By whom?
Who were these people who believed in Jesus and Paul before the stories were written?
Where did they write them? Rome? Alexandria? Corinth?
Why did these hoax forgers write these stories about events in 1st century Palestine?
The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
By whom?
Who were these people who believed in Jesus and Paul before the stories were written?
Where did they write them? Rome? Alexandria? Corinth?
Why did these hoax forgers write these stories about events in 1st century Palestine?
I'm not sure why you think it aids your credibility to keep complaining about how insulted you feel about various posts when you like to write telling others they are illiterate (a claim which is obviously untrue, of course), but - what is actually "illiterate" (“unable to read or write”) in that reply from dejudge?
dejudge said:
Your question is not even logical.
EVERY Existing writings which mention stories of Jesus and Paul are ALL DATED to the 2nd century or later.
In those 2nd century or later manuscripts and Codices it is claimed Jesus was crucified under PILATE [c 27-37 CE] and that Paul preached Crucified since the time of Aretas [c 37-41 CE].
This is a PARTIAL list of 2nd century or later writers who BELIEVED stories of Jesus, the TRANSFIGURING Sea water walking God Creator, born of a Ghost and/or stories of PauL who was a witness that God resurrected Jesus the Lord from heaven.
1. Aristides
2. Justin Martyr
3. Irenaeus
4. Tertullian
5. Origen
6. Hippolytus
7. Lactantius
8. Eusebius.
9. Jerome.
10. Chrysostom.
11. Rufinus.
12. Optatus.
13. Ephraem the Syrian.
14. Clement of Alexandria.
15. Sulpitius Severus.
16. Augustine of Hippo.
Brainache said:
Most of the existing manuscripts and fragments with stories of Jesus and/or Paul have been found in Egypt.
No Pauline letter have been found in Rome and Corinth and dated pre 70 CE.
Brainache said:
If Paul was an Herodian and a Liar as you argue then Paul the Jew was a Hoax.
Why did Paul claim he was a Jew IN 1st century Palestine when he was NOT?
If Jesus was a known mere man with a human father then why did Paul claim Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God's OWN Son who was raised from the dead on the THIRD day after he was buried?
If Jesus was a mere man then why did Paul claim the DEAD in Christ shall rise to meet JESUS in the AIR?
If Paul was a Liar, if Paul was NOT a Jew, if Jesus was a mere man AND not the Lord from heaven then Paul the Jew and Jesus God Creator in the NT are fiction characters like, Adam, Satan the Devil and the Angel Gabriel.
Last edited:
So according to you, the earliest manuscripts are the original compositions... Really?
Yes, Christianity is a religion. Some people believe it. I have no idea why you think this is relevant.
Why do you think that is significant? How many 1st century manuscripts about anything at all have been found in Rome or Corinth?
Logic fail.
Maybe because of this:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 9:19-231 Corinthians 9:19-23 said:
(my bold)
He also said Jesus was born under the law from the seed of David.
Because he was selling religion to superstitious Pagans.
Logic fail, again.
A partial list?! That's not good enough dejudge! I want a total list!
That's cos it doesn't rain much in Egypt, and old manuscripts don't rot away.
That's true dejudge. If Paul was a liar and not a Jew, then he would be a gentile liar. Yes. And if Jesus isn't a god, then he's not a god. Yes indeed.
Last edited:
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
What does your supposed original composition look like? Does it say that it is an original composition? Would it state that it was written since c 50-
60 CE?
You REALLY don't know what your imagined original composition looks like.
You REALLY don't know the contents of any OF YOUR SUPPOSED original manuscripts.
You REALLY don't know when any of your supposed "originals" were composed.
You REALLY don't know what you are talking about.
My arguments that Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of mythology is based on REAL existing manuscripts and Codices which were REALLY dated to the 2nd century or later.
Your IMAGINED originals have NOT been found. REALLY!!!
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
I am merely exposing that an actual human Jesus was NOT REQUIRED for the Christian religion.
