The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

Again, you present IMAGINATION instead of manuscripts of Hebrews dated to pre 70 CE.

No, we present INTERNAL evidence. Here IS AN example of the genre. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html

You present Fiction. Werner Georg Kummel's opnion is NOT internal evidence.

Where is the Papyri, the manuscript, the Codex that has been dated to pre 70 CE?

There are many VARIANTS of the Epistle Hebrews. Please identify the Epistle of Hebrews that was composed pre 70 CE.

Papyri 46 [P 46] contains an Epistle to the Hebrews but based on INTERNAL evidence it was dated to c 175-225 CE by Paleographers.

Please!!! I asked for the manuscripts of Hebrews that have been dated to pre 70 CE.

You gave me the FAITH based opinion of a Protestant Theologian.

Werner Georg Kummel was a PROTESTANT THEOLOGIAN who MUST, MUST, MUST worship Jesus as God Creator born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Werner Georg Kummel as a Protestant Theologian MUST, MUST, MUST preach and teach that Hebrews is an early writing based on FAITH alone.

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/.../www.cyclopaedia.de/wiki/Werner-Georg-Kuemmel

Werner Georg Kümmel (* 16 may 1905 in Heidelberg; died 9 July 1995 in Mainz) was a German Protestant theologian and Professor of New Testament in Zurich and Marburg.

Werner Georg Kummel as a Protestant Theoloigian MUST, MUST, MUST preach and teach that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of the God of the Jews and that his Jesus is STILL ALIVE after the resurrection and ascension.

In other words, Werner Georg Kummel as a Protestant Theologian MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST preach and teach that Jesus of Nazareth did exist but NOT as a mere man with a human father but was God of God.

Werner Georg Kummel as a Theologian MUST, MUST, MUST preach and teach about MYTH Jesus--NOT HJ.

Werner Georg Kummel as a Protestant Theologian MUST, MUST, MUST preach and teach that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

 

[Craig B]

You present Fiction. Werner Georg Kummel's opnion is NOT internal evidence.

Where is the Papyri, the manuscript, the Codex that has been dated to pre 70 CE?

I was trying to show you WHAT INTERNAL evidence is. It's not about the date of the earliest CODEX. It's about the evidence IN THE text, but you can't understand that dejudge, which is a great pity because it means you will never understand ANCIENT writings, or literary WORKS. Here is how THE Oxford Dictionary defines the expression.

Evidence derived from the contents of the thing discussed.

The contents of a writing are the words WRITTEN in it dejudge.

If you look at the contents PAGE in a book, you are told Chapter 1 is on page 5 and stuff like that. You're not told in that "contents" section that the book was printed in 1995, and costs ten pounds ninety five pence, and has a blue cover or any of the things about the physical document itself.

But you don't understand that I'm AFRAID, and it makes me sad.

 

[dejudge]

You present Fiction. Werner Georg Kummel's opnion is NOT internal evidence.

Where is the Papyri, the manuscript, the Codex that has been dated to pre 70 CE?

I was trying to show you WHAT INTERNAL evidence is. It's not about the date of the earliest CODEX. It's about the evidence IN THE text, but you can't understand that dejudge, which is a great pity because it means you will never understand ANCIENT writings, or literary WORKS. Here is how THE Oxford Dictionary defines the expression. The contents of a writing are the words WRITTEN in it dejudge.

I am EXPOSING that you are unable to present your IMAGINARY manuscript or Codex of Hebrews dated pre 70 CE.

You don't know what INTERNAL EVIDENCE is.

You have ZERO manuscripts and ZERO Codex with the Anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews with internal evidence to date it pre 70 CE.

You don't even know who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Paleographers have ALREADY examined the INTERNAL evidence of the Epistle to the Hebrews found in Papyrus 46 and dated it to c 175-225 CE.

Paleographers ACTUALLY examine the INTERNAL evidence of GREEK and Latin manuscripts and Codices of the Epistle to the Hebrews and have dated them to the late 2nd century and beyond.

No existing Greek and Latin manuscripts of Hebrews contain any internal evidence to date them pre 70 CE.

It is void of logic to assume that writings which mention a standing Jewish Temple must have been written before c 70 CE.

gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn mention a standing Temple but are all claimed to have been written AFTER c 70 CE.

Werner Georg Kummel as a Protestant THEOLOGIAN MUST, MUST, MUST preach and teach by FAITH ALONE that the Epistle to the Hebrews is an early writing and MUST, MUST, MUST worship Jesus as the Son of a Ghost.

The contents of a writing are the words WRITTEN in it dejudge.

