The Historical Jesus II

[Craig B]

We can't know without outside corroborating evidence, but the parts that could potentially be true would be any of the non-supernatural ones that don't contradict known geography and historical events.

Yes indeed. That sensible point is however unrecognised by those who treat the "Bible" as a single uniform source, so that if one impossible occurrence is related in any part of it, then the whole thing has to be rejected, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is a Christ-believing Bible thumper.

So in the same way anyone who thinks there might be a historical person underlying the Arthur legends has got to believe in magic swords stuck in stones; anyone who thinks there may have been a Trojan War must believe that

Aphrodite saves Paris when he is about to be killed in single combat by Menelaus. The goddess wraps him in a mist and spirits him away, setting him down in his own bedroom in Troy. She then appears to Helen in the guise of an elderly handmaiden and tells her that Paris is waiting for her.

http://www.mythweb.com/gods/aphrodite.html

 

[Brainache]

How exactly do we look at the plausibility of a reductive Jesus, or even know what a reductive Jesus looks like, when we don't know what kinds of attributes were cultural literary values because we don't know the culture to look at for a gauge of those values?

Wouldn't a reductive Jesus look like a 1st century Apocalyptic Jew? I mean, that is the historical context he is said to inhabit. So isn't 1st century Jewish Messianism where one might look for clues to the HJ?

We can discern much about Alexander the Great or King Lear because we know the cultural context and can trace the values of phrases and forms of writing.

With these texts, we are at a considerable disadvantage...we don't know their cultural context.

The only reasonable approach I can see is to firstly attempt to treat them as independent literary works and search for cultures that align with each text's literary markings.
Then, if after every pairing possibility has been completed, a value is found of at least one of those cultures writing in such a manner as to NOT be fully accounted for by purely literary creation, THEN perhaps there remains a possibility of a figure who actually existed...IF where we end up is somewhere near to Jesus' alleged physical location (obviously, if where we ended up was Spain [I'm not serious about that as a location; just an extreme example for the point], then it wouldn't really stand as reasonable to conclude that a Jesus not fully accounted for by Spanish literary form was actually extent, largely due to their vast separation in distance from the alleged location).

I'm convinced (even if you are not) that the DSS contain the Jewish seeds of what later became Gentile Christianity. Not that the Gospels were directly influenced by the DSS, because the Authors of the DSS were all killed or enslaved by the Romans in the war and those scrolls were untouched by anyone until the 20th century.

They (the DSS) are full of references to "Making a straight way in the wilderness" just like John The Baptist. They speak of the "star prophecy", the "Anointed" Messiah, "The Sons Of Light", etc...

Try comparing The War Scroll:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/guerradioses/guerradioses02a.htm
To the Book Of Revelation:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1

Mad as a meat-axe, the lot of them...

 

[Craig B]

How exactly do we look at the plausibility of a reductive Jesus, or even know what a reductive Jesus looks like, when we don't know what kinds of attributes were cultural literary values because we don't know the culture to look at for a gauge of those values?

A plausible reductive Jesus went about preaching and didn't walk on water. He may have been executed, but didn't subsequently wander out of his tomb. He wasn't born in the holy city of Bethlehem to a virgin mother. That's what a plausible reductive Jesus looks like, and if cultural literary values say he raised dead people, including himself, and cured leprosy and multiplied bread and fish to feed multitudes then I don't need to know anything about these cultural literary values because they contradict reason and defy known and proven laws of nature.

 

[JaysonR]

Wouldn't a reductive Jesus look like a 1st century Apocalyptic Jew? I mean, that is the historical context he is said to inhabit. So isn't 1st century Jewish Messianism where one might look for clues to the HJ?

That's not very useful.
That doesn't tell us if "Jesus" existed; that just tells us that some messianic claiming people existed, so this doesn't give us a reductive "Jesus".

A reductive Jesus would be, say, a Galilean who grew up of Mary and Joseph, was born in Bethlehem, had a given number of students, who taught some message capable of being identified even in the slightest bit of frame as to what that construct was - even in the most vague and mundane of forms, that he then eventually came to some kind of end before the end of the Second Temple period....anything akin to these kinds of propositions and suggestions.

Just saying that the reductive "Jesus" is equal with saying that messianic leaders existed so that a reductive "Jesus" is "a" messianic leader is so vague as to be indistinguishable functionally from simply not existing as a unique name to begin with.

