The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

As I said after quoting Chaucer:

Now compare that to the English of the 17th century, or the 19th, or the 20th. The distance in time between these late 14th century works and those of the early 17th is about the same as that between the time when Paul supposedly wrote his letters and our first copies. The idea that a 3rd century forger could duplicate the grammar, syntax, and rhythm of the 1st is laughable. In fact, it is the failure to duplicate the grammar, syntax, and rhythm of an early century that many forgeries have been spotted.

Your claim is void of logic. You don't know if all forgeries have been detected.

 

[IanS]

And it's also been claimed that Kim Jong-il got holes-in-one on every hole of a round of golf. We know that didn't happen, dejudge. Your repeated references to "transfiguring water walker" and the like are worse than useless; they are annoying, and they tend to cause people to dismiss any valid points you might make.

The evidence for the existence of Kim Jong il is not remotely comparable with the evidence claimed for Jesus, however. Is it.

Afaik, there are countless world leaders and their massive political entourages who have actual met Kim Jong il, in a person, on numerous occasions. Kim is also someone who has been filmed countless times with all of these other people.

We may not believe all the silly sycophantic stories that his adoring supporters claim for him. But that is totally 100% irrelevant. The relevant factor is that there is overwhelming and undeniable evidence to show that world leaders like Kim are real people.

But that is not at all the case with Jesus. In fact the absolute opposite is the case for Jesus. With Jesus there actually is zero evidence of anyone ever meeting or knowing him in any way at all.

None of the people who wrote about their Jesus beliefs, ever met any such person. They all believed in Jesus as a figure of religious legend prophesised in the OT.

So there is absolutely zero comparison between the fully evidenced and proven figure of Kim Jong il vs. the completely unproved and totally un-evidenced figure of 1st century religious prophetic OT faith/belief.

If you wanted to think of a modern day figure that was comparable to Jesus then it would have to be someone who was claimed to exist by faith fanatics but for whom there was precisely zero evidence of anyone ever seeing or meeting any such person. It would have to be someone like God ! ... God belief today is comparable with Jesus belief in the 1st century ... i.e. all sorts of people believe God truly exists, and they believe he has done and continues to do all sorts of miraculous things every day, and there are endless stories of millions of people claiming to have heard his voice or seen ghostly apparitions or "felt" his presence etc ... they are all absolutely certain he exists, but when you check their stories it turns out none of them have truly witnessed any such "God" and there is zero evidence to support a single thing they have said about knowing God's existence.

The Jesus figure of the biblical writing, which is the only Jesus ever known to anyone, is much more like God. But totally and utterly unlike any comparison to Kim Jong il or any human person ever known to anyone today (or at any time in history).

Jesus might have been a real figure. But there is no evidence of any of the biblical writers ever knowing any such person, or any evidence that they ever quoted anyone else who ever knew any human Jesus. The Jesus they all described, which is the only Jesus anyone ever claimed to know, was an impossible figure of the supernatural.

 

[jhunter1163]

The evidence for the existence of Kim Jong il is not remotely comparable with the evidence claimed for Jesus, however. Is it.

We'll be in a better position to compare the two in about 1,980 years.

 

[dejudge]

The evidence for the existence of Kim Jong il is not remotely comparable with the evidence claimed for Jesus, however. Is it.

We'll be in a better position to compare the two in about 1,980 years.

What?? You knew that you were not now in a position to compare Kim Jong-il with the Bible character called Jesus who was a transfiguring water walker, the Lord from heaven, was God's own son and born of a Ghost.

You knew all along that you were going to have to wait for about 1980 more years.

Your comparison was already known to be pre-mature.

Presently, we cannot compare Kim Jong-il with the Bible character called Jesus due to lack of historical data and that the Bible is not credible.

I don't have to wait 1980 more years to compare Jesus of Nazareth with Romulus, Perseus, Satan, the Angel Gabriel and the hundreds of myth/fiction characters in Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

Romulus, Perseus and Jesus were born of Ghosts/Gods and Virgins with zero historical data.