What a big joke!!! You have confirmed that you didn't know that Paleographers examine the INTERNAL evidence of manuscripts and Codices.

You don't even know that Paleographers ACTUALLY EXAMINE the contents--the very WORDS letter by letter, both the spelling and form of each word of every line.

 

[Craig B]

I am EXPOSING that you are unable to present your IMAGINARY manuscript or Codex of Hebrews dated pre 70 CE.

You don't know what INTERNAL EVIDENCE is.

Paleographers have ALREADY examined the INTERNAL evidence of the Epistle to the Hebrews found in Papyrus 46 and dated it to c 175-225 CE.

The things you HAVE JUST written are the result of incorrect THINKING dejudge. Every time I explode THE absurdity of your primitive NOTIONS you find another way of expressing them. This NEW way is really absurd. Papyrus 46 is dated to 175-225 CE. Very well, so all the things in it were written then? What is in it?

46 contains MOST of the Pauline epistles, though with some folios missing. (It contains) the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; VIRTUALLY all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians. All of the leaves have lost SOME lines at the bottom through deterioration.

Now if it has the last 8 chapters of Romans, does that not mean THAT the earliest extant manuscript of the other chapters must be later? That would mean that Paul WROTE the last 8 chapters of Romans, and then at some later time, he went back and wrote the earlier chapters. Does that make sense? Is it not more LIKELY that he wrote the whole epistle at one time? If so, then the earlier chapters must have been written prior to the date of the earliest extant manuscript containing them! But if that IS SO OF these chapters, why shouldn't IT ALSO be true of the rest of the epistles, that they are older than the earliest extant manuscript?

 

[dejudge]

I am EXPOSING that you are unable to present your IMAGINARY manuscript or Codex of Hebrews dated pre 70 CE.

You don't know what INTERNAL EVIDENCE is.

You have ZERO manuscripts and ZERO Codex with the Anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews with internal evidence to date it pre 70 CE.

You don't even know who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Paleographers have ALREADY examined the INTERNAL evidence of the Epistle to the Hebrews found in Papyrus 46 and dated it to c 175-225 CE.

Paleographers ACTUALLY examine the INTERNAL evidence of GREEK and Latin manuscripts and Codices of the Epistle to the Hebrews and have dated them to the late 2nd century and beyond.

No existing Greek and Latin manuscripts of Hebrews contain any internal evidence to date them pre 70 CE.

It is void of logic to assume that writings which mention a standing Jewish Temple must have been written before c 70 CE.

gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn mention a standing Temple but are all claimed to have been written AFTER c 70 CE.

Werner Georg Kummel as a Protestant THEOLOGIAN MUST, MUST, MUST preach and teach by FAITH ALONE that the Epistle to the Hebrews is an early writing and MUST, MUST, MUST worship Jesus as the Son of a Ghost.

The things you HAVE JUST written are the result of incorrect THINKING dejudge. Every time I explode THE absurdity of your primitive NOTIONS you find another way of expressing them. This NEW way is really absurd. Papyrus 46 is dated to 175-225 CE. Very well, so all the things in it were written then? What is in it?

You don't know what is in Papyrus 46!!

You don't know that Paleographers have examined the INTERNAL evidence--every word and every line of P46 and dated it to c 175-225 CE.

Paleographers cannot examine IMAGINARY or MISSING manuscripts.

Your internal evidence in IMAGINARY manuscripts of Hebrews is a product of fiction.

Now if it has the last 8 chapters of Romans, does that not mean THAT the earliest extant manuscript of the other chapters must be later? That would mean that Paul WROTE the last 8 chapters of Romans, and then at some later time, he went back and wrote the earlier chapters. Does that make sense? Is it not more LIKELY that he wrote the whole epistle at one time? If so, then the earlier chapters must have been written prior to the date of the earliest extant manuscript containing them! But if that IS SO OF these chapters, why shouldn't IT ALSO be true of the rest of the epistles, that they are older than the earliest extant manuscript?

Again, you write fiction.

Papyri 46 is a handwritten text dated to c 175-225 CE it was NOT written by your Auditory hallucinator [Paul] when you are arguing that your hallucinator lived 100 years earlier.

Your Paul is a fiction character invented AFTER c 180 CE based on the INTERNAL evidence in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, writings attributed to Justin, Apology attributed to Aristides, and writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

It is illogical to assume that P 46 must have been copied from your IMAGINARY c 50-60 CE manuscripts when there is no credible evidence of an historical Paul, No credible evidence of a Jesus cult of Christians c 50-60 CE and NO corroborative evidence that Paul wrote letters to Churches and Pastorals in the very NT itself.

