The Historical Jesus II

[IanS]

Actually, that's quite true. But I did invite comments; and these invitations I reproduce here in bold.

Indeed, what I said was true.

I actually have no objection at all to saying what I think about any dates for g-Mark, or anything else here. And I don't know why you would even think I had any strange views on proposed dates for g-Mark ... I've commented on those gospel dates at least 100 times here already (literally 100 times!).

So I don't know why you even asked me about it.

But that sort of question, and any answer I give for when I think g-Mark may have been written, is (a)not remotely providing evidence for Jesus (which is what the thread is about), and (b) could only be a complete guess from me anyway. So that's in no way getting to the issue or the heart of the dispute here at all.

I was asking you about things you were talking about in your current posts, i.e. g-Luke, and asking if you are presenting that as some sort of credible evidence of a human Jesus?

 

[Craig B]

I was asking you about things you were talking about in your current posts, i.e. g-Luke, and asking if you are presenting that as some sort of credible evidence of a human Jesus?

And I am reminding you of requests made in my previous posts, to which you have not responded, to wit:

The passage I have cited seems to state that Mark was writing in c 70 CE about a person, not personally known to him, who lived in and after the reign of Augustus. The Gospel writers included in their accounts of this person, material derived from their understanding of OT prophecies. I agree with all of this, but I'm surprised that you agree with it. If this passage is not typical of Helms' work, or gives a misleading impression of his real views, I will be glad to hear from you on that score.

I also wrote to indicate that some of the Jesus material doesn't look like OT prophecy, and if you wish to comment on that too, I will read your words with interest.

You may wish to respond to this now.

 

[Marras]

But, here's a distinction. We possess, for Pythagoras, but not for Jesus, people who are unequivocally historical, living a century later, Aristarchus and Archimedes, both of whom employed Pythagorean discoveries in mathematics.

But there is the open question whether the discoveries were made by Pythagoras himself or by Pythagoreans who followed him and who had a reputation of being scholars themselves? A bit like there's a question whether Jesus said the words attributed him in the sermon of the mount or if they were invented by Christians later.

 

[Marras]

What you believe about Pythagoras is completely irrelevant for the HJ argument.

Of course you want to concentrate on historical Jesus and historical Jesus alone. That way you don't have to explain why you believe that Pythagoras the glowing son of Apollo was real while Jesus the only-begotten son of God was not. Or why you believe in historical Iraneus even though he doesn't have the sort of proof for his existence that you demand for Jesus.

It doesn't make a sense to examine any historical figure in complete isolation. There were lots and lots of real people all around the Mediterrean who got deified after their deaths and a few who got the treatment already during their lives. Some even became major gods, such as Imhotep who later got amalgated with Thoth and even internationally with Asklepios. Against this background and the situation in the first century Judea, a historical Jesus doesn't stand out as anything exceptional.

Of course, there were also a lot of mythological figures that can't be traced to historical persons, no need to assume that I don't know about them.

Like I said earlier, I believe that Jesus was a historical figure because that is the simpler explanation for the beginnings of Christianity. Purely mythical Jesus causes more problems than it solves. I may be wrong in this but I haven't tied a shred of my identity to it. If someone finds out the smoking gun that proves that Jesus was purely mythical, I will say "Cool" and start to believe in that. But I'm afraid that random posts on a random internet forum that read like they are disseminating important information aren't going to be enough for that.

 

[dejudge]

But there is the open question whether the discoveries were made by Pythagoras himself or by Pythagoreans who followed him and who had a reputation of being scholars themselves? A bit like there's a question whether Jesus said the words attributed him in the sermon of the mount or if they were invented by Christians later.

Whether or not Pythagoras did or did not exist is completely useless as evidence for an historical Jesus.

It does not logically follow that the existence or non-existence of Pythagoras also resolves the historicity or non-historicity of characters in the NT.

The historicity or non-historicity of Pythagoras did and could not confirm the historicity or non-historicity of Pontius Pilate, Satan, the angel Gabriel, King Herod, King Aretas, Caiaphas the High Priest, Claudius the Emperor, Herod the tetrarch, Philip the brother of Herod, Festus the Governor, Agrippa, Bernice and Felix the Governor.

Please, it is a completely waste of time to argue about the existence or non-existence of Pythagoras when you are asked to PRESENT actual evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus.

You cannot and will not present any actual evidence.