I'm convinced (even if you are not) that the DSS contain the Jewish seeds of what later became Gentile Christianity. Not that the Gospels were directly influenced by the DSS, because the Authors of the DSS were all killed or enslaved by the Romans in the war and those scrolls were untouched by anyone until the 20th century.

So a sect who no one witnessed the works of until the 20th century influenced a religious movement not yet identified in provenance?

They (the DSS) are full of references to "Making a straight way in the wilderness" just like John The Baptist. They speak of the "star prophecy", the "Anointed" Messiah, "The Sons Of Light", etc...

And we know these concepts only existed in just the DSS texts and never existed in any other text or cultural idiom anywhere...only the DSS ever mentioned Star Prophecies (Numbers), Anointed messiahs (Daniel, several other texts/Zoroastrianism), making straight paths through wildernesses (Isaiah/Zoroastrianism), or being followers of light (Zoroastrianism), and only the Hebrew culture had exclusive access to the texts and traditions with these ideas?
No one ever outside of this area ever commissioned any works which contained these entries (say...like the Septuagint), nor anyone outside of this area ever interacted with Zoroastrianism either?

Try comparing The War Scroll:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/guerradioses/guerradioses02a.htm
To the Book Of Revelation:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1

Mad as a meat-axe, the lot of them...

So we know for certain that Revelation was written in Judea by Hebrew hands and represents strictly Hebrew customs and values alone - absolutely no possible means for it to reference any other culture or value set at all...like say...Anatolia...because, you know...Judean Hebrews really valued the coastal cities of Anatolia - right after Jerusalem their list went Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamon, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea - you know...the holy 7 cities of Second Temple Judaism located in Anatolia.

 

[JaysonR]

A plausible reductive Jesus went about preaching and didn't walk on water. He may have been executed, but didn't subsequently wander out of his tomb. He wasn't born in the holy city of Bethlehem to a virgin mother.

Went about preaching - not unique to Jesus
Didn't walk on water - not unique to Jesus
May have been executed - not unique to Jesus
Didn't subsequently wander out of his tomb - not unique to Jesus
Wasn't born in the (not holy) holy city of Bethlehem - not unique to Jesus


This reductive Jesus list doesn't need to be called "Jesus".
This could simply be dozens of individuals and no one called "Jesus" at all.

 

[Brainache]

Went about preaching - not unique to Jesus
Didn't walk on water - not unique to Jesus
May have been executed - not unique to Jesus
Didn't subsequently wander out of his tomb - not unique to Jesus
Wasn't born in the (not holy) holy city of Bethlehem - not unique to Jesus


This reductive Jesus list doesn't need to be called "Jesus".
This could simply be dozens of individuals and no one called "Jesus" at all.

Well, a reductive Jesus would IMO also have to have been associated with John The Baptist. He also would have had a brother (blood or spiritual, take your pick) called "James" who was a leader of an assembly in Jerusalem who was sending people to interfere with Paul's congregations. He would have to be that specific individual, to be the HJ in any meaningful sense.

So: Did John The Baptist exist?

Did Paul write those letters?

Did James exist?

Did James exert power over Paul's followers?

Did James have a "brother" who was executed by Pilate?

 

[JaysonR]

All very valid questions and precisely why a much more in-depth examination is required than simply assuming the culture, and assuming a reductive position instead of deducing a culture and deducing a reductive position.

Otherwise, what is the argument against a purely Egyptian origin aside from, "Because that just sounds silly" or "Just because the texts were found there doesn't mean they originated there"?
The latter is a valid point, but that also doesn't mean they did NOT come from Egypt either - it only points out, accurately, that asserting Egyptian provenance is hasty...just as hasty as asserting Judean provenance.

 

[Brainache]

That's not very useful.
That doesn't tell us if "Jesus" existed; that just tells us that some messianic claiming people existed, so this doesn't give us a reductive "Jesus".

A reductive Jesus would be, say, a Galilean who grew up of Mary and Joseph, was born in Bethlehem, had a given number of students, who taught some message capable of being identified even in the slightest bit of frame as to what that construct was - even in the most vague and mundane of forms, that he then eventually came to some kind of end before the end of the Second Temple period....anything akin to these kinds of propositions and suggestions.

I'd leave out Bethlehem...

Just saying that the reductive "Jesus" is equal with saying that messianic leaders existed so that a reductive "Jesus" is "a" messianic leader is so vague as to be indistinguishable functionally from simply not existing as a unique name to begin with.

Good thing I'm not saying that.