The Entire Pauline Corpus was NOT composed up to c 62 CE or up to the 2nd-3rd year of Festus as Governor of Judea based on the INTERNAL evidence in Acts.

The Entire Pauline Corpus are ALL forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul based on the INTERNAL evidence in the Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline Corpus are historically worthless and it is confirmed when Paul the Auditory hallucinator declared that he was a WITNESS of fiction.

Paul, the Auditory Hallucinator, SAW fictitious events and had Conference with [bloodless-- fleshless] Fiction characters.

 

[maximara]

Your Paul is a fiction character invented AFTER c 180 CE based on the INTERNAL evidence in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, writings attributed to Justin, Apology attributed to Aristides, and writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

This make no sense. Irenaeus Against Heresies touches on Paul's writings several times. If we accept the c 180 CE date for that work then clearly those writings of Paul must have existed before c 180 CE.

 

[dejudge]

Your Paul is a fiction character invented AFTER c 180 CE based on the INTERNAL evidence in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, writings attributed to Justin, Apology attributed to Aristides, and writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

This make no sense. Irenaeus Against Heresies touches on Paul's writings several times. If we accept the c 180 CE date for that work then clearly those writings of Paul must have existed before c 180 CE.

Your statement qualifies as probably the most bizarre or naive in this thread.

You seem to have NO idea that the EXISTING manuscripts of "Against Heresies" are NOT DATED c180 CE.

You must have never ever heard of forgeries, false attribution, INTERPOLATIONS, redaction and fiction??

You must have no idea that it is claimed that Paul did not write epistles to Timothy and Titus??

You must have never ever heard that Josephus did not write the "TF"??

You must have no idea that even the Pauline Corpus is claim to be riddled with MULTIPLE authors posing as Paul??

You seem completely unaware or have forgotten that Irenaeus a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church in "Against Heresies" 2.22 argued in about 2000 words that Jesus was crucified when he was an OLD MAN or about 20 years AFTER THE 15TH year of Tiberius or about 50 CE.


You seem completely unaware or have forgotten that in the Pauline Corpus [2 Cor.] it is implied that a character under the name of Paul preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED and RESURRECTED since the time of Aretas or about 37-41 CE.

"Against Heresies" 2.22 and 2 Cor.11.31-33 are irreconcilable.

It should be obvious that the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 who wrote the 2000 word argument that Jesus was CRUCIFIED c 50 CE did NOT know of the "TF" in Antiquities of the Jews , did NOT know of Tacitus' Annals 15.44, did NOT know of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

There must have been at least two authors/editors of "Against Heresies" just like there were at least TWO authors/editors of gMark, Josephus and Tacitus.

It does not logically follow that if Irenaeus wrote C 180 CE that everything found in "Against Heresies" was written by him when it is already known that Apologetic writings of antiquity were manipulated by "BIGOTS" to justify their Jesus Ghost stories.

...That was invented by bigots to justify their story about Ghost Jesus.

It is more realistically a firm witness to the fact that medieval theologians dreamed up nonsense, and the Church accepted it for ideological reasons.

The Pauline Corpus is 2nd century or later invention to [falsely] promote the propaganda that the Jews KILLED the Son of God and that Paul was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The Pauline Corpus is a product of TOTAL fiction/mythology from the 2nd century or later.

You forget the words of your FAVORITE historian--AFTER c 125 CE the quantity of bogus literature EXPLODED.

.... As Carrier states after this date "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible"...

If you accept the 180 CE date for "Against Heresies" then that is the time period when "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope

 

[Craig B]

You seem completely unaware or have forgotten that Irenaeus a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church in "Against Heresies" 2.22 argued in about 2000 words that Jesus was crucified when he was an OLD MAN or about 20 years AFTER THE 15TH year of Tiberius or about 50 CE.

Rather than being completely unaware or have forgotten, it s more probable that people have rejected your interpretation of 2:22 in favour of the explanation given here

In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity. Although it is sometimes claimed that Irenaeus believed Christ did not die until he was older than is conventionally portrayed, the bishop of Lyons simply pointed out that because Jesus turned the permissible age for becoming a rabbi (30 years old and above), he recapitulated and sanctified the period between 30 and 50 years old, as per the Jewish custom of periodization of human life, and so touches the beginning of old age when one becomes 50 years old. (see Adversus Haereses, book II, chapter 22).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

ETA Here is the passage, 2:22:4 which clearly shows the schematic nature of the "age" presentation of the life of Christ.