We already know that you will NOT be able to do so.

Jesus of Nazareth was a fiction/myth character FABRICATED in the 2nd century or later based on the MASSIVE amount of evidence from antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any real existence.

 

[dejudge]

What you believe about Pythagoras is completely irrelevant for the HJ argument.

Of course you want to concentrate on historical Jesus and historical Jesus alone. That way you don't have to explain why you believe that Pythagoras the glowing son of Apollo was real while Jesus the only-begotten son of God was not. Or why you believe in historical Iraneus even though he doesn't have the sort of proof for his existence that you demand for Jesus.

You don't want to present any actual evidence for an historical Jesus. You don't want to address the subject of this VERY thread.

Please open a thread on Pythagoras or Apollo because we ALREADY know you are NOT able to present any actual evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus.

It doesn't make a sense to examine any historical figure in complete isolation. There were lots and lots of real people all around the Mediterrean who got deified after their deaths and a few who got the treatment already during their lives. Some even became major gods, such as Imhotep who later got amalgated with Thoth and even internationally with Asklepios. Against this background and the situation in the first century Judea, a historical Jesus doesn't stand out as anything exceptional.

It does not make sense to argue about the historicity or non-historicity of Pythagoras because there were HUNDREDS of myth characters in Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

People of antiquity actually believed Ghosts were real historical persons.

For example, Romulus and Remus, the myth founders of Rome, were born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Of course, there were also a lot of mythological figures that can't be traced to historical persons, no need to assume that I don't know about them.

What??? You can't be serious!!! You assume Jesus was a figure of history WITHOUT evidence even though you know that there were lots of mythological figures that can't be traced to historical persons.

Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument.

Like I said earlier, I believe that Jesus was a historical figure because that is the simpler explanation for the beginnings of Christianity. Purely mythical Jesus causes more problems than it solves. I may be wrong in this but I haven't tied a shred of my identity to it. If someone finds out the smoking gun that proves that Jesus was purely mythical, I will say "Cool" and start to believe in that. But I'm afraid that random posts on a random internet forum that read like they are disseminating important information aren't going to be enough for that.

Surprise, Surprise!!! Your belief is WORTHLESS when you were asked to PRESENT evidence from antiquity.

Surpise, Surprise!!! People here have presented the evidence from antiquity that Jesus was described as a myth in hundreds of manuscripts and there is NO record that you have said "COOL".

Why are you on this "random" forum if you already know that your random posts are not going to be enough??

We already know that you have NOTHING to offer for an historical Jesus EXCEPT your belief.

This "random" forum was not initiated for random posts about belief.

This "random" forum and thread was specifically set up for historical data.

Please, tell your belief to a "random" Church.

People here NEED evidence from antiquity for an historical Jesus.

 

[waters]

And I am reminding you of requests made in my previous posts, to which you have not responded, to wit:
[snip)
You may wish to respond to this now.

post 3239, earlier this morning.......

 

[Craig B]

Thank you Craig.

Help me, here, will you? I had the impression, without citing a source, that neither Tacitus nor Josephus had mentioned a Jesus, by name, in a work which had not been acknowledged to have been "interpolated".

Both the Josephan texts name the person as "Jesus". For various reasons I reject the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety as an interpolation; but I am more sympathetic to 20:9:1. It is not generally thought by all scholars to be an interpolation.

Am I in error on that point? Is not the designation, in Tacitus, at least, if memory serves me, Annals 15:44 to chrestiani, not to "the Christ", and in Josephus Antiquities, to an ambiguous Jesus of unidentified parentage, in a passage claimed to represent a much later insertion, into the text, on the basis of (I don't know which fraudulent characteristics)?

Why let memory serve you? Consult the text if you are in doubt.

I'll leave it here and let you look these things up yourself. And if you could do me the favour of reminding me what Philo said re Heracles I would be grateful.

The following is utterly nonsensical.

gMark's description of this "same" Jesus character, includes parentage from YHWH, aka Zeus, making gMark's Jesus, (the same guy, we imagine, as described by Josephus, Lucian and Tacitus), a demigod, and half brother of Herakles.

Nothing of the sort. Mark did not think of Jesus as a half brother of Heracles. Otherwise he would have listed Heracles along with the brothers whom he does name. That idea is ludicrous. I think you're having a laugh, actually.

Let's try your theory, in bold.