 

[maximara]

If you wanted to think of a modern day figure that was comparable to Jesus then it would have to be someone who was claimed to exist by faith fanatics but for whom there was precisely zero evidence of anyone ever seeing or meeting any such person.

And we have such an example: John Frum.

Less anyone try claim Manehevi was John Frum:

"From elsewhere rail the rumour that, in spite of the Administration statement, Manehevi was not John Frum, and that the latter was still at liberty."

In 1942 "The three sons of John Frum had come from America by plane and landed at Ipikel."

"The origin of the movement or the cause started more than thirty years ago. This same spirit has been occurred locally in villages from other islands in the New Hebrides, from time to time. " - 8/4/49 Letter from J. Kalsakau, N.M.P. Loanegou, Tanna, N.H. to Resident Commissioner for French Republic, Vila, N.H.

"John Frum only spoke to them because he did not see me with them. He asked Karaua where I was and Karaua told him I was in Vila.
John Frum and I were together and we arranged that althe others should come to Vila. We talked together about them (the chiefs) and we arranged that the chiefs should follow vs when they came out of jail" - Translation of Private Joe Nalpin to his Father Somo and to Chief Samnako


Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177

As I have said John Frum is the poster boy of how a mystical Jesus could have formed.

 

[dejudge]

It is clear to me that some people here are posting just to disrupt the massive flow of evidence from antiquity which show that Jesus and Paul were figures of fiction.

The NT Canon has been discovered and it states multiple times that Jesus was God from the beginning, a Resurrecting Transfiguring water walker, the Lord from heaven and born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth is clearly a myth/fiction character and Paul was FABRICATED as a WITNESS of the Resurrection which never happened.

Now, because of the abundance of writings of antiquity it can be easily deduced that the Jesus stories in the NT Canon are really LATE manipulated versions of the so-called Heretics.

Essentially, the Jesus stories in the NT Canon were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul but appear to have been derived from so-called Heretics and multilated,interpolated, redacted before Canonised.

Some of the massive amount of evidence are found in writings called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus", "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr, "Apology" attributed to Aristides, "Church History" attributed to Eusebius, "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian, "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian and "Against the Heathen" attributed to Arnobius.

One of the most significant piece of evidence that the Gospels and the Pauline letters were extremely late composition is "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

In "Against Heresies" the author introduced ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

But not only did the author present Fake authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus he also introduced a BOGUS IRRECONCILABLE succession of Bishops from since the time of Nero.

It is extremely important to remember "Against Heresies" is supposedly the very first writings which mention the names of the authors of the Gospels and the first to claim a SINGLE character called Paul wrote ALL the letters in the Pauline Corpus.

Why was the author of "Against Heresies" forced to invent Fake authors of the NT?

Why was the author of "Against Heresies" forced to invent a bogus succession of Bishops since the time of Nero?

The answer is clear.

The Jesus stories of the so-called Heretics PREDATED the NT stories of Jesus in the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

The author of "Against Heresies" identified so-called Heretics and also explained in detail their stories of Jesus and these so-called Heretics are multiple attested in Christian writings for hundreds of years.

Amazingly, the author of "Against Heresies" has NOT identified a real historical author of the Jesus stories in the NT Canon but he has been able to identify the non-Canonised authors of the so-called Heresies.

Apologetic writings AFTER "Against Heresies" also could NOT identify the true authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus up to this very day.

How is it possible that for at least 1800 years that no-one in the Church could present the real original authors of the Jesus stories in the NT Canon?

The original authors of the Jesus stories were the Heretics--Not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

The original stories of Jesus the Christ or Son of God appear to be DERIVED from so-called Heretics and cults like Cerinthus, Marcion, Carpocrates, the Ebionites and others.

 

[Brainache]

It is clear to me that some people here are posting just to disrupt the massive flow of evidence from antiquity which show that Jesus and Paul were figures of fiction.

The NT Canon has been discovered and it states multiple times that Jesus was God from the beginning, a Resurrecting Transfiguring water walker, the Lord from heaven and born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth is clearly a myth/fiction character and Paul was FABRICATED as a WITNESS of the Resurrection which never happened.