He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15

You have been told of this before, and need to address it, rather than continually rave about forgeries.

 

[dejudge]

Rather than being completely unaware or have forgotten, it s more probable that people have rejected your interpretation of 2:22 in favour of the explanation given here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

I am extremely delighted that you mention "rejection of interpretation".

Carrier REJECTS the HJ argument because it is logically fallacious.

You have confirmed the HJ argument is logically fallacious just as Carrier stated.

You discredit the NT authors as Bigots who invented stories of Jesus.

You admit your Paul saw nothing of the resurrected Jesus but had AUDITORY hallucinations.

You rely on IMAGINARY manuscripts with fictitious dates of composition.

You didn't know that Paleographers examine the INTERNAL evidence, every word and every line of all variants of the Pauline Corpus.

...That was invented by bigots to justify their story about Ghost Jesus.

You have been told of this before, and need to address it, rather than continually rave about forgeries.

You have been told this before. "Against Heresies" is one of the BOGUS literature about Jesus and early Christianity.

You forget that even Bart Ehrman REJECTED the claims by Irenaeus that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that all the letters under the name of Paul are authentic.

....As Carrier states after this date "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible".

You agree with Carrier??

You agree with Ehrman that 18 books of the NT are forgeries or falsely attributed and that the NT is riddled with discrepancies, contradiction, historical problems and accounts of Jesus which most likely did not happen?

Ehrman and Carrier are in agreement with the massive amount of bogus literature.

It is more realistically a firm witness to the fact that medieval theologians dreamed up nonsense, and the Church accepted it for ideological reasons.

Please tell us of the NONSENSE Paul dreamed up about the resurrection that is now accepted by the Church.

 

[Craig B]

@ dejudge

You seem to have messed up the quote function and I can't recall the context of some of the things you attribute to me, under the name CraigB instead of Craig B.

So I can't comment on these quotes at present.

However, no I don't agree with Carrier. He's stating this so that he can dismiss all these works, which makes his argument easier to sustain. Even if an abundance of literature exists, we must still examine its components. Carrier seems to be stating that for the earlier period we have no manuscripts and for the later period we must dismiss the manuscripts because the literature is more abundant.

I have little respect for Carrier, and I would advise those who cite his words as if they were scripture ... Lo! It is written ... To find another guru.

 

[dejudge]

@ dejudge

You seem to have messed up the quote function and I can't recall the context of some of the things you attribute to me, under the name CraigB instead of Craig B.

So I can't comment on these quotes at present.

You can't recall what you have posted?? You have forgotten that your posts are recorded!!!

It is more realistically a firm witness to the fact that medieval theologians dreamed up nonsense, and the Church accepted it for ideological reasons.

However, no I don't agree with Carrier. He's stating this so that he can dismiss all these works, which makes his argument easier to sustain. Even if an abundance of literature exists, we must still examine its components. Carrier seems to be stating that for the earlier period we have no manuscripts and for the later period we must dismiss the manuscripts because the literature is more abundant.

...That was invented by bigots to justify their story about Ghost Jesus.

I have little respect for Carrier, and I would advise those who cite his words as if they were scripture ... Lo! It is written ... To find another guru.

No Respect for Carrier is of no real value especially when you have no credible evidence for your HJ.

There is no contemporary evidence from antiquity for your admitted Auditory hallucinator called Paul and your IMAGINARY manuscripts dated within a 10 year period from c 50-60 CE.

Incredibly, you have dated your imaginary Pauline Corpus WITHOUT ever seeing its contents.

What does your imaginary Pauline Corpus state about the Lord from heaven--the Son of God?

 

[maximara]

@ dejudge

You seem to have messed up the quote function and I can't recall the context of some of the things you attribute to me, under the name CraigB instead of Craig B.

So I can't comment on these quotes at present.

However, no I don't agree with Carrier. He's stating this so that he can dismiss all these works, which makes his argument easier to sustain. Even if an abundance of literature exists, we must still examine its components. Carrier seems to be stating that for the earlier period we have no manuscripts and for the later period we must dismiss the manuscripts because the literature is more abundant.

I have little respect for Carrier, and I would advise those who cite his words as if they were scripture ... Lo! It is written ... To find another guru.

