The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

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?

Again, I have already made references to manuscripts dated to c 175-225 CE which support "Against Heresies" supposedly written c 180 CE.

You seem to have either problems with memory or veracity or a combination of both.

Papyri 4 is a manuscript of gLuke dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4

Papyri 75 is a manuscript of gLuke and gJohn dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

Papyri 46 is a manuscript of the Pauline Corpus dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46 are ALL DATED within the same time period as "Against Heresies"

"Against Heresies" c 180 CE was supposedly the FIRST writing to mention the names of the supposed authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus and it appears to be corroborated--NOT your imaginary c 50-60 CE.

No NT manuscripts have been found and dated to corroborate your imaginary c 50-60 CE letters of the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Brainache]

Again, I have already made references to manuscripts dated to c 175-225 CE which support "Against Heresies" supposedly written c 180 CE.

You seem to have either problems with memory or veracity or a combination of both.

Papyri 4 is a manuscript of gLuke dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4

Papyri 75 is a manuscript of gLuke and gJohn dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

Papyri 46 is a manuscript of the Pauline Corpus dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46 are ALL DATED within the same time period as "Against Heresies"

"Against Heresies" c 180 CE was supposedly the FIRST writing to mention the names of the supposed authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus and it appears to be corroborated--NOT your imaginary c 50-60 CE.

No NT manuscripts have been found and dated to corroborate your imaginary c 50-60 CE letters of the Pauline Corpus.

This sad parody of reasoning is still not working. Your conclusions don't follow from your premises. None of what you say is evidence against an HJ. It is beyond bizarre at this point.

 

[dejudge]

Again, I have already made references to manuscripts dated to c 175-225 CE which support "Against Heresies" supposedly written c 180 CE.

You seem to have either problems with memory or veracity or a combination of both.

Papyri 4 is a manuscript of gLuke dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4

Papyri 75 is a manuscript of gLuke and gJohn dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

Papyri 46 is a manuscript of the Pauline Corpus dated c 175-225 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46 are ALL DATED within the same time period as "Against Heresies"

"Against Heresies" c 180 CE was supposedly the FIRST writing to mention the names of the supposed authors of the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus and it appears to be corroborated--NOT your imaginary c 50-60 CE.

No NT manuscripts have been found and dated to corroborate your imaginary c 50-60 CE letters of the Pauline Corpus.

This sad parody of reasoning is still not working. Your conclusions don't follow from your premises. None of what you say is evidence against an HJ. It is beyond bizarre at this point.

Your posts are repetitive nonsense.

You forget that you admit Paul was a Liar and conman but still use 2nd century or later manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus riddled with forgeries, false attribution and fiction as a credible historical source.

You have no idea how history is done.

Your HJ argument is the very worst kind. You use an admitted established source of fiction and mythology for the history of your Jesus.

Jesus of the NT was a myth/fiction character

Your Jesus is 21st century fiction-stripped of myth.

 

[maximara]

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.

As Helen Bond (2012) The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed, Catherine M. Murphy (2011) The Historical Jesus For Dummies, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2011), and many others show this is total nonsense.

"there was no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his “history” was made to fit into the prophecies of the Old Testament. But these prophesies referred to a person, not a place." - Jesus Police

"he affirms that Jesus was really not of the family of David, and was born at Nazareth" - John McClintock, ‎James Strong - 1891

The whole "born in Bethlehem" thing is for theological and even the more moderate HJ supporters of the 19th century had figured that out. Stop wasting our time with nonsense, dejudge.

 

[dejudge]

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.

As Helen Bond (2012) The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed, Catherine M. Murphy (2011) The Historical Jesus For Dummies, Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2011), and many others show this is total nonsense.

"there was no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his “history” was made to fit into the prophecies of the Old Testament. But these prophesies referred to a person, not a place." - Jesus Police

"he affirms that Jesus was really not of the family of David, and was born at Nazareth" - John McClintock, ‎James Strong - 1891

The whole "born in Bethlehem" thing is for theological and even the more moderate HJ supporters of the 19th century had figured that out. Stop wasting our time with nonsense, dejudge.

Again you present absurdities. You have forgotten that the whole "Nazareth" thing was ALSO based on supposed prophecy.

Matthew 2.23

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

There is no corroborative evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem or anywhere.

If Jesus of Nazareth was not born in Bethlehem as stated in the NT then the NT is not credible.

Non-apologetic sources did not mention Jesus of Nazareth at all.

It is extremely void of logic to assume Jesus was born in Nazareth WITHOUT a shred of historical evidence.

We already know that Jesus in the NT was a product of the Septuagint or a similar source.