Mark 6:2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of Heracles, James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offence at him.

That would make Mary the mother of Heracles.

 

[dejudge]

You really don't know what's being said, dejudge, do you? Yes Jesus is God according to the Christians. But God consists of three persons, of whom the Son is one. And none of these persons is the same thing as either of the other two.

Your addition of the word "myth" to this reasoning doesn't help at all. Jesus is a myth. OK. Hercules is a myth. Yes. So Jesus is Hercules, dressed in a lion skin and holding a giant club. No.

You don't know what you are talking about. Your absurd 21st century opinion is completely useless when we have writings of ANTIQUITY from Church writers about the doctrine of the Trinity.

You don't even understand what you posted about the Trinity.

The TRINITY is about THREE Persons--NOT two.

Jesus can NEVER be separated from the Holy Ghost and the Father.

"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"

"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit".

Jesus, the Son is God and God is the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is GOD AND the Holy Ghost.

Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same substance.


1. Augustine of Hippo "On the Holy Trinity---therefore they are not three Gods, but one God.

2. Thaumaturgus "On the Trinity"---All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity..

3. Gregory of Nyssa "On the Holy Trinity-----the identity of operation in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shows plainly the undistinguishable character of their substance.

Jesus was God PLUS the Holy Ghost.

Jesus, the Father and the Ghost are ONE.

The TRINITY is ONE GOD.

Jesus of Nazareth is a Ghost/God/Man--a figure of fiction/myth.

 

[waters]

A reported religion is as much a historical fact as a reported mathematical theorem, even if the religion is false and the theorem true.

No one here is arguing, Craig, that the Christian religion is not an historical fact. When and how it began are issues worthy of discussion, however, neither of those two interesting topics is the subject of this thread, which centers on examination of evidence purported to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

I do not argue, even, that the religion is false, though I acknowledge holding that opinion.

My claim here, is that it is unreasonable, to claim historicity on the basis of a quantity, i.e. several, less than a handful, more than a couple, of terse reports (even assuming those reports are bona fide), containing so few details, that neither parentage nor accomplishments of this figure, Jesus of Nazareth, can be ascertained, confirmed, or verified with sources unrelated to that handful.

In the case of Philo's praise of Herakles, we have dozens of other known sources, making the same absurd claims about Herakles' life and activities. We do not therefore, boost our assessment of the historicity of Herakles, because of such a large number of authors attesting to Herakles' human existence.

 

[waters]

The following is utterly nonsensical

gMark's description of this "same" Jesus character, includes parentage from YHWH, aka Zeus, making gMark's Jesus, (the same guy, we imagine, as described by Josephus, Lucian and Tacitus), a demigod, and half brother of Herakles.

Ah, Craig. Sigh. Half brother because his father was the same as Jesus'.

Both figures are demigods, Craig.

Both figures possessed paternal supernatural DNA,

Both figures claimed human mothers, with human maternal DNA.

There is only one supernatural deity in the Christian religion, right? Well, ok, maybe three, but one of them, is called "father", and he is the one who "fathered" Jesus, right? So, he is Zeus' counterpart. Both deities reside on a mountain top. Both lads, Herakles and Jesus, die, are resurrected, and ascend to the mountain top to live with their father.

 

[dejudge]

Both the Josephan texts name the person as "Jesus". For various reasons I reject the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety as an interpolation; but I am more sympathetic to 20:9:1. It is not generally thought by all scholars to be an interpolation. Why let memory serve you? Consult the text if you are in doubt.

We have already been through Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 and it does NOT state that Jesus the brother of James was from Nazareth.

Plus, the Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was ALIVE in the time of Albinus, the Governor of Judea c 64 CE.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is evidence AGAINST an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

It is simply void of logic to assume that any character called Jesus in the writings of Josephus must refer to Jesus of Nazareth when there are many persons called Jesus whose stories are similar to those in the Bible.

Also, Multiple Church writers themselves argued that Jesus, God from heaven, had NO human brother called James the Apostle.

By the way, James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is NOT claimed to be an Apostle.

Jesus the Christ in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is Jesus the High Priest the son of Damneus.

Jesus the son of Damneus the High Priest is the ONLY person QUALIFIED to be called the CHRIST [ANOINTED] in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

High Priests were given the TITLE of CHRIST [the ANOINTED] by Jews.

 

[dejudge]

A reported religion is as much a historical fact as a reported mathematical theorem, even if the religion is false and the theorem true.