It is not the abundance of literature on its own that Carrier is dismissing the post 120 CE stuff (and he doesn't dismisses all of it either). Rather it is because:

1) "after that time we can't reasonably expect there to have been any surviving witness in the original decade of the cult's creation (in the 30 CE), due to the the limits of life expectancy (Element 22)"

2) "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible (Element 44)"

Element 22: "(a) We have no credible or explicit record of what happened with the Christian movement between 64 and 95 CE (or possibly even as late as 110 CE). And (b) unlike almost any other cult we might consider for comparison, we know the leadership of the Christian church has been catastrophically decimated by the beginning of that period" - Carrier then gives some four pages of evidence to support this claim. (148-152)

Element 44: in Jewish and pagan antiquity, in matter of religious persuasion, fabricating stories was the norm, not the exception, even in the introduction of narrative purporting to be true." - Carrier then give some eight pages of evidence for this - in some cases the references take up more room then the actual text by Carrier! (214-222)

Even then Carrier does consider two post 120 CE works: Papias (130-150 CE) and Hegesippus (c 180 CE) Carrier then shows how unreliable these two are in regards to reflecting actual history.

So this claim that people are treating Carrier's work as some form of Gospel (ie on FAITH) is BS because unlike the Gospels Carrier is providing actual referenced evidence. Remember, Carrier has done what no other Christ Myther has done - taken his work through the proper channels and gotten it published by a respected academic press under formal peer review.

Craig doesn't want accept that this puts Carrier's work on a total different level then any other Christ Myther out there.

 

[Craig B]

Remember, Carrier has done what no other Christ Myther has done - taken his work through the proper channels and gotten it published by a respected academic press under formal peer review.

Craig doesn't want accept that this puts Carrier's work on a total different level then any other Christ Myther out there.

Dear Heavens! I accuse you of treating Carrier like a guru, and you respond with this tribute to his unique merits ... What no other myther has done ... On a totally different level than any other Christ myther out there ...

He expresses the same high opinion of himself in his blog too

Richard Carrier is the renowned author of several books including Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History, as well as numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to Poland.

Renowned author with avid readers, eh? Well you are living proof of that!

 

[maximara]

Dear Heavens! I accuse you of treating Carrier like a guru, and you respond with this tribute to his unique merits ... What no other myther has done ... On a totally different level than any other Christ myther out there ...

guru - an influential teacher or popular expert. (Oxford dictionary)

There are many on both sides of the HJ debate that would fit the definition of "guru" above but how many on the Christ Myth side can say their views have been published by a respected academic press under formal peer review, hmm?

Like it or not this does put Carrier's work heads and shoulders above anything else out there.

Oh by the way Einstein, Newton, and Mach would all qualify as "gurus" by the definition above.

Were they perfect? No, they made mistakes and I have pointed out several that Carrier makes.

At least by going though a formal peer review to get published by a respected academic press you have a good bet that Carrier is not going to give you the kind of drivel Zeitgeist gives you.

 

[Craig B]

So, because Carrier has been

published by a respected academic press under formal peer review

that means he is to be compared with

Einstein, Newton, and Mach

Dear me. As if getting something peer reviewed and published by a respected academic press is the chief claim to fame of Newton and Einstein!

 

[maximara]

So, because Carrier has been that means he is to be compared with Dear me. As if getting something peer reviewed and published by a respected academic press is the chief claim to fame of Newton and Einstein!

I merely selected the most obvious examples of "guru" per Oxford's dictionary (an influential teacher or popular expert)

Do you deny that Newton, Einstein, and Mach fit this definition?

Would you also deny that all these giants had major flaws?

You do know that there is evidence that Newton was an alchemist, right?

I assume everyone is familiar with Einstein dismissal of Quantum Physics all the way to his death.

Mach stated in 1897 that he believed atoms didn't exist.

For all their fame and achievements these giants in science were not perfect which was my point.

Would you deny that James Randi himself fits that Oxford definition of "guru"?

So far you have resorted to what amounts snarky dismissal without actually addressing anything Carrier presents. How about addressing the arguments rather then the man, hmm?

 

[dejudge]

As it stands today, December 31 2014, the argument for an historical Jesus is still illogically derived and unevidenced. Those who argue for an HJ are unable to present a credible historical source of antiquity which can place Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pontius Pilate and therefore resort to logically fallacious arguments.

The HJ argument is inherently logically fallacious because those who argue for an HJ MUST first DISCREDIT the NT [their own "primary" source].

Not only do HJers discredit the NT but they also put forward a most bizarre notion that the NT is actually heretical writings that were known to be contrary to the Church but were still Canonised.

The attempt to use the Canon of the Church to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a known mere man with a human father is like using Hebrew Scripture to argue that the God of the Jews was actually a human being in the time of Adam and Eve.

It is clear that the Canon of the Church MUST be in agreement with the teachings of the Church that their Jesus was God of God--their Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost--their Jesus was a Transfiguring Sea Water Walker.