The whole "Jesus" thing was a product of false prophecies and scriptures.

1. Matthew 1:22--- Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet

2. Matthew 2:5 ---And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet


3.Matthew 2:15--- And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.


4. Matthew 2:17--- Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,


5.Matthew 2:23--- And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.


6.Matthew 3:3--- For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.


7. Matthew 4:10--- Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.


8.Matthew 4:14 ---That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,


9. Matthew 8:17 ---That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.


10.Matthew 11:10 ---For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee

11.Matthew 12:17 ---That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,


12. Matthew 13:14--- And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive


13.Matthew 13:35--- That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables....


14.Matthew 21:4 ---All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet


15.Matthew 24:15--- When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)


16. Matthew 26:56--- But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled


17.Matthew 27:9--- Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued

18.Matthew 27:35--- And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet

Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem is multiple attested myth/fiction.

 

[maximara]

Again you present absurdities. You have forgotten that the whole "Nazareth" thing was ALSO based on supposed prophecy.

Matthew 2.23

Matthew take things out of context...when he isn't making up prophecies for Jesus to fulfill. In fact, on reading of Matthew has Jesus "riding" two donkeys...I suddenly have this image of Jesus coming in like one of those rodeo trick riders.

Matthew has prophecy (real or imagined) on the brain.

 

[IanS]

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. .

For me it’s a question of evidence. And I don’t think the bible (gospels and letters) are credible as a believable source of factual evidence at all. So I don’t accept the claims of bible scholars and others who say they find good evidence of Jesus in the supernatural stories of the bible.

Beyond that, as shown in the above post #3145 from Dejudge, and as I have repeatedly stressed by citing the book from Randel helms (Gospel Fictions) - it is actually known that many (if not all) the gospel stories of Jesus in g-Mark and g-Mathew, were taken from what had been written centuries before as prophecy in the OT. So that totally discredits those gospels as a source of any claims their anonymous authors made about a messiah that they had never known (except as a figure of OT prophecy).

In addition to that, both Pauls letters and those gospels themselves repeatedly say that their Jesus beliefs are in fulfilment of scriptural messiah prophecies. So there really should be no doubt where any of those writers obtained their Jesus beliefs ... they came from the OT.

Whether there ever was any human preacher who biblical authors and others attached those OT stories too, I cant say for sure. There might have been. But there is actually no evidence of any such human messiah known to either Paul or any of the gospel writers.

I think that’s all we need to say. There is no need to propose any particular myth theory, as HJ believers demand of sceptics. It’s more than sufficient to point out that there is actually no evidence of Jesus in the gospels or letters of the NT. In fact on the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence to show that those NT writers cooked the stories up from the OT, and that ever since then bible scholars and Christian writers in general have claimed evidence where there actually is none. And that is suspicious to say the least.

 

[dejudge]

Again you present absurdities. You have forgotten that the whole "Nazareth" thing was ALSO based on supposed prophecy.

Matthew take things out of context...when he isn't making up prophecies for Jesus to fulfill. In fact, on reading of Matthew has Jesus "riding" two donkeys...I suddenly have this image of Jesus coming in like one of those rodeo trick riders.

Matthew has prophecy (real or imagined) on the brain.

You knew all along that the claim that Jesus was of Nazareth was baseless and had no historical value.

 

[dejudge]

I think that’s all we need to say. There is no need to propose any particular myth theory, as HJ believers demand of sceptics. It’s more than sufficient to point out that there is actually no evidence of Jesus in the gospels or letters of the NT. In fact on the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence to show that those NT writers cooked the stories up from the OT, and that ever since then bible scholars and Christian writers in general have claimed evidence where there actually is none. And that is suspicious to say the least.

Your uncertainty of an HJ has zero effect on the argument that Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction.

The argument that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of myth/fiction is based on massive amounts of evidence from antiquity covering hundreds of years.

Every single existing manuscripts of the Jesus story describe the character as a Resurrecting, Transfiguring Water walking Son of a God or born of a Ghost, God Creator, God from the beginning, and the Lord from heaven.

It is the very lack of historical data for Jesus of Nazareth why is it completely reasonable and allowable to argue that Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction UNTIL historical data is found.

 

[Brainache]

For me it’s a question of evidence. And I don’t think the bible (gospels and letters) are credible as a believable source of factual evidence at all. So I don’t accept the claims of bible scholars and others who say they find good evidence of Jesus in the supernatural stories of the bible.

Given that all histories from that time period contained supernatural/mythical elements, I'm not sure what you would consider "good evidence". Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus etc all contain things that a modern reader would call "supernatural", but they also contain useful information for Historians.