Now, because of the abundance of writings of antiquity it can be easily deduced that the Jesus stories in the NT Canon are really LATE manipulated versions of the so-called Heretics.

Essentially, the Jesus stories in the NT Canon were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul but appear to have been derived from so-called Heretics and multilated,interpolated, redacted before Canonised.

Some of the massive amount of evidence are found in writings called "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus", "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr, "Apology" attributed to Aristides, "Church History" attributed to Eusebius, "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian, "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian and "Against the Heathen" attributed to Arnobius.

One of the most significant piece of evidence that the Gospels and the Pauline letters were extremely late composition is "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

In "Against Heresies" the author introduced ALL FAKE authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

But not only did the author present Fake authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus he also introduced a BOGUS IRRECONCILABLE succession of Bishops from since the time of Nero.

It is extremely important to remember "Against Heresies" is supposedly the very first writings which mention the names of the authors of the Gospels and the first to claim a SINGLE character called Paul wrote ALL the letters in the Pauline Corpus.

Why was the author of "Against Heresies" forced to invent Fake authors of the NT?

Why was the author of "Against Heresies" forced to invent a bogus succession of Bishops since the time of Nero?

The answer is clear.

The Jesus stories of the so-called Heretics PREDATED the NT stories of Jesus in the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

The author of "Against Heresies" identified so-called Heretics and also explained in detail their stories of Jesus and these so-called Heretics are multiple attested in Christian writings for hundreds of years.

Amazingly, the author of "Against Heresies" has NOT identified a real historical author of the Jesus stories in the NT Canon but he has been able to identify the non-Canonised authors of the so-called Heresies.

Apologetic writings AFTER "Against Heresies" also could NOT identify the true authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus up to this very day.

How is it possible that for at least 1800 years that no-one in the Church can present the real original authors of the Jesus stories in the NT Canon?

The original authors of the Jesus stories were the Heretics--Not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

The original authors of stories of Jesus or the Son of God appear to be so-called Heretics and cults like Cerinthus, Marcion, Carpocrates, the Ebionites and others.

Even if what you say is true (which I strongly doubt), how does that prove that HJ didn't exist?

You say that there were stories of Jesus being told by multiple groups of people whom the later church called "Heretics" because they didn't agree with church dogma, but then you claim that as evidence that this Jesus that everyone was talking about didn't exist... That makes no sense to me.

Let's take a look at one of these groups of "Heretics", the Ebionites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Ebionites, or Ebionaioi (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι; derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones"), is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[1] They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] The Ebionites used only one of the Jewish Gospels, revered James the Just and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law.[4] Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty. The Ebionim was one of the terms used by the sect at Qumran that sought to separate themselves from the corruption of the Temple, whom many believe were the Essenes.[5]

One of the defining characteristics of this sect of Jewish Early Christians is that they didn't think Jesus was God. That's why they were called "Heretics". They thought of Jesus as a Prophet, not a god. They followed James, not Paul.

I don't see how citing a group of Jewish-Christians who followed the teachings of a man called Jesus could be evidence of the non-existence of a man called Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

The original stories of Jesus the Christ or Son of God appear to be DERIVED from so-called Heretics and cults like Cerinthus, Marcion, Carpocrates, the Ebionites and others.

The original Jesus is derived FROM the ideas of Carpocrates? And Paul never EXISTED? But what is the date of the earliest extant MANUSCRIPT of Irenaeus, our source of information about Carpocrates? You need to tell us that. For all we KNOW the early Church Fathers are a hoax invented BY A pack of liars.

The original Greek text of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is found only in fragmentary form, while [only one] complete Latin translation prepared about the year 380 has survived (emphasis added). There are three early manuscripts of the Latin translation, the oldest of which (Clareomontanus) dates from the tenth or eleventh century. The others are later (Leydensys, Arundelianus). Erasmus’ edition princeps of Irenaeus (1526) contains some readings not represented by any of these three manuscripts and the sources from which his variants may dreive have since disappeared (pg 1).

http://triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-irenaeus-may-be-dismissed-as-early.html So that means, by your reasoning that Jesus is a mediaeval fiction.