Christian writers ADMITTED their Jesus was God Creator, born of a Ghost or was a TRANSFIGURING Sea water walker.
The CHRISTIAN cult called Marcionism did NOT require a mere man--but a PHANTOM.
The evidence from antiquity shows that the Jesus cult was based on BELIEF in fiction and mythology--not history.
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
Why do you think there were 1st century manuscripts of the Jesus stories? Why do you think what you imagine is relevant?
Why do you think your imaginary manuscripts are significant.
Your IMAGINED manuscripts are worthless for the HJ argument.
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
You have no idea what logic means.
You use the writings of a known liar as a credible historical source.
It is extremely logically fallacious to use 2nd century or later manuscripts with stories of Paul when you admit the author of those letters was a Liar and a Con-man.
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
You have only exposed that the Pauline writer was a LIAR and a Con-man.
In addition, you don't really know if your IMAGINED original pre 70 CE author wrote those words if he existed.
Skeptics of antiquity have already discovered the Pauline stories of Jesus was a pack of lies.
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
It is also stated that the parents of Jesus was GOD and a Woman.
It is also stated that Jesus was the Lord from heaven.
It is also stated that Jesus was the last Adam and made a Spirit.
It is also stated that Jesus was EQUAL to God.
It is also stated that Jesus was GOD Creator.
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
Superstitious Pagans BELIEVED mythology was history.
Superstitiious Pagans BELIEVED Romulus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.
Superstitious Pagans BELIEVED Jesus was ALSO born of a Ghost and a Virgin and became Christians.
dejudge said:
Brainache said:
You don't know what logic means.
You argue that Paul was a Liar and a Con-man yet use letters under the name of the same Lying con-man as an historical source WITHOUT corroboration.
Even Christian writers REJECT claims in Galatians 1.19.
It is completely void of logic to use 2nd century or later manuscripts attributed to a LIAR and a Con-man as an historical source.
Based on your argument it is confirmed that the HJ argument is a product of logically fallacies, fiction, forgeries, false attribution and LIES in the Pauline Corpus.
Last edited:
Cat got your keyboard?
It is a fact that ALL the EXISTING manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus of Nazareth, God's Own Son, the Transfiguring Sea water walker, born of a Ghost and God Creator are dated to the 2nd century or later.
It is also a fact that 2nd century or later writings state that the Jews KILLED the Son of their Own God--the Jews Killed the LORD from heaven.
It is also stated in 2nd century or later writings that it was predicted by Daniel that the Jewish Temple would be exterminated AFTER the JEWS KILLED Jesus.
The SIGN that the JEWS KILLED the Son of THEIR OWN GOD was the Fall of the Jewish Temple.
Essentially, NO ONE would have known the Son of God was KILLED by the Jews UNTIL the Fall of the Temple of the JEWISH GOD.
All stories that the JEWS KILLED the Son of God must be AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple which is EXACTLY what has happened.
Every EXISTING story of Jesus, the Son of God, is dated to the 2nd century or later.
Every mention of Jesus, the Son of God, in Non-Apologetic sources, are also from the 2nd century or later.
The Existing manuscripts and Codices support the argument that the Jesus character was a 2nd century or later invention to explain the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God c 70 CE.
2nd century or later CHRISTIAN writers themselves ADMITTED that the REASON for the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE was because the JEWS KILLED GOD'S SON.
The evidence from antiquity is OVERWHELMING.
1. The Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.
2. People of antiquity put out the propaganda that the Jewish Temple Fell because the JEWS KILLED the Son of their OWN God, the Lord from heaven.
3. People who BELIEVED the propaganda was the truth were called CHRISTIANS.
The Jesus story is a product of propaganda, utter fiction, deception, AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple.
This is a partial list of some of the Christians writers who put out the propaganda the JEWS KILLED or directly responsible for the KILLING of the Son of God--which could NOT have happened.
