born of a Virgin.

It is claimed that Romulus was the Son of Mars and a Virgin.

Examine writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

First Apology

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

When will you stop writing fiction?

The Pauline Corpus is IN AGREEMENT with the teachings of the Church that the parents of Jesus was GOD and a WOMAN.

In the Canon, God is a Ghost/Spirit.

John 4:24

God is a Spirit........