My cited source says something I've been vainly trying to teach you dejudge.

The physical remains of writings can give us an indication of their relative popularity.

Yes, and not necessarily of the date of composition.

 

[IanS]

We'll be in a better position to compare the two in about 1,980 years.

Well right now we are here in 2015, not 1980 years in the future. And right now it's not a valid comparison at all.

If you mean that 2000 years from now, if all actual evidence of Kim Jong il is completely lost, if all film has been lost, if all artefacts and buildings and monuments etc have been lost, if all Korean political and news records have been destroyed, if all political records, all news and media records in every nation on earth that ever mentioned Kim have all been destroyed etc. etc., and all that remained were stories about Kim performing miracles, then sceptics might make the mistake of thinking that perhaps he never was a real person, then that is of course possible ... because after all if you propose something like that then all you are actually doing is saying that if we ignore reality, and try to invent a version of Kim who would look just like Jesus, then we can "invent a Kim that we made to seem just like Jesus".


But two things about that scenario - firstly, most sceptics here are not saying Jesus was impossible. They are just saying there is no good evidence of him, in which case they see no evidential reason to believe he was real. And it would be perfectly reasonable to say the same in that Kim scenario, i.e. no evidence of a human Kim would still be no evidence of him and no good reason to believe he was actually real.

Secondly - nobody would care or bother to discuss it for one microsecond in the Kim scenario. In 2000 years nobody will care one iota whether Kim was real or not. So there will not be any future argument about it, and it won't matter one way or the other. But of course that is emphatically not the case with Jesus and the worldwide religion of Christianity. On the contrary, billions of people today not only do care about the existence of Jesus as the entire basis of all Christian faith, but the Church as a worldwide institution not only cares about whether it's basis is fact or fiction (or, it certainly should care), but that Christian church actually directly affects the daily lives of everyone on the planet today.

So it certainly does matter if Jesus was real....it certainly does matter if the church claims, bible scholar claims, theologians claims of evidence of Jesus are true, in fact claims of evidence at the level of absolute "certainty" such that sceptics called "mythers" should be dismissed as comparable to holocaust deniers and deniers of evolution (creationists), are true claims of having such vast evidence of Jesus ... it certainly does matter if those believers are right to claim that evidence & regard sceptics in that way .... except of course, they are certainly not right to claim that level evidence! ... on the contrary, the actual fact and honest truth here is that if there is any real tangible and credible evidence of Jesus ever known to anyone, then that evidence is vanishingly small and tenuous in the extreme.

 

[waters]

But two things about that scenario - firstly, most sceptics here are not saying Jesus was impossible.

I am not sure that generalization, as worded has merit.

The Jesus described in the gospels is clearly impossible, because no human can defy physics.

I suppose you meant something else. I won't try to put words in your mouth.

If you intended to convey the idea that the evidence for an historical person, who had been an itinerant rabbi, wandering about Galilee until slain by the Roman army, is unpersuasive, then you may be correct.

I don't share that sentiment. I think the entire story is a fable, pure and simple. Were there real persons who had suffered at the hands of the Roman soldiers: absolutely.

Did Jews suffer under Roman occupation: yes, absolutely.

Is the Christian religion a reflection of that misery, following the three Roman-Jewish wars, yes.

The analogy with the Korean peninsula, in my opinion, concerns the rise to power of the first Kim, grandfather of the current dictator. Where's the evidence to show how the Korean Communist Party switched allegiance from the Chinese Communist Party, to the Russian Communist Party (and what role did Kim play in that switch?). When did USA stop giving weapons to the KCP, since they, alone, fought the Japanese before, and during WWII, i.e. starting in 1895.

I am thinking about the Ebionions (not Ebionites!!! stupid stalinists) who, it is claimed, followed Jesus. ???
Where's the evidence???