So a sect who no one witnessed the works of until the 20th century influenced a religious movement not yet identified in provenance?

These DSS people were the Zealots who fought against Rome. The specific Sectarian texts that were in those caves were not seen. Although the Damascus Document was found in one other place in Egypt.

And we know these concepts only existed in just the DSS texts and never existed in any other text or cultural idiom anywhere...only the DSS ever mentioned Star Prophecies (Numbers), Anointed messiahs (Daniel, several other texts/Zoroastrianism), making straight paths through wildernesses (Isaiah/Zoroastrianism), or being followers of light (Zoroastrianism), and only the Hebrew culture had exclusive access to the texts and traditions with these ideas?
No one ever outside of this area ever commissioned any works which contained these entries (say...like the Septuagint), nor anyone outside of this area ever interacted with Zoroastrianism either?

That is not what I'm saying, but it would seem extraordinary to me that any one group combined so many of the same tropes as later Christianity and yet was totally unconnected.

Take another look at the "New Covenant in the Land Of Damascus":
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Or the "Manual Of Discipline":
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

So we know for certain that Revelation was written in Judea by Hebrew hands and represents strictly Hebrew customs and values alone - absolutely no possible means for it to reference any other culture or value set at all...like say...Anatolia...because, you know...Judean Hebrews really valued the coastal cities of Anatolia - right after Jerusalem their list went Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamon, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea - you know...the holy 7 cities of Second Temple Judaism located in Anatolia.

"The rule of So" raises its ugly head...

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying Revelation looks like it comes from a similar tradition of Apocalypticism albeit removed by several generations and many miles. I wouldn't be surprised if it was written in Egypt by someone who never spoke Hebrew in their lives.

 

[JaysonR]

I'd leave out Bethlehem...

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Good thing I'm not saying that.

If that wasn't what you were intending to say, then it would have helped to offer more in description the first pass through than you did...which did make it plainly seem as though that was exactly what you said.

Your later post extended your parameters, so OK.

These DSS people were the Zealots who fought against Rome. The specific Sectarian texts that were in those caves were not seen. Although the Damascus Document was found in one other place in Egypt.

That wasn't my point.
You said their documents weren't found until the 20th c CE and that you weren't claiming they had direct influence to the Gospel texts (or any of the other near 100 texts), but that you are convinced that the DSS contain the Jewish seeds of what later became Gentile Christianity.

So a bunch of texts which did not influence the later Christian texts because they weren't available did somehow create the seed for non-Hebrew Christianity?

I know you are fully convinced of the basic construct of Eisenman, but you know that position carries VERY little weight with me and won't find sympathy from me, and we've been through it before and I've pointed out several time the shear mass amount of axioms and assumptions piled upon axioms and assumptions and fact-fitting that I've observed in his work.

That's not really convincing.

That is not what I'm saying, but it would seem extraordinary to me that any one group combined so many of the same tropes as later Christianity and yet was totally unconnected.

I feel this is cherry picking, or 'pregnancy bias' (because someone's pregnant, they see pregnancy everywhere).

So the DSS also has interest in Magi?
They also have interest in chiasmus form?
They also have interest in adoptionist ideology [that is: the messiah wades into water and upon doing so, is adopted by his god through title and ownership and a supernatural marker] (like Zoroastrianism and Christianity contain)?
They also speak of the evil spirit figure tempting the good patron messiah-like figure to renounce his good ways for the ownership of all, and the good patron rejects the offer claiming he only requires the law and word of the good god? (Zoroastrianism, btw)

There's lots of non-DSS attributes involved.
Can we show that there is no possibility for the Hellenistic culture to have gained any variation of either of these traditions and combined them in a Mystery Cult stew, so frequently done at the time?
To have mixed Zoroastrianism and Judaic Messianic cult ideologies together?

That is just simply not a possibility; no possible textual evidence leaves this idea as a possibility?
The only possibility we are left with is that there was the DSS and then from the DSS group somehow - Christianity?

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying Revelation looks like it comes from a similar tradition of Apocalypticism albeit removed by several generations and many miles. I wouldn't be surprised if it was written in Egypt by someone who never spoke Hebrew in their lives.

How many generations, and how many miles?
If it is such of either, then how can we look at Revelation and read it with Hebrew values if it was several generations later than the DSS and many miles away from their Judean location?

How does this remove the possibility of Anatolian culture, or Roman culture, or _____, imprinting itself into the text?