Now, the mere fact, that ALL Christian writers of antiquity who mentioned the birth of Jesus declared that he was born of a Ghost means that there most likely was NO known established historical data for Jesus of Nazareth.

It can ONLY be argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost if there is NO historical data to contradict the fiction.

If Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius and other known contemporary writers of antiquity did declare and document that Jesus of Nazareth was a mere man with known human parents then it would be obvious that the Jesus cult and story would have been REJECTED.

How was it possible for the authors of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts, the Pauline Corpus, ePeter, eJude, eJohn, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen to argue that Jesus was God, the Son of God or born of a Ghost with KNOWN historical data which CONTRADICTED them?

The answer is extremely easy.

The Jesus story in the ENTIRE NT, including the Pauline Corpus, was INTIATED in the 2nd century or later as the abundance of existing evidence do show.

The supposed first writing, "Against Heresies", to argue that the Jesus cult and teachings PREDATED the Heretics introduced ALL FAKE pre 70 CE writers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul].

Why did the author of "Against Heresies" use FAKE authors if there were ACTUAL writers of the Jesus story since before the Fall of the Jewish Temple?

There was NO history of the Jesus cult BEFORE the so-called Heretics.

It was the Jesus cult who were the HERETICS.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

The earliest CHRISTIANS probably worshiped Simon Magus and Apollonius as Gods--NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth was a 2nd century figure of fiction based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

All existing stories of Jesus and Paul are from the 2nd century or later.

 

[Craig B]

How about addressing the arguments rather then the man, hmm?

What were you addressing when you penned this remarkable eulogy?

... how many on the Christ Myth side can say their views have been published by a respected academic press under formal peer review, hmm?

Like it or not this does put Carrier's work heads and shoulders above anything else out there.

Oh by the way Einstein, Newton, and Mach would all qualify as "gurus" by the definition above.

 

[Brainache]

I'm not attempting to create strawman arguments when I write "so".
A. You propose a position about the state of phenomena (P).
B. I pose a challenging question regarding the epistemology of that position.
C. You answer to that challenging question by presenting an object for accessing the information to draw that position in some capacity.
D. I write "so" or "therefore" in regards to (C) requiring only (A), and do so in question form because...
E. I also offer other possibilities than only the one possibility of (A) by producing questions and considerations which are other variations which could be employed where (C) is employed in the logic, and of which would alter conclusion of proposition (A) regarding phenomena (P) if different.
F. I then rest in rephrase on my epistemological position that without knowing more about how (Q) group valued phenomena (P), we cannot readily isolate only one possible (C) and therefore only one possible (A) of (P) because the only information about (P) in which we have resides on a given (Q) writing of a given (P), and that therefore the motive of (Q) for writing of (P) is of value to us for deduction.

Stating "so" or "therefore" in (D) to clarify the link between consequent claim (A) of logic (C) is not a "strawman" - it is a drawing of a conclusion in summary: a recognition that (B)'s question of (A) is being answered by link (C) - which, in this discussion - requires that only (A) is possible and is only possible via (C).

It is not that (F) relies on (D) to counter the assertion of (A) [an actual strawman argument].
(F) relies on interrupting the link provided between (C) and (P), and offers possible interruptions of that linking via (E), and not (D).
(D), then, is not rested upon nor capable of being a "strawman" argument.

It is a rephrase in summary of the implied statement that if proposition (A) regarding (P) is inquired of as to the epistemology of (A), and the answer to (B) is provided in (C), that answer (C) is therefore suggesting that only (A) is possible by consequence of (C), regarding (P) - otherwise claim (A) would be pointless to begin with (since you aren't claiming ideas about possibilities, but absolutes; such as - that we can know to remove Bethlehem as actually a place of birth of a reductionist Jesus without knowing the cultural value of that literary entry unto whatever culture produced the entry).



'These guys' refers to the DSS group.
I haven't any issue with stating the Messianic movement was a general opposition to the given political environment of the time.

I would question the second part, however.
This is how this section has gone:

To be clear:
The DSS was being claimed as the influence.
You made this judgement based on your comparing of the DSS content and the Gospel texts.
You were able to do so via texts.
One means, then of the influence, was texts.
In this exchange, textual relation was removed as a consequent link that [the DSS influenced Christianity and that therefore the DSS can be employed as the cultural value set for determining a reductionist Jesus] (as that was my entire point, and why you brought them up - in answer to me claiming that we don't know the culture to base the values off of...you then offered the DSS).​

I'd like to also point out that you, here, just did what I said is required and needed as a solution to the problem - you assigned a culture to the problem, and admit that the cultural values were considerations which were extra-textual - that is: capable of existing outside of textual reliance.​

At this point it is being stated that the DSS is a good facsimile for values in judging a reductionist Jesus, not because of their texts, but because of their beliefs.

