The Historical Jesus II

[Craig B]

I learned the most, from reading what dejudge had written, particularly his citations from the gospels: first rate.

Depends what you mean by "citations". These are few. Mostly we get this trash.

I rebut your HJ argument because you use the Christian Bible--a known discredited historical source filled with forgeries, false attribution, fiction, discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events which did not and could NOT have happened.

You have failed to admit that the fiction/myth fables of gMark state that Jesus, the Son of God, TRANSFIGURED, WALKED on water, and Resurrected.

Jesus of Nazareth in gMark is an absolute myth/fiction character.

 

[waters]

later than when?

These things were invented later,

Maybe so. We lack any document, or commentary about any document, prior to the middle of the second century.

I tend to regard Justin Martyr's quotes as definitive, but of course, that is rather foolish, I agree, since, we have only one document, copied in an Italian monastery, during the Inquisition. Could have been altered, one supposes. I believe it to be accurate, until proven otherwise.

So, do you have evidence to demonstrate anything before Justin Martyr's "Memoirs of the Apostles"?
Is there anything found in Justin's comments, referring to text from the gospels, not found in Codex Sinaiticus?

Do you share my opinion, or dispute my opinion, that Justin Martyr fails to cite one word from Paul's epistles? In my view, Paul's epistles were "added later", because I find no evidence of any authority describing his epistles prior to Irenaeus, end of second, beginning of third century, CE.

 

[Craig B]

later than when?

Later than Paul and Mark.

 

[Craig B]

Do you share my opinion, or dispute my opinion, that Justin Martyr fails to cite one word from Paul's epistles?

I share that opinion, but what you say next doesn't follow, and seems improbable to me.

In my view, Paul's epistles were "added later", because I find no evidence of any authority describing his epistles prior to Irenaeus, end of second, beginning of third century, CE.

 

[maximara]

Well at whatever date any of this writing was actually done, none of it contains any evidence whatsoever of a human Jesus!

But even despite that, if you only want to claim that our Jesus stories come to us from material written before about 200AD in the case of P46 and Paul's lattés, or before about 4th-6th century in the case of the gospels, then apparently you are wrong! It does not come to us from dates earlier than that.

Not exactly. As I have pointed out before Against Heresies gets us to c180 CE for some form of what would become the canonal gospels and based on what was said about Marcion of Sinope we can says that "Luke" in some form and Paul in some form existed c140 CE.

But that is the best we we have and we have to push things to even get that.

No Church Father presents anything recognizable as actually being form our gospels before 130s CE. Paul doesn't give us any meaningful details and repeatedly states that any earthly appearance of Jesus are actually via vision so even if we did find something earlier it wouldn't really help (other then the obvious 'what did the later copyists change?')

It is clear by the type of forging that went on in the 4th century (claims Philo knew Peter, supposed letters from Pontius Pilate to the Emperor regarding Jesus, etc) that at some level some people within the Church knew there were problems with the Jesus story.

 

[dejudge]

Not exactly. As I have pointed out before Against Heresies gets us to c180 CE for some form of what would become the canonal gospels and based on what was said about Marcion of Sinope we can says that "Luke" in some form and Paul in some form existed c140 CE.

We have no actual contemporary manuscript of "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus so it is really of little value to state "Luke" and Paul existed in some form.

Writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus, and Municius Felix show NO awareness of Paul, the Pauline Corpus or a Gospel attributed to "Luke"

Virtually everything stated about the Christian Canon and the very TIME of crucifixion of Jesus has been REJECTED by Christians of antiquity and even Scholars today.

"Against Heresies" is not a credible historical source.


In "Against Heresies" it is claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels--Scholars have REJECTED such a claim.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed a SINGLE writer named Paul wrote ALL the Epistles in the Pauline Corpus---Scholars have REJECTED such a claim.

In Against Heresies" it is claimed Jesus of Nazareth was crucified when he was an OLD MAN at least 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius c 49 CE--Christians of antiquity REJECT such a claim.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed that Clement was the THIRD Bishop of Rome--at least SIX Christian writers REJECT the claim.

It is rather useless to rely on "Against Heresies" ---a well established source of discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems, fiction, mythology, forgeries, and false attribution.

 

[Craig B]

I have ALSO made reference to Christian writings of antiquity which used gMark to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a Jesus with a human father]

In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus it was an established LIE that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of Joseph.

OK, I'll go and look up Irenaeus. Hey, what's the earliest manuscript of Against Heresies? Excrement! We don't have the original Greek at all! Never mind, let's forge ahead anyway.

No, we'd better ignore AH, 'cos someone's just blown it out of the water.