1. Aristides--the Apology.
2. Justin Martyr--Dialogue with Trypho.
3. Irenaeus--Against Heresies.
4. Terullian--Answer to the Jews
5. Origen--Against Celsus
5. Hippolytus--"Treatise Against the Jews"
6. Lactantius--How the Persecutors Died.
7. Eusebius--Church History.
8. Chrysostom---Against the Jews.
9.Optatus--"Against the Donatists.
10. The authors of gMark
11.The authors of gMatthew
12. The authors of gLuke
13. The authors of gJohn.
4. The authors of Acts of the Apostles.
15. The authors of the PAULINE Corpus.
The Jesus cult of Christians was INITIATED by 2nd century or later propanganda--a most vicious falsehood--that the Jews KILLED the Son of God, the Lord from heaven.
Now, even Atheist today believe the 2nd century or later stories of Jesus even though they discredit the NT.
1.Aristides--the Jews KILLED God after he came down from heaven
2.Justin Martyr--The Jews Killed the Just One--the Son of God.
3.Lactantius--- Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was crucified by the Jews.
4.Tertullian--the Jews KILLED Jesus, the Son of God.
5.Origen--the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
6.Hippolytus--the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
7.Eusebius--the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
8. Chrysostom--the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God
9. The Pauline writers--the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
10. The author of Acts--the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
The JEWS could NOT have KIILED God's Son.
The Jewish God does NOT exist.
The 2ND century or later story that the JEWS KILLED Jesus is TOTAL fiction.
In antiquity and EVEN TODAY those who BELIEVE the Fiction are called CHRISTIANS.
People today have become FAMOUS for believing FICTION.
Aristides' Apology
Over 1500 years ago Skeptics of antiquity had ALREADY discovered the stories of Jesus were MONSTROUS fables, written by men who were liars, and they had revealed that no contemporary writer mentioned Jesus and Paul.
See Eusebius' "Against Hierocles" Macarius Magnes "Apocritus" and Julian's Against the Galileans.
It is also a fact that 2nd century or later writings state that the Jews KILLED the Son of their Own God--the Jews Killed the LORD from heaven.
It is also stated in 2nd century or later writings that it was predicted by Daniel that the Jewish Temple would be exterminated AFTER the JEWS KILLED Jesus.
The SIGN that the JEWS KILLED the Son of THEIR OWN GOD was the Fall of the Jewish Temple.
Essentially, NO ONE would have known the Son of God was KILLED by the Jews UNTIL the Fall of the Temple of the JEWISH GOD.
All stories that the JEWS KILLED the Son of God must be AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple which is EXACTLY what has happened.
Every EXISTING story of Jesus, the Son of God, is dated to the 2nd century or later.
Every mention of Jesus, the Son of God, in Non-Apologetic sources, are also from the 2nd century or later.
The Existing manuscripts and Codices support the argument that the Jesus character was a 2nd century or later invention to explain the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God c 70 CE.
2nd century or later CHRISTIAN writers themselves ADMITTED that the REASON for the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE was because the JEWS KILLED GOD'S SON.
The evidence from antiquity is OVERWHELMING.
1. The Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.
2. People of antiquity put out the propaganda that the Jewish Temple Fell because the JEWS KILLED the Son of their OWN God, the Lord from heaven.
3. People who BELIEVED the propaganda was the truth were called CHRISTIANS.
The Jesus story is a product of propaganda, utter fiction, deception, AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple.
This is a partial list of some of the Christians writers who put out the propaganda the JEWS KILLED or directly responsible for the KILLING of the Son of God--which could NOT have happened.
1. Aristides--the Apology.
2. Justin Martyr--Dialogue with Trypho.
3. Irenaeus--Against Heresies.
4. Terullian--Answer to the Jews
5. Origen--Against Celsus
5. Hippolytus--"Treatise Against the Jews"
6. Lactantius--How the Persecutors Died.
7. Eusebius--Church History.
8. Chrysostom---Against the Jews.
9.Optatus--"Against the Donatists.