 

[Brainache]

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?


If that wasn't what you were intending to say, then it would have helped to offer more in description the first pass through than you did...which did make it plainly seem as though that was exactly what you said.

Your later post extended your parameters, so OK.


That wasn't my point.
You said their documents weren't found until the 20th c CE and that you weren't claiming they had direct influence to the Gospel texts (or any of the other near 100 texts), but that you are convinced that the DSS contain the Jewish seeds of what later became Gentile Christianity.

So a bunch of texts which did not influence the later Christian texts because they weren't available did somehow create the seed for non-Hebrew Christianity?

It wasn't the texts, but the beliefs of the people who wrote them. These things exist outside of the texts in the culture.

I know you are fully convinced of the basic construct of Eisenman, but you know that position carries VERY little weight with me and won't find sympathy from me, and we've been through it before and I've pointed out several time the shear mass amount of axioms and assumptions piled upon axioms and assumptions and fact-fitting that I've observed in his work.

That's not really convincing.

Ive seen you say these things, but I don't always agree with your assessment. Sometimes I do, but not always.

I feel this is cherry picking, or 'pregnancy bias' (because someone's pregnant, they see pregnancy everywhere).

So the DSS also has interest in Magi?
They also have interest in chiasmus form?
They also have interest in adoptionist ideology [that is: the messiah wades into water and upon doing so, is adopted by his god through title and ownership and a supernatural marker] (like Zoroastrianism and Christianity contain)?
They also speak of the evil spirit figure tempting the good patron messiah-like figure to renounce his good ways for the ownership of all, and the good patron rejects the offer claiming he only requires the law and word of the good god? (Zoroastrianism, btw)

There's lots of non-DSS attributes involved.
Can we show that there is no way possibility for the Hellenistic culture to have gained any variation of either of these traditions and combined them in a Mystery Cult stew, so frequently done at the time?
To have mixed Zoroastrianism and Judaic Messianic cult ideologies together?

That is just simply not a possibility; no possible textual evidence leaves this idea as a possibility?
The only possibility we are left with is that there was the DSS and then from the DSS group somehow - Christianity?

No. The DSS group were the "Ebionite" Jewish-Christians and Masbutaeans and Sabaeans etc the various "Daily Bathers" in the east. The Churches who were mostly influenced by Paul became later "Christianity". Those were the churches full of converted "Pagans" who no doubt added a lot of stuff to the stories.

How many generations, and how many miles?
If it is such of either, then how can we look at Revelation and read it with Hebrew values if it was several generations later than the DSS and many miles away from their Judean location?

How does this remove the possibility of Anatolian culture, or Roman culture, or _____, imprinting itself into the text?

It doesn't. I never said the DSS was the only influence on later Xtianity, but I do think they were influential on the origins of Xtianity.

The Ebionites called Paul "The Enemy" and "Anti-Christ"...

 

[JaysonR]

It wasn't the texts, but the beliefs of the people who wrote them. These things exist outside of the texts in the culture.

And we know this is only something linked to just the DSS culture because?

Even though we admit to having dozens of messianic cults at the time, only THIS cult is the one to relate to Christianity?

Ive seen you say these things, but I don't always agree with your assessment. Sometimes I do, but not always.

Point is that it is no where near stable for building a reductive Jesus in this discussion, so it can't be the answer to the above question.

No. The DSS group were the "Ebionite" Jewish-Christians and Masbutaeans and Sabaeans etc the various "Daily Bathers" in the east.

Really?
So you are absolutely certain that the passing reference to "Ebionites" always refer to the DSS group when later surveys speak ill of the Ebionites and their Hebrew text attributed as being akin to Matthew, but blasphemous?

The Churches who were mostly influenced by Paul became later "Christianity". Those were the churches full of converted "Pagans" who no doubt added a lot of stuff to the stories.

We know this because _______ ?

And which texts are of this lineage; Thomas, Mary, Judas, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Stephan, Hermas,...maybe Physiologus,... perhaps some of the Pauline letters...which ones?
Which texts were where?
Which Christian group?
Where did they start?
What culture were they..."Pagan" is not a culture - that is a non-culture (not us - it just means of the folk...that's not specific at all)...where were these first Christians in the Mediterranean?
What religion were they before adopting Christianity?
Did ALL of these Christians follow the SAME ideals?
Did they ALL hold sacred the SAME texts?
Did they ALL think of Jesus the SAME way?