"Against Heresies" is not a credible historical source.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels--Scholars have REJECTED such a claim.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed a SINGLE writer named Paul wrote ALL the Epistles in the Pauline Corpus---Scholars have REJECTED such a claim.

In Against Heresies" it is claimed Jesus of Nazareth was crucified when he was an OLD MAN at least 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius c 49 CE--Christians of antiquity REJECT such a claim.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed that Clement was the THIRD Bishop of Rome--at least SIX Christian writers REJECT the claim.

It is rather useless to rely on "Against Heresies" ---a well established source of discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems, fiction, mythology, forgeries, and false attribution.

OK, I'll go back to the New Testament. Dear me, what's this?

Acts of the Apostles is tantamount to PERJURY.

That's it! I'm calling the cops.

 

[IanS]

Not exactly. As I have pointed out before Against Heresies gets us to c180 CE for some form of what would become the canonal gospels and based on what was said about Marcion of Sinope we can says that "Luke" in some form and Paul in some form existed c140 CE.
But that is the best we we have and we have to push things to even get that.

No Church Father presents anything recognizable as actually being form our gospels before 130s CE. Paul doesn't give us any meaningful details and repeatedly states that any earthly appearance of Jesus are actually via vision so even if we did find something earlier it wouldn't really help (other then the obvious 'what did the later copyists change?')

It is clear by the type of forging that went on in the 4th century (claims Philo knew Peter, supposed letters from Pontius Pilate to the Emperor regarding Jesus, etc) that at some level some people within the Church knew there were problems with the Jesus story.

OK, well I know you are not presenting the highlighted part as very significant. But just for the record - in fact there are several quite obvious objections to it anyway.

Firstly - I am not suggesting that gospels and letters never existed in any form before 200AD for Paul's letters or about 4th-6th century for the canonical gospels. What I am saying is that we cannot know if those later copies said the same about Jesus as was written in any 1st century original gospels and letters.

And we have to be suspicious about that. In fact we have to be very suspicious about it, because we now know that all of that later Christian copying was subject to alteration by the copyists. They simply added, deleted, or changed words and sentences, depending on what they later wanted to proclaim about their belief in Jesus.

It only needs a few words to be changed to entirely alter the way Jesus belief was originally presented.

For example - if we did have a genuine original 1st century copy of say g-Mark or g-Mathew, we might easily find that whilst almost all of it was the same as appeared in the extant 4th-6th century copies, just a few words or half a sentence different in the original made clear or implied that they were originally describing a spiritual belief in Jesus, rather than belief in any known human preacher. That's why you/we/bible-scholars need, and have actually used (relied upon) the relatively complete and readable copies of gospels from 4th-6th century onwards (or c.200AD and P46 in the case of Paul's letters).

But in case anyone thinks it's a just a pure guess on my part to say that original 1st century gospels may have presented Jesus only as a spiritual figure, in fact that is exactly the representation that we do get by circa.200AD in Paul's letters from P46!

And P46 is apparently (afaik) by far the earliest of the relatively complete and readable manuscripts which have been used to create the present-day view of Jesus as given by bible scholars and Christians in general.

 

[IanS]

OK, I'll go and look up Irenaeus. Hey, what's the earliest manuscript of Against Heresies? Excrement! We don't have the original Greek at all! Never mind, let's forge ahead anyway.

No, we'd better ignore AH, 'cos someone's just blown it out of the water. OK, I'll go back to the New Testament. Dear me, what's this? That's it! I'm calling the cops.

Well, Craig, as you know, all of that non-biblical writing is unreliable in a lot of what it says about any of the events of the time. And it's especially unreliable in what it says about Jesus. Because -

1. none of the authors were even alive at the time of Jesus and could only have been repeating Christian hearsay.

2. even Tacitus and Josephus, who are the most cited as evidence about Jesus, wrote almost nothing about Jesus.

3. in their only known form as extant copies written as late as the 11th century (and nowhere near any lifetime of Jesus), all of that non-biblical writing was subject to alterations by Christian copyists

IOW - those authors knew noting about Jesus; they said almost nothing about him; and whatever was said has often been altered by pro-Christian writers.

We might also add that most of those non-biblical writers seem to have lived, and presumably were writing, in other counties very far from the lands of Judea.

 

[dejudge]

Acts of the Apostles is tantamount to PERJURY.

That's it! I'm calling the cops.

You forget you have a copy of Acts of the Apostles in your back-pocket.

You can't call the cops when you are using Acts of the Apostles as a history book.

You may not be granted immunity if you not an active Christian.

 

[dejudge]

It is most fascinating that so-called Atheists in the 21st century are using Acts of the Apostles as an history book.