10. The authors of gMark
11.The authors of gMatthew
12. The authors of gLuke
13. The authors of gJohn.
4. The authors of Acts of the Apostles.
15. The authors of the PAULINE Corpus.
The Jesus cult of Christians was INITIATED by 2nd century or later propanganda--a most vicious falsehood--that the Jews KILLED the Son of God, the Lord from heaven.
Now, even Atheist today believe the 2nd century or later stories of Jesus even though they discredit the NT.
1.Aristides--the Jews KILLED God after he came down from heaven
2.Justin Martyr--The Jews Killed the Just One--the Son of God.
3.Lactantius--- Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was crucified by the Jews.
4.Tertullian--the Jews KILLED Jesus, the Son of God.
5.Origen--the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
6.Hippolytus--the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
7.Eusebius--the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
8. Chrysostom--the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God
9. The Pauline writers--the JEWS KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
10. The author of Acts--the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.
The JEWS could NOT have KIILED God's Son.
The Jewish God does NOT exist.
The 2ND century or later story that the JEWS KILLED Jesus is TOTAL fiction.
In antiquity and EVEN TODAY those who BELIEVE the Fiction are called CHRISTIANS.
People today have become FAMOUS for believing FICTION.
Aristides' Apology
Over 1500 years ago Skeptics of antiquity had ALREADY discovered the stories of Jesus were MONSTROUS fables, written by men who were liars, and they had revealed that no contemporary writer mentioned Jesus and Paul.
See Eusebius' "Against Hierocles" Macarius Magnes "Apocritus" and Julian's Against the Galileans.
Last edited:
dejudge, atheists who think it probable that there is a real person underlying the figure of Bible Jesus don't believe that he was really the Son of the Jewish God. So the immense labour you invest in asserting that he wasn't the Son of God because God doesn't exist is all wasted, which is a pity.
Atheists are using the SAME BIBLE that they have discredited.
In fact, Atheists who argue for an historical Jesus using the discredited Bible make a FAR WORSE argument that Bible thumping fundamentalists.
Bible thumping fundamentalists DO NOT discredit their Bible.
You admit Paul had AUDITORY Hallucinations and may have been off his NUT in reality yet use the Pauline Corpus as a credible historical source.
You also admit that the Birth, miracles and resurrection narratives in the Gospels are fiction yet use the same discredited Gospels to argue that Jesus was really baptised by John.
The HJ argument by Atheists is completely logically fallacious, WITHOUT a shred of credible historical sources and derived from admitted sources of fiction, historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions and events which could not and did not happen.
In effect, the HJ argument by Atheists is INHERENTLY DEAD out of the water.
Last edited:
I very much regret that we atheists have in your opinion been discrediting the Bible, and as you credit the Bible, you prefer Bible-thumping fundies because they don't discredit the Bible.
But that is not my point. As I wrote
And we really don't believe it, dejudge. I'm sorry if that makes your friends in the Bible-thumping community angry, but that's how it is.
dejudge said:
Again, you write fiction. I have not stated that I prefer Bible thumping fundies because they don't discredit the Bible.
Atheists who argue for an HJ make a FAR WORSE argument than Bible thumping fundamentalists because those Atheists have DISCREDITED their sources of their Jesus from CONCEPTION to Ascension.
Why do you want people to believe the Monstrous Fables from Conception to Ascension do contain the truth.
"Against the Galileans
The childish, foolish, monstrous fables of Jesus and Paul are NOT history but are Fiction of men who were LIARS.
Eusebius "Against Hierocles"
Why are Atheists who argue for an HJ using the NT [ known Packs of fiction, falsehood, forgeries and false attribution] as history?
The HJ argument based on discredited sources is probably the very worse argument known to mankind.
So if a Historian wants to study the origins of Christianity, what should they do? They have to start somewhere and the NT stories are a good place to start. I'll point out that Historians are aware of the fabrications and falsehoods in the bible stories, but still find them useful. How do they do that?
Tell me dejudge, what techniques do Historians use to reconstruct the past?