It doesn't. I never said the DSS was the only influence on later Xtianity, but I do think they were influential on the origins of Xtianity.

The Ebionites called Paul "The Enemy" and "Anti-Christ"...

Without drawing hasty conclusions about who applies to the incredibly loosely scattered terms of Ebionite (keeping in mind that "ebionite" is about as unique as "gnostic"), and without invoking Eisenman's suppositions of a real Paul, Jesus, James and a grand conspiracy of Herodian politics...you know...with just basic good ol fashion anthropology....can you show where their specific sectarian culture is clearly and uniquely evident in the Christian text culture (and I mean out of ALL Christian texts...any of them, not just the canon).

Can you show a crossing of culture between the two which firmly isolates, and expels, the possibility of messianism, known to have existed, in general?

Can you show that the DSS is not just a sample of what several various messianic cults would have loosely looked like - that none could have possibly held any possible like form other than the DSS and that only the DSS could have provided this region's messianic movement influence upon any other culture's acquisition and adoption of the messianic culture from this region?

That therefore we are valid to apply the DSS cultural values onto the Christian texts (all of them, all of them) and in so doing discern the Christian texts' (again...ALL of them) values by proxy of the DSS culture - negligent of any other possible influences, or any other cultural identification?

 

[dejudge]

You write fiction. The earliest manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated to c 175-225 CE.

How can it be FICTION when I am AGREEING with you about the dating OF the manuscripts?

You write more fiction. You have not agreed with me. I have argued that there are NO Pauline letters dated to 50-60 CE and You stated that the INTERNAL EVIDENCE IMPOSES such dating.

Can't you remember what yourself have posted? Don't you remember that you have argued that the INTERNAL evidence imposes a dating of c50-60 CE?

There are NO Pauline letters dated to c 50-60 CE.

Internal evidence imposes such a dating. We've been over it.

Now please tell us which PAPYRI, manuscript or CODEX with the Pauline Corpus have been dated to c 50-60 CE by INTERNAL EVIDENCE?


What is the DESIGNATED number or code for your c50-60 CE Pauline manuscripts?

There is NO Papyri, No Manuscript, NO Codex with the Pauline Corpus dated to 50-60 CE.

Your IMAGINARY Payri, manuscript or Codex does NOT EXIST.

Remember, the earliest manuscript is unlikely to be the original composition. Did you know that, dejudge?

You forget that you have NO Papyri, No Manuscript, and No Codex with the Pauline Corpus dated to c 50-60 CE.

You forget that it does not take 125 years to copy A LETTER under the name of Paul.

You forget that the earliest manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated c 175-225 CE.

You forget that if the EXISTING Pauline Corpus was copied around C 175-225 CE that the originals could have been written c 174-224 CE.

You forget that that you don't know if any of the letters in the Pauline Corpus are originals.

What we do know is that the Pauline writers were LIARS and the Pauline Corpus is NOT HISTORICALLY CREDIBLE.

We know the Pauline Corpus is useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

The Jesus in the Pauline Corpus was the LORD from heaven, the Son of God and a Woman, God's OWN Son, and God Creator.

 

[Craig B]

Well, a reductive Jesus would IMO also have to have been associated with John The Baptist. He also would have had a brother (blood or spiritual, take your pick) called "James" who was a leader of an assembly in Jerusalem who was sending people to interfere with Paul's congregations. He would have to be that specific individual, to be the HJ in any meaningful sense.

So: Did John The Baptist exist?

Did Paul write those letters?

Did James exist?

Did James exert power over Paul's followers?

Did James have a "brother" who was executed by Pilate?

Yes, quite so. My "reductive Jesus" was intended to exclude the impossible mythological elements. A really existing Jesus would need to have been called Jesus, and to have been the person executed under Pilate. If no such person existed there was no Jesus the Nazarene.

But being called Jesus, and being executed by Pilate, were both common elements of people's biographies at the time, so it's not impossible that both things might apply to so single person.

 

[Craig B]

Now please tell us which PAPYRI, manuscript or CODEX with the Pauline Corpus have been dated to c 50-60 CE by INTERNAL EVIDENCE?


What is the DESIGNATED number or code for your c50-60 CE Pauline manuscripts?[/b]

There is NO Papyri, No Manuscript, NO Codex with the Pauline Corpus dated to 50-60 CE.

Your IMAGINARY Payri, manuscript or Codex does NOT EXIST.

dejudge, I'm beginning to wonder if you simply don't understand what I am saying, but I hope others reading this, if such there be, do manage to grasp it.