Acts of the Apostles is a most blatant fairy tale of Jesus, Saul/Paul, the Apostles and the Holy Ghost.

In a most clumsy exposition of fiction the author of Acts claimed the resurrected Jesus ASCENDED to heaven in a cloud, that a Promised Holy Ghost came down from heaven, that Apostles instantly became multi-lingual, that Peter's SHADOW performed miracles and that Saul/Paul heard the voice of the ASCENDED Jesus after he was BLINDED [like a bat] by a bright light.

Acts of the Apostles is not only perjury it is historical STUPIDITY.

Acts of the Apostles is complete historical GARBAGE.

Acts of the Apostles has ZERO historical chronology.

Acts of the Apostles is a work of FICTION from the beginning to the end.

Incredibly, people called Atheists are using Acts of the Apostles to argue that the supposed ASCENDED and resurrected character called the Son of God was really real.

It can't get any worse.

People who argue that Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY real while using Acts of the Aposatles are extremely desperate.

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of fiction/myth in Acts of the Apostles.

 

[dejudge]

It is most fascinating that so-called Atheists in the 21st century are using Acts of the Apostles as an history book.

Acts of the Apostles is a most blatant fairy tale of the ascended resurrected Jesus, Saul/Paul, the Apostles and the Holy Ghost.

In a most clumsy exposition of fiction the author of Acts claimed the resurrected Jesus ASCENDED to heaven in a cloud, that a Promised Holy Ghost came down from heaven, that Apostles instantly became multi-lingual, that Peter's SHADOW performed miracles and that Saul/Paul heard the voice of the ASCENDED Jesus after he was BLINDED [like a bat] by a bright light.

Acts of the Apostles is not only perjury it is historical STUPIDITY.

Acts of the Apostles is complete historical GARBAGE.

Acts of the Apostles has ZERO historical chronology.

Acts of the Apostles is a work of FICTION from the beginning to the end.

Incredibly, people called Atheists are using Acts of the Apostles to argue that the supposed ASCENDED and resurrected character called the Son of God was really real.

It can't get any worse.

People who argue that Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY real while using Acts of the Aposatles are extremely desperate.

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of fiction/myth in Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Craig B]

You can't call the cops when you are using Acts of the Apostles as a history book.

I didn't know that, I must admit.

 

[dejudge]

You can't call the cops when you are using Acts of the Apostles as a history book.

I didn't know that, I must admit.

Are you pleading the "5th"? Are you suffering from amnesia?

Can you recall using Acts of the Apostles as a source of history for a character called Paul?

Can you recall using Acts of the Apostles as an historical source to corroborate accounts about Paul in the Pauline Corpus?

Your posts in this thread are on record.

It is most fascinating that even in the 21st century that people who claim that they are Atheists still use the fairy tales in Acts of the Apostles [historical garbage] to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY real.

 

[abaddon]

Are you pleading the "5th"? Are you suffering from amnesia?

Can you recall using Acts of the Apostles as a source of history for a character called Paul?

Can you recall using Acts of the Apostles as an historical source to corroborate accounts about Paul in the Pauline Corpus?

Your posts in this thread are on record.

It is most fascinating that even in the 21st century that people who claim that they are Atheists still use the fairy tales in Acts of the Apostles [historical garbage] to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY real.

I'm finding it difficult to figure you out, dejudge. Yes, I am indeed an atheist. Yes, I can acknowledge that such a historical human figure might have existed. I find your insistence in this thread that no interpretation but yours may exist or be given any credence to be a religious argument based solely on belief much as xians do, in fact in the very same way as xians.

Be honest, you are no different than the very xians you claim to oppose.

 

[dejudge]

Are you pleading the "5th"? Are you suffering from amnesia?

Can you recall using Acts of the Apostles as a source of history for a character called Paul?

Can you recall using Acts of the Apostles as an historical source to corroborate accounts about Paul in the Pauline Corpus?

Your posts in this thread are on record.

It is most fascinating that even in the 21st century that people who claim that they are Atheists still use the fairy tales in Acts of the Apostles [historical garbage] to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY real.

I'm finding it difficult to figure you out, dejudge. Yes, I am indeed an atheist. Yes, I can acknowledge that such a historical human figure might have existed.

What difficulty could there be? Is not Acts of the Apostles historical and chronological garbage?

Can you figure out why some Atheists use Acts of the Apostles to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was REALLY real?

In Acts 1, the resurrected Jesus ASCENDED in a cloud.

In Acts 2, the Apostles are FILLED with a Ghost and INSTANTLY become multi-lingual.

In Acts 5, Peter's SHADOW performs miracles.

In Acts 9, Saul/Paul is BLINDED [like a bat] and hears the voice of the Ascended Resurrected Jesus.