Beyond that, as shown in the above post #3145 from Dejudge, and as I have repeatedly stressed by citing the book from Randel helms (Gospel Fictions) - it is actually known that many (if not all) the gospel stories of Jesus in g-Mark and g-Mathew, were taken from what had been written centuries before as prophecy in the OT. So that totally discredits those gospels as a source of any claims their anonymous authors made about a messiah that they had never known (except as a figure of OT prophecy).

Historical criticism, textual analysis: Look them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/Howtoanalyzeanhistoricaldocument.html

In addition to that, both Pauls letters and those gospels themselves repeatedly say that their Jesus beliefs are in fulfilment of scriptural messiah prophecies. So there really should be no doubt where any of those writers obtained their Jesus beliefs ... they came from the OT.

That's the thing about "Messiahs", they were supposedly fulfilling a prophecy or two, that's how they got the job. See the "Star Prophecy":

...As for the 'star', that refers to every such interpreter of the Law as indeed repairs to 'Damascus',31 even as it is written: 'There shall step forth a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel' [Num. 24.17].82 The 'sceptre', it may be added, is the leader of the community, for in the exercise of his office he shall 'batter all the sons of pride',88 as the Scripture says.

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Whether there ever was any human preacher who biblical authors and others attached those OT stories too, I cant say for sure. There might have been. But there is actually no evidence of any such human messiah known to either Paul or any of the gospel writers.

Again: What would such evidence look like?

I think that’s all we need to say. There is no need to propose any particular myth theory, as HJ believers demand of sceptics. It’s more than sufficient to point out that there is actually no evidence of Jesus in the gospels or letters of the NT. In fact on the contrary, there is a mountain of evidence to show that those NT writers cooked the stories up from the OT, and that ever since then bible scholars and Christian writers in general have claimed evidence where there actually is none. And that is suspicious to say the least.

There is evidence there, but it is in the form of the texts themselves, in the way they changed over time, in the cultural context and the conflicting sources. The evidence isn't in the form of coins or statues or buildings, it is a result of understanding the historical and cultural context of the documents themselves.

If someone dug up a 1st century text tomorrow that contained the phrase "I met Jesus The Nazarene", all it would be evidence for is the fact that someone made that claim, not the existence of Jesus.

You need to learn what Historians mean when they talk about evidence, because what you are asking for is not it. You seem to want some kind of "Official" document like a birth certificate ratified by a committee of impartial judges and stamped by a Notary in triplicate, or something, as if such things can't be forged.

You also seem to be forgetting that anything written by contemporaries about Jesus that didn't align with later church doctrine would have been destroyed. Maybe Philo or someone did write about Jesus and called him a false prophet, but do you think such a document would have survived?

 

[jhunter1163]

t is actually known that many (if not all) the gospel stories of Jesus in g-Mark and g-Mathew, were taken from what had been written centuries before as prophecy in the OT. So that totally discredits those gospels as a source of any claims their anonymous authors made about a messiah that they had never known (except as a figure of OT prophecy).

Why couldn't Jesus have intentionally acted in a manner that could/would be interpreted as fulfilling the prophecies? He was called "rabbi", so he must have been familiar with the scriptures; surely he knew the Old Testament prophecies and what he would need to do in order to be seen as the Messiah.

 

[dejudge]

Given that all histories from that time period contained supernatural/mythical elements, I'm not sure what you would consider "good evidence". Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus etc all contain things that a modern reader would call "supernatural", but they also contain useful information for Historians.

Your claim that all histories from that time period contained supernatural/mythical elements does not help the HJ argument.

You have forgotten that there are achaeological evidence, artifacts and scientific data that can corroborate writings of antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth is fundamentally an element of myth and fiction.

Please, tell us what you would consider "good evidence" for Jesus of Nazareth?

The Christian Bible???

 

[dejudge]

Why couldn't Jesus have intentionally acted in a manner that could/would be interpreted as fulfilling the prophecies? He was called "rabbi", so he must have been familiar with the scriptures; surely he knew the Old Testament prophecies and what he would need to do in order to be seen as the Messiah.

What??

How could Jesus have "intentionally acted " to fulfill prophecy by being born of a Ghost and a Virgin?

How could Jesus have "intentionally acted " when the Holy Ghost bird lighted upon him at the baptism?

How could Jesus have "intentionally acted " during the Temptation by Satan?

Jesus of Nazareth in the NT could not have "intentionally acted" out virtually all the accounts in the NT because they could not have happened in the first place.

 

[jhunter1163]

What??

Let me type real slow and use small words. That might help.