As I have repeatedly stated, we have no manuscripts dated 50-60. The internal evidence refers not to any manuscript, but to the text. That is, to the words, which must have been written on some manuscript older than the one we have. The example I have given is Caesar's Gallic War, of which the oldest manuscript dates from the ninth century. The words of Caesar indicate that they were written earlier, on manuscripts now lost.

Sometimes manuscripts disappear and we lose the writings altogether. Like the works of Julian, which we have discussed. No manuscript, only hostile commentary by Tertullian. Justus of Tiberias. No manuscript, only a ninth century notice in a bibliography by the Patriarch Photius.

For Paul, no early manuscript because in Paul's day the number of his followers was small. A century later the numbers increased, and more copies of the epistles were produced.

Can you not understand the words I have written? Again, here is the principle: date of earliest surviving manuscript is not the same thing as date of composition. In this case that is shown by the evidence of early composition in the wording of the text.

By the way, disbelief in the historicity of Jesus is a minority predisposition. Disbelief in the existence of Paul, because he is allegedly a hoax, is very eccentric indeed.

 

[Brainache]

And we know this is only something linked to just the DSS culture because?

Even though we admit to having dozens of messianic cults at the time, only THIS cult is the one to relate to Christianity?

Mostly because they numbered in the thousands and they were in Jerusalem.

Point is that it is no where near stable for building a reductive Jesus in this discussion, so it can't be the answer to the above question.


Really?
So you are absolutely certain that the passing reference to "Ebionites" always refer to the DSS group when later surveys speak ill of the Ebionites and their Hebrew text attributed as being akin to Matthew, but blasphemous?

Again with the "So"... I know the DSS group refer to themselves as "Ebionim". What people a couple of centuries later thought about "Ebionites" may not be 100% accurate.

We know this because _______ ?

Because Paul's letters were later canonised. Because they teach about a Jesus who was against food purity and circumcision, unlike James and Peter (until Peter had a vision of a tablecloth or something)...

And which texts are of this lineage; Thomas, Mary, Judas, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Stephan, Hermas,...maybe Physiologus,... perhaps some of the Pauline letters...which ones?
Which texts were where?
Which Christian group?
Where did they start?

Pretty obviously I was talking about what was canonised in the NT.

What culture were they..."Pagan" is not a culture - that is a non-culture (not us - it just means of the folk...that's not specific at all)...where were these first Christians in the Mediterranean?
What religion were they before adopting Christianity?
Did ALL of these Christians follow the SAME ideals?
Did they ALL hold sacred the SAME texts?
Did they ALL think of Jesus the SAME way?

By "Pagan" I was referring to all of the surrounding non-Jewish peoples who converted to Pauline Christianity. Some were Greek, some Persian, Roman... whatever.

There probably were some Jews who converted to Paul's new cult.

Without drawing hasty conclusions about who applies to the incredibly loosely scattered terms of Ebionite (keeping in mind that "ebionite" is about as unique as "gnostic"), and without invoking Eisenman's suppositions of a real Paul, Jesus, James and a grand conspiracy of Herodian politics...you know...with just basic good ol fashion anthropology....can you show where their specific sectarian culture is clearly and uniquely evident in the Christian text culture (and I mean out of ALL Christian texts...any of them, not just the canon).

Can you show a crossing of culture between the two which firmly isolates, and expels, the possibility of messianism, known to have existed, in general?

Can you show that the DSS is not just a sample of what several various messianic cults would have loosely looked like - that none could have possibly held any possible like form other than the DSS and that only the DSS could have provided this region's messianic movement influence upon any other culture's acquisition and adoption of the messianic culture from this region?

That therefore we are valid to apply the DSS cultural values onto the Christian texts (all of them, all of them) and in so doing discern the Christian texts' (again...ALL of them) values by proxy of the DSS culture - negligent of any other possible influences, or any other cultural identification?

You want me to write a book? That's what it would take to answer this. But since you don't like Eisenman's ideas, I think I'll save us both the hassle...

 

[JaysonR]

"So" means "therefore"...if it bothers you that much; I'll start writing "therefore".

Mostly because they numbered in the thousands and they were in Jerusalem.

Therefore only they have the influence possible?
Because no other groups had large followings in Judah at the time?
None?
All other Messianic followings had what number of followers, exactly?

I know the DSS group refer to themselves as "Ebionim". What people a couple of centuries later thought about "Ebionites" may not be 100% accurate.