Do you know of any ancient texts that aren't full of falsehoods? Do you think that there were objective Historians (in the modern sense) writing and publishing peer-reviewed studies 2000 years ago?
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
A source can be partially true and partially false. One can start with a manuscript and point out which parts one thinks are accurate and which parts one thinks are inaccurate, without being "logically fallacious."
For what it's worth, I don't think there's enough evidence to prove conclusively that a real 1st century preacher wasn't the kernel of truth behind all the Jesus myths. There might have been one, or the stories might have all been fiction based on what was generally happening at the time, or at the time they were written down. I don't know if there's ever going to be enough evidence to know for sure.
But rejecting the Bible as evidence, when the question is "Was there a historical Jesus?" seems like rejecting the Sherlock Holmes stories when the question is "Was there a historical Sherlock Holmes?" It's the canon you have to start from, or else the question is meaningless. Without the Bible, we wouldn't even care whether there was an apocalyptic preacher circa 30 A.D. who had myths added to him.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
I do think it's jumping the gun, however, to assume a minimalist historical Jesus and from there attempt to reconstruct the history of Christianity.
I don't think one can discern the accuracy of that assumption in absence of provenance of the texts (not just these four, but the near 100 Jesus related texts).
Without knowing the context, how is one to be sure this was not a social movement derived variously in some queer manner and attractive in motive for some sociopolitical design?
Without context, one cannot very well solve if this is akin to the posthumous 'George Washington's vision' or if this is akin to Entellus of Aeneid.
All one can solve without context is that..."Gee, there be lots-o-fiction in dat dere tale; mhmmm"...and that's about it.
Last edited:
Well, well, well!!! You have confirmed that you have no idea how historians reconstruct the past.
You now admit that the NT, a fundamental source of fiction, historical problems, mythology, discrepancies, contradictions and events which did not and could not have happened, was a "GOOD PLACE" to start.
You didn't know what you were talking about from the very start.
Historians need CREDIBLE INDEPENDENT sources, artifacts, scientific and archaeological evidence to RECONSTRUCT the past.
There is ZERO credible independent sources, ZERO artifiacts, ZERO scientific and archaeological evidence of an historical Jesus in the time of Pontius Pilate.
And not only Jesus but Paul and the other so-called Apostles.
Essentially, the HJ argument is completely DEAD out of the water.
People who argue for an historical Jesus never knew how the past is reconstructed.
You thought the past is reconstructed from sources of fiction and mythology.
You thought the NT was a "GOOD PLACE" to reconstruct the past.
Bible thumping fundamentatilists, Christians and Creationits also use the same NT as a "GOOD PLACE" for history.
You have completely forgotten that you have DISCREDITED the same "GOOD PLACE" [the NT] and have admitted that the Pauline writer was a LIAR and a Con-man.
Last edited:
dejudge said:
Well, please tell us which part of the Jesus story is accurate WITHOUT being "logically fallacious".
Pup said:
Your admission that you don't know whether or not there was an historical Jesus does not impede the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology.
The argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology is based DIRECTLY on the existing manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus who is described as a Transfiguring Sea water walker, the Son of God Born of a Ghost and God Creator.
I am extremely delighted that you mention "rejecting the Bible as evidence".
It is those who argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a mere man WITH a human father who MUST REJECT or DISCREDIT the Bible as evidence.
The Bible states Jesus was born of a Ghost! Please, Tell us who REJECTS such a claim?
The Bible states Jesus was GOD Creator? Please tell us who REJECTS such a claim.
The Bible states Jesus was tempted by Satan the Devil on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple. Please tell us who REJECT the Temptation story?
The Bible states that a Holy Ghost bird descended upon Jesus when he was baptized. Please tell us who REJECT the Holy Ghost bird story?
The very same people who REJECT or DISCREDIT the Bible as evidence are the same people who use it as a source of history.
The Bible is NOT rejected as evidence for a mythological and fictional Jesus.