I think that the history books have been cooked. In our times, think back to the USA congress declaration of war against Vietnam, and ask yourselves, what did they do, to justify the invasion by USA? Gulf of Tonkin episode and subsequent resolution? How far off the coast of VietNam were those frigates firing missiles into Vietnam? What did USA law, at that time, state about ships located within the same distance offshore from USA?

The Roman church changed the history, not just a couple of passages in Tacitus and Josephus, but whole texts. Codex Sinaiticus is the best example of that, Mark 1:2, with the handwritten scribble above the first word, four letters representing two nomina sacra, son of god, "correcting" the mistake of not including these symbols in Mark 1:1, as found in all subsequent editions.

 

[dejudge]

Even if what you say is true (which I strongly doubt), how does that prove that HJ didn't exist?

How do you prove Jesus of Nazareth did exist?

Why can't you present the evidence for your argument?

Galatians 1.19 and the Bible does not prove Jesus existed.

You admit Paul was a Liar and Con-man and that the Bible contains lies, fiction and implausible events.

You say that there were stories of Jesus being told by multiple groups of people whom the later church called "Heretics" because they didn't agree with church dogma, but then you claim that as evidence that this Jesus that everyone was talking about didn't exist... That makes no sense to me.

You have only exposed that you have no idea that people of antiquity and even today believe Mythology is actual history.

People of antiquity believe Romulus, Remus, Perseus, Satan and the Angel Gabriel existed and were on earth. In fact, it is stated that Satan was with Jesus in Jerusalem and that the Angel Gabriel was in Galilee in conversation with the mother of Jesus explaining the Holy Ghost conception.

Let's take a look at one of these groups of "Heretics", the Ebionites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites


One of the defining characteristics of this sect of Jewish Early Christians is that they didn't think Jesus was God. That's why they were called "Heretics". They thought of Jesus as a Prophet, not a god. They followed James, not Paul.

Your statement does not prove Jesus of Nazareth existed.

I don't see how citing a group of Jewish-Christians who followed the teachings of a man called Jesus could be evidence of the non-existence of a man called Jesus.

There is no evidence that Jesus existed because people believed he did in the 2nd century.

Your belief in the 21st century that Jesus existed does not prove anything.

I don't know how citing the belief of a cult could be actual evidence of an historical Jesus when the very cult believed God existed and used the fiction stories of Jesus as history.

 

[dejudge]

The original Jesus is derived FROM the ideas of Carpocrates? And Paul never EXISTED? But what is the date of the earliest extant MANUSCRIPT of Irenaeus, our source of information about Carpocrates? You need to tell us that. For all we KNOW the early Church Fathers are a hoax invented BY A pack of liars.

Your argument is void of logic. You admit Paul was an auditory hallucinator and may have been off his nut.

You admit that Paul did NOT see the resurrected Jesus as it is claimed in the Bible.

You have made Paul a liar and a hoax.

You cannot present any contemporary evidence from antiquity at all that any letter in the Pauline Corpus was actually written by Paul the auditory hallucinator c 50-60 CE.

Rejecting "Against Heresies" as a 2nd century writing has zero negative effect on the argument that Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction.

You forget that there are manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later that described Jesus as a Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water walking Son of a God born of Ghost and God from the beginning.

http://triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-irenaeus-may-be-dismissed-as-early.html So that means, by your reasoning that Jesus is a mediaeval fiction.

No, No, No!!! If you reject "Against Heresies" Jesus would STILL be a 2nd century or later Myth/fiction character. Myth/fiction Stories of Jesus have been discovered and dated to the 2nd century or later.

My cited source says something I've been vainly trying to teach you dejudge. Yes, and not necessarily of the date of composition.

Craig B, you can't teach me anything. Your arguments are void of logic and lack supporting evidence from antiquity.

You know that it does not take 120 years to copy a manuscript.

You don't even know if any of the existing manuscripts with the Jesus stories are original.

You don't know what an original manuscript of the Jesus story would contain.

You use the same Bible you discredit as a credible historical source.

Using admitted discredited sources to support an HJ argument is completely absurd and highly illogical.