It is then being challenged a second time as to why this specific group is the link for judging values for a reductionist Jesus when looking at the gospel texts.​

The answer supplied is that we can know this is the culture to use as a decent facsimile for values in judging a reductionist Jesus....

This means that the DSS is a good facsimile for values in judging a reductionist Jesus out of the Gospel texts because of their population size and location.​

To be clear: because the reason was given that the DSS is a good facsimile for values in judging a reductionist Jesus out of the Gospel texts because of their population size and location, it then becomes a valid question to ask how large or small other groups were IF we are to be asked to judge influence by population (which, in itself is not inherently indicative of influence to the point of single entry access to being the culture we judge value from for a reductionist Jesus composition).

The reason given for how we can know that this DSS group was the influence upon Christianity has been population.
When the question is raised in regards to confusion regarding the population of messianic groups in general around the same period, the reason for determining their influence into Christianity is stated to be because...
​

Naturally, the question becomes three-fold:
A. Did messianic movements organized into sectarian clusters which never-the-less all bowed to ONE other sect as all sects' leading sect (even if they all disagreed on doctrine)?
B. How do we know this DSS group were the leaders of the messianic movements?
C. How do we know that IF (A) was even possible, that any leadership sect of the sects was the ONLY sect which would have had influence upon the formation of ALL later Christian texts (even if by "all" we only mean "Canon Gospel")?


I do not know how many there were - it appears there were, however, multiple such groups.
Exactly how many is a very heated debate.


The easiest example of this is: "Christian".
There are a very, very great many different and unrelated groups of peoples claiming to be "Christian", yet their extra-textual doctrinal cultures are vastly different in regards to Christologies, Ontologies, Salvation, Baptism, divine Revelation, etc...

Further; when we pick one such branch and look into it, we find further sectarian fractures such that Baptist is a movement separated into multiple forms of Baptist, Mormons are fractured into multiple forms of Mormons, etc...

There remains quite easily the possibility for multiple "ebionite" groups to exist.


Because the question is in regards to discerning values of the culture of provenance for the texts we do have, for the purpose of discerning which values were not of literary value, for the purpose of chiseling out those values, for the purpose of then only leaving behind non-literary values of descriptions regarding the Jesus figure, for the purpose of then having deduced a reductive Jesus...as opposed to a constructed Jesus.

So, given an axiom of Pauline influence upon Gospel textual creation, it does remain valid to ask how we know that only one set of Christians were influenced by Pauling texts.

Further, still not addressed in the response: it becomes of question as to WHICH later Christian culture do we lay claim to as the culture to couple with the DSS and apparently Pauline texts to discern values from?

This has to be asked as well because there were multiple later Christian groups out of the orthodoxies, and multiple varying value sets.


How do we know this was the CLOSEST to the original culture of provenance regarding the stories of Jesus?

The only way we know this is IF we accept the axiom of the DSS being the genesis point as proposed above, or IF we accept the axiom that Jesus did exist and was alive.

If we don't accept any of those axioms and just look for a culture which holds the values, symbolic languages (all of them), and literary styles as what exists in the texts...and only use these means because they are the only actual pieces of evidence remaining...then do we clearly land ourselves into Palestine, or Egypt, or Syria, or ______?

How so? By what measure?
I've shown multiple instances whereby the DSS are not the only possibility for us to select regarding the provenance of the texts.


That was the chain of inquiry and the thread of thought you offered in response to query.
If it became forgotten what the tangent was in the response, then we can go back to the previous inquiry and re-examine for a response.


No; it doesn't.
We cannot just jump into Palestine in 1st c CE, assume this is our cultural starting point and then use THIS culture to discern a reductive Jesus from texts created in the 2nd c CE and found in Egypt which also happens to be a place where multiple culture's texts ended up, thereby confusing the matter of provenance.
We cannot because without the cultural identity for the provenance we are at great disadvantage for determining what the authoring culture simply wrote for non-factual reasons vs what they would have written for factual reasons.
And we don't know that because we don't know their culture, and different cultures wrote differently about both fiction and fact - variously.



Again; because we cannot know what is and is not a possible intention of writing what was believed to have been factual or what was included for reasons of narrative motivation without knowing how the authoring culture wrote of factual and fictional structures - that is; what their values were.