Maybe Jesus rode on an ass 'cuz he knew that was what the Bible said the Messiah should do.

Do you get that?

 

[dejudge]

Let me type real slow and use small words. That might help.

Maybe Jesus rode on an ass 'cuz he knew that was what the Bible said the Messiah should do.

Do you get that?

Let me type even slower.

Your speculation has no historical value.

You have no actual evidence that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and no actual evidence that he rode a donkey or could have.

 

[maximara]

Why couldn't Jesus have intentionally acted in a manner that could/would be interpreted as fulfilling the prophecies? He was called "rabbi", so he must have been familiar with the scriptures; surely he knew the Old Testament prophecies and what he would need to do in order to be seen as the Messiah.

Because those "prophecies" are like those of Nostradamus or those of Delphi so vague as to be useless. Just like believers in Nostradamus Matthew takes things out of context or simply makes up prophecies for Jesus "fulfill".

For example, Hosea 11:1 in reality refers to the Israelite exodus; it isn't a prophecy of anything. Another example is Micah 5:2 which refers to the clan (not town) of Bethlehem.

The second example is even more blatant when you realize the Septuagint that Matthew would have had as a reference stated "And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah: yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel " If Matthew had been honest there was no way he could have read that as being a town.


PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by Farrell Till goes into more of the prophecy nonsense.

But the point is that as Matthew shows Jesus didn't need to intentionally act to fulfill any supposed prophecies but just had to do enough of a Nostradamus-Oracle of Delphi snow job to convince people he was fulfilling some prophecy (even if one didn't exist). After all Matthew has been doing exactly this type of snow job for well over 1800 years.

 

[dejudge]

...But the point is that as Matthew shows Jesus didn't need to intentionally act to fulfill any supposed prophecies but just had to do enough of a Nostradamus-Oracle of Delphi snow job to convince people he was fulfilling some prophecy.

You forget that gMatthew's Jesus was the son of a Ghost.

it is not logical at all that people would be convinced by gMatthew's Ghost story if Jesus was actually known in Galilee with a human father.

The author of gMatthew intentionally claimed Jesus was the son of a Ghost so I don't know how the Ghost child could have fulfilled prophecies.

Why do people today still want to claim or believe gMatthew is an historical account?

It is most mind-boggling that a Ghost story riddled with known fiction and implausibility is still used as history.

 

[Brainache]

Because those "prophecies" are like those of Nostradamus or those of Delphi so vague as to be useless. Just like believers in Nostradamus Matthew takes things out of context or simply makes up prophecies for Jesus "fulfill".

For example, Hosea 11:1 in reality refers to the Israelite exodus; it isn't a prophecy of anything. Another example is Micah 5:2 which refers to the clan (not town) of Bethlehem.

The second example is even more blatant when you realize the Septuagint that Matthew would have had as a reference stated "And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah: yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel "


PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED by Farrell Till goes into more of the prophecy nonsense.

But the point is that as Matthew shows Jesus didn't need to intentionally act to fulfill any supposed prophecies but just had to do enough of a Nostradamus-Oracle of Delphi snow job to convince people he was fulfilling some prophecy.

Or maybe when the gospel authors were confronted by a Jesus story that didn't have the right bits in it, they combed through the OT for any verse they could make fit and claimed those verses as "Prophetic", whether or not they had anything to do with a supposed "Messiah"...

 

[Craig B]

Or maybe when the gospel authors were confronted by a Jesus story that didn't have the right bits in it, they combed through the OT for any verse they could make fit and claimed those verses as "Prophetic", whether or not they had anything to do with a supposed "Messiah"...

And once they assumed Jesus was the Messiah they automatically assumed that he must have fulfilled the messianic prophecies as they understood them; so for example they wrote in stories about him being born in Bethlehem. Two different and contradictory stories! Not known to the earlier writers of Romans and gMark.

 

[jhunter1163]

Or maybe when the gospel authors were confronted by a Jesus story that didn't have the right bits in it, they combed through the OT for any verse they could make fit and claimed those verses as "Prophetic", whether or not they had anything to do with a supposed "Messiah"...

Yes, this. There were a lot of Jesuses in Palestine in those days; if you were going to be the jeeziest Jesus who ever jeezed, you had to stand out from the crowd somehow. Born of a Virgin? Sure. Walked on water? No problem. Raised the dead? Multiplied food? Piece of baklava.

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.

"Might as well have not existed" and "never existed" are two different things. Certainly Jesus was nothing more than a fringe nutjob in his day; he only achieved the prominence he has due to the efforts of his hard core of nutjob followers who ascribed increasingly outlandish things to him to make him extra-jeezy.