 

[Craig B]

Your argument is void of logic. You admit Paul was an auditory hallucinator and may have been off his nut.

You admit that Paul did NOT see the resurrected Jesus as it is claimed in the Bible.

You have made Paul a liar and a hoax.

Even if he was a liar, and I don't know that he was. People honestly do have hallucinations; but that's not my point. I wrote

The original Jesus is derived FROM the ideas of Carpocrates? And Paul never EXISTED?

The people who have had hallucinations really do exist.
The people who are liars really do exist.

Jesus was not invented by Carpocrates, dejudge. In fact you can't even say Carpocrates existed, using your palaeographic principles, because the oldest copy of the book which mentions him dates back only to mediaeval times. And we have no manuscripts of Carpocrates of any age whatsoever, like Julian the Apostate we used to have such nice chats about. So how you can say Jesus was invented by Carpocrates is a complete mystery to me, I'm afraid.

 

[dejudge]

Even if he was a liar, and I don't know that he was. People honestly do have hallucinations; but that's not my point. I wrote The people who have had hallucinations really do exist.
The people who are liars really do exist.

Your statement does not prove anything. You have not proven Paul existed and have not proven Paul had hallucinations.

Where did you get your story that Paul hallucinated?

In the Pauline Corpus the writer claimed he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Why have you FABRICATED a story about Paul which you know is not in the Pauline Corpus?

It is not true that Paul hallucinated in the Pauline Corpus.

1 Corinthians 15:15

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

What hullucinations are you talking about!!!

The original stories of Jesus the Christ or Son of God appear to be DERIVED from so-called Heretics and cults like Cerinthus, Marcion, Carpocrates, the Ebionites and others.

Jesus was not invented by Carpocrates, dejudge. In fact you can't even say Carpocrates existed, using your palaeographic principles, because the oldest copy of the book which mentions him dates back only to mediaeval times. And we have no manuscripts of Carpocrates of any age whatsoever, like Julian the Apostate we used to have such nice chats about. So how you can say Jesus was invented by Carpocrates is a complete mystery to me, I'm afraid.

What a bizarre argument!!! I never stated the Jesus story was invented by Carpocrates. You appear to have problems with veracity.

Now, you forget that you have NO manuscript of the Pauline Corpus dated to the time of Aretas, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

How you can say Paul was an auditory hallucinator and actually wrote letters c50-60 CE is a complete mystery to me when you don't even have any evidence to support his historicity.

All existing manuscripts which mention Paul are dated no earlier than the late 2nd century.

 

[jhunter1163]

Craig B, you can't teach me anything.

This statement, I can agree with.

 

[Craig B]

What a bizarre argument!!! I never stated the Jesus story was invented by Carpocrates. You appear to have problems with veracity.

Oh, dejudge now I know why you THINK Jesus was a myth because if he was really a god he would send you to the Bad Fire for telling HORRID fibs! Because you wrote

The original stories of Jesus the Christ or Son of God appear to be DERIVED from so-called Heretics and cults like Cerinthus, Marcion, Carpocrates, the Ebionites and others.

That means that the original Jesus stories were derived FROM Crapocrates and these OTHER heretics, in your opinion. So the stories were derived from them but they didn't invent them? What do you mean, dejudge?

All existing manuscripts which mention Paul are dated no earlier than the late 2nd century.

There are NO manuscripts of Crapocrates, and the earliest copy of Irenaeus is in translation, and is mediaeval. So why are you saying Jesus is derived from this but not INVENTED by this? It's really baffling.

 

[dejudge]

Regardless of the time "Against Heresies" was composed we can EXAMINE the contents.

In the argument that the Gospels and Pauline letters PREDATED the so-called Heretics "Against Heresies" did introduce Gospel authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and that Paul was the single writer of the Pauline Corpus.

It has been discovered or deduced that the claims in "Against Heresies" are false.

There is really no evidence at all to show that the Gospels and Pauline Corpus predated the so-called Heretics.