And we are aware of all ebionite writings and cultures and know that only this group referred to their own construction as ebionite?
We know for certain that later references in survey were not because the groups called themselves such, but only because others decided to call them such?

Because Paul's letters were later canonised. Because they teach about a Jesus who was against food purity and circumcision, unlike James and Peter (until Peter had a vision of a tablecloth or something)...

Therefore only the later canonized Christianity (of which there were multiple) were influenced by Pauline texts?
No cult following Thomas or Judas, for example, could have possibly been influenced by Pauline texts?
That later Christian bodies are the cultures (all variations of them; as they were not united) which were the closest to the original Christian culture?
What we know of these cultures are the cultures of interest regarding the values of the texts in regards to those text's provenance?
Even if that were true...which of even those bodies is the one we should pick to assess the values of the texts from?

Pretty obviously I was talking about what was canonised in the NT.

Again; then we know only the later canonized textual traditions were the original texts of noted provenance; no other texts possibly are worth note, and no other sects came prior to them using the same texts?
They were the first?

Still not answered:
Which texts were where?
Which Christian group (was on the heels of the provenance of the texts)?
Where did they start?

By "Pagan" I was referring to all of the surrounding non-Jewish peoples who converted to Pauline Christianity. Some were Greek, some Persian, Roman... whatever.

There probably were some Jews who converted to Paul's new cult.

Therefore...what? We can determine Hebrew cultural values alone?
We have one culture to discern with?
The whole entire point is that we lack a culture for EACH text in identity of provenance and therefore are at a great disadvantage to discerning values for the purposes of whittling away what would be added for narrative motive and what would be added for representation of what was believed to have been actual history.

You want me to write a book? That's what it would take to answer this. But since you don't like Eisenman's ideas, I think I'll save us both the hassle...

See?
You're possibly starting to see the problem here, then?!

No?
Still think we can just dress up a Jesus willy nilly when even now you recognize to answer even a small fraction of questions would require that you write elaborately and involve in great study?

 

[dejudge]

A plausible reductive Jesus went about preaching and didn't walk on water. He may have been executed, but didn't subsequently wander out of his tomb. He wasn't born in the holy city of Bethlehem to a virgin mother. That's what a plausible reductive Jesus looks like, and if cultural literary values say he raised dead people, including himself, and cured leprosy and multiplied bread and fish to feed multitudes then I don't need to know anything about these cultural literary values because they contradict reason and defy known and proven laws of nature.

Your Jesus isn't plausible at all. Your Jesus is a product of fiction and your OWN imagination.

No writer of antiquity supports your imaginative fiction story.
.
Jesus of the NT, the Son of a Ghost and God Creator was Plausible and that is exactly why people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories and became Christians.

Your imaginative fiction story was NOT Plausible in antiquity.

The same people of the Roman Empire who believed the Plausible story of Romulus the myth founder of Rome, that he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, also believed the extremely PLAUSIBLE stories of Jesus, that he was born of a Ghost, God Creator, and a Transfiguring Sea water walker who resurrected on the THIRD day.

In fact, Origen admitted that it was EXPECTED that those who would NOT believe the miraculous conception of Jesus by a Ghost would invent Falsehood.

The historical Jesus of Nazareth is indeed an imaginative invented fiction. No such character lived in the time of Pilate.

If Jesus was a known obscure preacher man then the NT is a pack of lies

It is extremely implausible that the Jesus cult was initiated by your known fiction.

 

[dejudge]

....Because Paul's letters were later canonised. Because they teach about a Jesus who was against food purity and circumcision, unlike James and Peter (until Peter had a vision of a tablecloth or something)...

No, No, No!!! Peter's vision is NOT in the Pauline Corpus.

You don't seem to understand that Canonisation of any text does not mean it is true.

gMatthew is Canonised with the claim that Jesus was a Transfiguring Sea water walker who Resurrected on the THIRD daY.

You have forgotten that there were MULTIPLE authors posing as Paul.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge, I'm beginning to wonder if you simply don't understand what I am saying, but I hope others reading this, if such there be, do manage to grasp it.

I understand that you write fiction and logically fallacious arguments.

As I have repeatedly stated, we have no manuscripts dated 50-60. The internal evidence refers not to any manuscript, but to the text. That is, to the words, which must have been written on some manuscript older than the one we have. The example I have given is Caesar's Gallic War, of which the oldest manuscript dates from the ninth century. The words of Caesar indicate that they were written earlier, on manuscripts now lost.