Our only pieces of evidence to examine are texts of various differences which we received much later than the alleged time frame represented in the narratives, and without knowing the authoring culture's values in regards to narrative structure of facts or fictions, we cannot well discern which objects, subjects, events, or other such components, are therefore fact or fiction.

Just because something is benign does not mean that it is accurate to apply to the reductionist Jesus as indicative of what that Jesus would have been like, and therefore if probable to have existed.

An easy example of this is, again, Aeneid.
If we take that method to this text, then we would have a vast entry of non-historical events and people into history as there are many mundane items mixed into the supernatural events of the story, and yet their mundane property compels us none to declare them true, and we can do so because we understand the cultural context of the writing.

This is rather commonplace paleographic anthropology...it's done with pretty much every other text we receive or find...except for these texts.
When it comes to these texts, provenance comes up ad-hoc (and less than half-arsed) in support of hypotheses in argument; not independent OF arguments as arguments of themselves, void of concern over impact to other non-provenance hypotheses.

OK, most of this is beyond me. I'm not proposing certainty, nor that the DSS was the sole influence on "Christianity". I'm saying that the Messianic Movement in 1st century Palestine consisted of followers of what Josephus called the "Fourth Philosophy" of Judaism which started with Judas The Galilean:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

...
Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.
...

I'm saying that the DSS were written by followers of this "Fourth Philosophy":
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

...
Similarly, at the time when the land was destroyed, men arose who removed the ancient landmarks and led Israel astray; and it was, indeed, because they uttered sedition against the commandments of God which He had given through Moses and through His holy anointed priest Aaron, and because they gave forth false prophecies in order to subvert Israel from God, that the land was laid utterly waste. Nevertheless, God still remembered the Covenant which He had made with their forbears and raised from the priesthood men of discernment and from the laity men of wisdom, and He made them hearken to Him. And these men 'dug the well'-that well whereof it is written, 'Princes digged it, nobles of the people delved it, with the aid of a mehoqeq' [Num. 21.18]. The 'well' in question is the Law. They that 'digged' are those of Israel who repented and departed from the land of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus'. * God called them all 'princes' because they went in search of Him, and their glory was never gainsaid (?) by any man's mouth.22 The term mehoqeq [which can mean 'lawgiver' as well as 'stave') refers to the man who expounds the Law. Isaiah has employed an analogous piece of imagery when in allusion to the Law he has spoken of God's 'producing a tool for His work' [cf. ISL 54.16). As for the 'nobles of the people', these are the men that come, throughout the Era of Wickedness, to delve the well, using as their staves [Heb. mehoqeq) the statutes [Heb. huq4m) which the Law-giver prescribed [Heb. haqaq ha-mehoqeq) for them to walk in. Without such 'implements', they would, indeed, never achieve their goal until such time as the true Expositor arises at the end of days.

And that Jesus (if he existed at all) was one of these men who used his "stave" to dig the "well of living waters" (the Laws of Moses). I'm also saying that Paul was one of the ones who "uttered sedition against the commandments of God":
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians 5

5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
...

Now, I suppose it can be argued that all of theses things are unrelated and that the DSS were written by people who knew nothing of Judas the Galilean, that Jesus was not insisting on adherence to the Laws of Moses and that Paul was not intentionally distorting the Messianic Movement for his own ends, but I would disagree.

 

[dejudge]

The argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is probably the very worst kind of argument known to mankind. The HJ argument is derived from admitted Discredited sources--the books of the Bible.

It is even more devastating for the HJ argument when supposed Christians of antiquity claimed for hundreds of years that their Jesus was God from the beginning and born of a Ghost.

Now, in the NT it is claimed Jesus the Son of the Ghost, was a descendant of David.

How is it that the Son of the Ghost was a descendant of David in the myh fables called Gospels?

The answer is extremely simple.

The myth Son of the Ghost was ADOPTED by a supposed descendant of David.

In the monstrous myth/fiction fables called gMatthew and gLuke the genealogies of Joseph, the adopted father, are found and it is claimed that Joseph was the descendant of David.

It must be noted that the genealogies of Joseph are found in the same Gospels which claimed Jesus was born after his mother was WITHCHILD by a Ghost after a Ghost "overshadowed" a Virgin.

Essentially, in the myth fables of gMatthew and gLuke when Jesus was born of a Ghost the baby [Jesus] was left in the custody of Joseph and a Virgin.

In the myth fables of gMatthew and gLuke Joseph had parental control of the Son of God.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-1/

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-Chapter-3/