It would appear that the stories of Jesus in the NT Gospels and Pauline Corpus are later manipulated, interpolated, and redacted stories of Jesus which originated from the so-called Heretics sometime in the 2nd century or later.

Essentially, all we really have are the names of the numerous so-called Heretics and their multiple versions of Jesus stories.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul wrote NOTHING.

The multiple versions of the Jesus stories from the so-called Heretics PREDATE "Against Heresies".

The multiple versions of the Jesus stories from the so-called Heretics PREDATE the false claims in "Against Heresies" that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John wrote stories of Jesus and that a single character called Paul wrote letters to Churches since before 70 CE.

Logically, the multiple versions of the Jesus stories from the so-called Heretics are EARLIER than the writing of "Against Heresies".

According to the Church "Against Heresies" was composed sometime around c180 CE.

"Against Heresies" is the supposed first writing to introduce the FAKE authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus.

Amazingly, manuscripts of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus have been found and DATED around the same time period c175-225 CE.

Papyrus 4, Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 46 are all dated around the supposed time of the writing of "Against Heresies" c 180 CE.

The EXISTING evidence in manuscripts of antiquity support the argument that the Gospels and Pauline Corpus are LATE writings.

 

[Craig B]

According to the Church "Against Heresies" was composed sometime around c180 CE.

And it exists only in the form of medieval manuscripts containing translations into Latin. So you accept the Church belief about the date of composition, even with no early manuscript. Now, dejudge, tell me if you accept the church belief about the date of Paul.

No, you demand to be SHOWN a manuscript! But for Irenaus you don't ask FOR a manuscript! You BELIEVE the church with no MANUSCRIPT. Why the inconsistency, dejudge?

 

[maximara]

The Jesus described in the gospels is clearly impossible, because no human can defy physics.

Which is what Resmburg basically said over hundred years ago:

"Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

If you intended to convey the idea that the evidence for an historical person, who had been an itinerant rabbi, wandering about Galilee until slain by the Roman army, is unpersuasive, then you may be correct.

I don't share that sentiment. I think the entire story is a fable, pure and simple.

Stripped of the miracles one does come to that conclusion.

The birth stories are clear fiction as are the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate trials.

The aftermath in Acts is more social-political nonsense with the Romans totally out of character based on other documents of the time.

Every time we have a supposed historical event connected with Jesus that we could check it either goes nowhere (Hero's slaughter of innocents) or spectacular blows up.

We are left with the conclusion that if Jesus did exist he was such a minor character that for all practical purposes he might as well not existed.

No one Jesus supposedly inspired seems to hit a cord with the Romans as there are no records regarding them until decades or even centuries after the fact.

 

[dejudge]

Which is what Resmburg basically said over hundred years ago:

"Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Your post is quite contradictory and rather bizarre. Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem in the NT.

The Quest for the historical Jesus is a quest to find historical data for the Jesus born in Bethlehem in the NT.

In fact, Christian writers claimed the Cave in Bethlehem where Jesus was born had been identified and known by enemies of the faith.

Examine "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

.....in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes.

And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians.

Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem in the NT was a figure of myth/fiction.

Stripped of the miracles one does come to that conclusion.

The birth stories are clear fiction as are the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate trials.

The aftermath in Acts is more social-political nonsense with the Romans totally out of character based on other documents of the time.

Every time we have a supposed historical event connected with Jesus that we could check it either goes nowhere (Hero's slaughter of innocents) or spectacular blows up.

We are left with the conclusion that if Jesus did exist he was such a minor character that for all practical purposes he might as well not existed.

No one Jesus supposedly inspired seems to hit a cord with the Romans as there are no records regarding them until decades or even centuries after the fact.

One cannot strip away the description and ACTIONS of Satan, the Angel Gabriel, Romulus, Remus, Adam, Eve and Perseus.

So too you cannot strip away any description or ACTS of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is the very description and accounts of Jesus that will show that he was a figure of myth/fiction.

Jesus of Nazareth was described as a myth/fiction character and ACTED like one.

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of myth/fiction UNTIL historical data can be found.

No historical data has been found for at least 1900 years.