It does not logically follow that fiction stories of Jesus and Paul were written c 50-60 CE because one letter dated to the 2nd century or later mentions Aretas.

Sometimes manuscripts disappear and we lose the writings altogether. Like the works of Julian, which we have discussed. No manuscript, only hostile commentary by Tertullian. Justus of Tiberias. No manuscript, only a ninth century notice in a bibliography by the Patriarch Photius.

You have ONLY confirmed that the HJ argument is logically fallacious.

For Paul, no early manuscript because in Paul's day the number of his followers was small. A century later the numbers increased, and more copies of the epistles were produced.

Where do you get your fiction stories from?

Can you not understand the words I have written? Again, here is the principle: date of earliest surviving manuscript is not the same thing as date of composition. In this case that is shown by the evidence of early composition in the wording of the text.

Can you not understand that you are writing fiction? You have no evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was originally written around c 50-60 CE.

There is NO internal evidence to date the EXISTING PAPYRI and NT manuscripts to the time of Aretas.

I have already explained that the Pauline Corpus is dated to c 175-225 CE.

By the way, disbelief in the historicity of Jesus is a minority predisposition. Disbelief in the existence of Paul, because he is allegedly a hoax, is very eccentric indeed.

Your statement is completely useless for the HJ argument.

It is extremely eccentric to use the words of an Auditory Hallucinator as a evidence.

I REJECT the Pauline Corpus as a credible historical source because it is RIDDLED with Fiction, Falsehood, mythology, and events that could NOT have happened.

 

[Brainache]

"So" means "therefore"...if it bothers you that much; I'll start writing "therefore".

No it doesn't mean that when you use it to create a strawman.

Therefore only they have the influence possible?
Because no other groups had large followings in Judah at the time?
None?
All other Messianic followings had what number of followers, exactly?

I think the Messianic movement was a general opposition to the Authorities in charge of the Temple and that these guys were the leaders of that movement which led to the revolt against Rome.

And we are aware of all ebionite writings and cultures and know that only this group referred to their own construction as ebionite?
We know for certain that later references in survey were not because the groups called themselves such, but only because others decided to call them such?

How many Ebionite groups do you think there were? Is it usual for many different unrelated groups to share the same name?

Therefore only the later canonized Christianity (of which there were multiple) were influenced by Pauline texts?
No cult following Thomas or Judas, for example, could have possibly been influenced by Pauline texts?

I guess they could have been, why is that relevant? The epistle of Jude is another NT book that reads very similar to the DSS, with its talk of a liar deceiving the children of Israel...

That later Christian bodies are the cultures (all variations of them; as they were not united) which were the closest to the original Christian culture?
What we know of these cultures are the cultures of interest regarding the values of the texts in regards to those text's provenance?
Even if that were true...which of even those bodies is the one we should pick to assess the values of the texts from?

I'm not sure I'm following you here, but closest would be Apocalyptic Judaism, but they were mostly wiped out by the Romans, first in Palestine and later in Egypt and Syria.

Again; then we know only the later canonized textual traditions were the original texts of noted provenance; no other texts possibly are worth note, and no other sects came prior to them using the same texts?
They were the first?

Is that what you think I said? Really?

Still not answered:
Which texts were where?
Which Christian group (was on the heels of the provenance of the texts)?
Where did they start?

All of this is irrelevant to the question of a HJ. What happened decades or centuries later in Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Greece or Rome only takes us further away from 1st century Palestine, which if there ever was an HJ, is where he lived.

Therefore...what? We can determine Hebrew cultural values alone?
We have one culture to discern with?
The whole entire point is that we lack a culture for EACH text in identity of provenance and therefore are at a great disadvantage to discerning values for the purposes of whittling away what would be added for narrative motive and what would be added for representation of what was believed to have been actual history.

I don't understand your obsession with the idea that we have to categorise all of the influences on each of the gospels before we can tell if there was an HJ or not. What is the point of noting 2nd century Anatolian influence in gJohn when we are looking for a 1st century Palestinian?

See?
You're possibly starting to see the problem here, then?!

No?
Still think we can just dress up a Jesus willy nilly when even now you recognize to answer even a small fraction of questions would require that you write elaborately and involve in great study?

I just think most of those questions you asked are irrelevant to the question of whether or not Jesus was a first century Jewish teacher sandwiched somewhere between John The Baptist, James and Paul.