Your statement is completely useless as evidence for an historical Jesus.

There is a history of the Jewish religion but the character they worship is not a figure of history.

 

[dejudge]

duplicated

 

[waters]

And if you could do me the favour of reminding me what Philo said re Heracles I would be grateful.

[QUOTE="Philo Embassy to Gaius, XII:90]But I suppose you imitated Hercules in your unwearied labours and your incessant displays of valour and virtue; [/QUOTE]

In your opinion, Craig, do the several comments, praising Herakles, in this letter to Roman Emperor Caligula from Philo of Alexandria, circa 40 CE, demonstrate the same historicity of Herakles, as the letter of Pliny the Younger, seventy years later, to his emperor, Trajan, circa 112 CE, demonstrated the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

If not, why not? Why shouldn't we consider Herakles a genuine historic figure, as you apparently believe Jesus to have been, based on comparably brief notes from several authors of undoubted historic existence themselves?

 

[Craig B]

Ah, Craig. Sigh. Half brother because his father was the same as Jesus'.

Both figures are demigods, Craig.

Both figures possessed paternal supernatural DNA,

Both figures claimed human mothers, with human maternal DNA.

There is only one supernatural deity in the Christian religion, right? Well, ok, maybe three, but one of them, is called "father", and he is the one who "fathered" Jesus, right? So, he is Zeus' counterpart. Both deities reside on a mountain top. Both lads, Herakles and Jesus, die, are resurrected, and ascend to the mountain top to live with their father.

No wonder you emit a sigh before composing such drivel.

 

[Craig B]

In your opinion, Craig, do the several comments, praising Herakles, in this letter to Roman Emperor Caligula from Philo of Alexandria, circa 40 CE, demonstrate the same historicity of Herakles, as the letter of Pliny the Younger, seventy years later, to his emperor, Trajan, circa 112 CE, demonstrated the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

If not, why not? Why shouldn't we consider Herakles a genuine historic figure, as you apparently believe Jesus to have been, based on comparably brief notes from several authors of undoubted historic existence themselves?

Cite these notes, as I asked, and we can examine them. He wrote TO Gaius, did he? Cite the appropriate text there too, please.

 

[Craig B]

Waters, thanks for

"Philo Embassy to Gaius, XII:90. But I suppose you imitated Hercules in your unwearied labours and your incessant displays of valour and virtue".

Now tell me if that is Philo Judaeus attesting to his own belief in the existence of Heracles, or whether he is merely noting that a pagan imitated the traditionally-attributed virtues of one of his own gods?

 

[dejudge]

In your opinion, Craig, do the several comments, praising Herakles, in this letter to Roman Emperor Caligula from Philo of Alexandria, circa 40 CE, demonstrate the same historicity of Herakles, as the letter of Pliny the Younger, seventy years later, to his emperor, Trajan, circa 112 CE, demonstrated the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

Please, may I remind you that the letter to Trajan attributed to Pliny the younger does not mention Jesus of Nazareth or any person called Jesus.

And further once it is argued that there were MULTIPLE Messianic claimants in antiquity then it is virtually impossible to show that the title Christ only refers to Jesus of Nazareth

Even in the NT it is claimed there would be many persons who would use the name CHRIST to deceive.

Matthew 24:5 ---For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 13:6--- For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Luke 21:8--- And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

The supposed Pliny letter to Trajan which mentions the name "Christ" is of very little use for the HJ argument especially when HJers themselves argue that their Jesus was NOT the Christ but an OBSCURE preacher man or some other invented irreconcilable fiction character without a trace of evidence in or out the Bible.

 

[Craig B]

Please, may I remind you that the letter to Trajan attributed to Pliny the younger does not mention Jesus of Nazareth or any person called Jesus.

So now you've been forced to dilute the Nazareth condition in defining Jesus in the early notices. Good.

The supposed Pliny letter to Trajan which mentions the name "Christ" is of very little use for the HJ argument especially when HJers themselves argue that their Jesus was NOT the Christ but an OBSCURE preacher man or some other invented irreconcilable fiction character without a trace of evidence in or out the Bible.

If you don't want to identify Pliny's Christ with Jesus, that's up to you. But to say it isn't evidence of people worshipping a messiah as a god is ridiculous. And that is a peculiar Christian thing. Jews, even messianic ones, don't do that.