The Christian Bible CONTAINS the evidence of MYTHOLOGY from CONCEPTION to ASCENSION.
There is a MASSIVE amount of evidence that Jesus was a figure of mythology in the existing manuscripts and Codices.
Existing manuscripts and Codices which state the birth of Jesus claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.
Please, tell us WHO REJECTS the evidence of mythology in the Bible?
The same people who show that the Bible is evidence that Paul was a LIAR and a Con man.
I agree. But we do have some idea of context. We know the stories were written in Greek. We know that they contain echoes of Aramaic/Hebrew forms. We know that there were people like the Authors of the DSS in Palestine in the 1st century obsessed with "End Times" prophecy, Messiahs etc...
We don't need to invent strange processes to see how one such Apocalyptic Jewish preacher's name became the focus of Paul's new religion.
We need to account for those who were opposed to Paul as well. We need to account for James and his authority in Jerusalem. Was he unrelated to Paul's "Christ Jesus"? If so, why is he sending people to disrupt Paul's flock and boss them around?
Paul wasn't operating in a vacuum, we have lots of context for what was going on, thanks mostly to Josephus.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Not very helpful in and of itself.
Absolute conflation, my good friend.
Not every one of the near 100 texts actually fits this description.
A couple do, for instance this is fairly accurate of Mark, but not really of John (or Thomas, Mary, Judas....)
Terribly irrelevant.
There are no shared paleographic forms between any of the 100 Jesus texts and the DSS styles of literature...any of them.
And the best one for it would have been Matthew, but even it with its meticulous chiasmus formation does not match the DSS literary style.
Like Eisenman? Yeah, I agree; we don't need strange processes invented to explain that.
We should start with paleographic anthropology....you know...what HASN'T been done...EVER. (but has been done regularly for all other texts dug out of the earth)
Already off in assumption land here without any actual context of where the stories came from; which culture produced each of the nearly 100 texts....as far as I'm aware - no one has that answer and it's largely because NO ONE IS ASKING!
The best we have are half-arse jobs like that Mark could be from Rome because it has Latin words in it....really??
That's not at all satisfactory, nor thorough, nor even remotely close to proper paleographic anthropology.
And that's the best we have; people cherry picking facts about the texts and tossing them into some theory they already want the facts to fit.
Last edited:
Why have you invented an historical Jesus when it was NOT needed?
After all the very God of the Jews was NOT a figure of history.
Jews have no history of worshiping men as Gods.
The DSS does not mention Jesus of Nazareth.
It was blasphemy, a crime punishable by death, for a Jew to have declared himself a God.
And again, you write fiction.
The Pauline writers did NOT start a new religion. Pauline writers CLAIMED THAT THEY PERSECUTED THE FAITH and that there were CHURCHES and Apostles in CHRIST BEFORE THEM.
If you argue that there was an historical Jesus who was the founder of the NEW RELIGION THEN IT IS ILLOGICAL that Paul the PERSECUTOR started the same religion he persecuted.
Brainache said:
No, No, No!!! You first must get credible contemporary historical sources for your Paul. You have already ADMITTED Paul was a LIAR and a Con-man.
Brainache said:
Again, you write fiction. You have no history of Paul.
You are using 2nd century or later Anonymous hand written manuscripts which were NOT written by your Paul if he did live before c 70 CE.
No character called Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrew of the tribe of Benjamin is found in writings attributed to Josephus.
No writings which mentioned Paul is actually dated to the 1st century or before the writings of Josephus.
In fact, Skeptics of antiquity have also admitted the stories of Jesus in the Pauline Corpus is a pack of lies or written by men who were liars.
Plus, many writings attributed to 2nd century Christian writers show a BLACK HOLE for Paul and the Pauline Corpus up to at least the third century.
It would appear that the Pauline Corpus was composed in a VACUUM.
It was ONLY from around the 4th century that ALL CHRISTIAN writers acknowledged Paul and the Pauline Corpus.
- Status