It is extremely fascinating to me that the very same people who REJECT the Christian Bible as evidence for an historical God are now using the very same discredited Christian to argue that the Son of God called Jesus was REALLY real.

It is IMPERATIVE that credible historical sources be found if one wants to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

The Christian NT is established historical and chronological garbage--a compilation of monstrous fairy tales about myth/fiction characters called Jesus, Paul and the Apostles.

I find your insistence in this thread that no interpretation but yours may exist or be given any credence to be a religious argument based solely on belief much as xians do, in fact in the very same way as xians.

Your statement is blatantly false. I have NEVER EVER insisted at any time on this thread or any thread in this forum that no interpretation but mine may exist or given credence.

In fact, I have shown the INTERPRETATION of Christian writers of antiquity.

Christian writers of antiquity ADMITTED their Jesus of Nazareth found in the NT was born of a Ghost and was God from the beginning .

Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Severus, Optatus, Augustine of Hippo and other Christian writers made references to the NT and did admit Jesus of Nazareth was the OFFSPRING of a Holy Ghost or God Creator from the beginning.

Be honest, you are no different than the very xians you claim to oppose.

It was extremely easy to figure you out.

You have NO contemporary or credible evidence to support your BELIEF that Jesus of Nazareth might have existed so you present strawman arguments and fallacies.

Be honest--you are no different than the very Christians of antiquity or Fundamentalists.

Don't you use the Christian Bible as an historical source ?

Doesn't The Christian Bible state Jesus lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified in the time of Pilate?

The Christian Bible, Christian writers of antiquity, Christian believers and Fundamentalists make such claims.

It is extremely easy to figure out people who argue for an HJ.

They NEVER EVER present any credible contemporary historical data to support their HJ argument.

Your next post will PROVE it.

 

[Walter Ego]

It is extremely fascinating to me that the very same people who REJECT the Christian Bible as evidence for an historical God are now using the very same discredited Christian to argue that the Son of God called Jesus was REALLY real...

Apples and oranges. Proving the existence of a deity is not the same as proving the existence of a historical human being. The former I would say is impossible, the latter, in the case of Jesus, possible to a reasonable degree.

The Christian NT is established historical and chronological garbage--a compilation of monstrous fairy tales about myth/fiction characters called Jesus, Paul and the Apostles.

Paul and the Apostles were mythic?

Oh, you need them not to have existed to "prove" your theory. Got it.

 

[dejudge]

It is extremely fascinating to me that the very same people who REJECT the Christian Bible as evidence for an historical God are now using the very same discredited Christian to argue that the Son of God called Jesus was REALLY real...

Apples and oranges. Proving the existence of a deity is not the same as proving the existence of a historical human being. The former I would say is impossible, the latter, in the case of Jesus, possible to a reasonable degree.

Your post is absolutely amazing. It is a perfect demonstration of logical fallacies and baseless assumptions.

In the NT, Jesus is the Son of the God of the Jews.


The God of the Jews in the NT is an "apple" but Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews in the NT is an "orange"!!!!???


Proving the existence of the God of the Jews in the NT is not the same as proving the existence of Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews in the NT!!!

It is impossible to prove the existence the God of the Jews in the NT but it is reasonably possible to prove the existence of Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews in the NT!!!???

How in the world can the Christian Bible be used to prove the Son of the God of the Jews existed as a man but cannot be used to prove the God of the Jews existed with human flesh?

God and his Son Jesus the Creator were on earth in the Christian Bible.

According to the Church, Jesus is ONE and the same substance as a Ghost and God.

The Christian NT is established historical and chronological garbage--a compilation of monstrous fairy tales about myth/fiction characters called Jesus, Paul and the Apostles.

Paul and the Apostles were mythic?

Oh, you need them not to have existed to "prove" your theory. Got it.

You don't have any evidence to "prove" your theory that Paul and the Apostles existed.

You don't get it.

You believe whatever you imagine is true in the Christian Bible.

1. Prove that the Apostles existed when the Resurrected Jesus ASCENDED in a cloud.

2. Prove the disciples existed when Jesus WALKED on the sea.

3. Prove that Paul existed when Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

You got proof???

 

[Walter Ego]

<snip>

Somebody wake me up when he stops shouting.

 

[maximara]

Apples and oranges. Proving the existence of a deity is not the same as proving the existence of a historical human being. The former I would say is impossible, the latter, in the case of Jesus, possible to a reasonable degree.

As I said before Remsburg said that over 100 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."

Rudolf Bultmann in 1941 (used by Carrier in his On the Historicity of Jesus) used the terms Reductive and Triumphalist respectively and Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in 2004 used something similar for the two ends of the historical Jesus spectrum.

Taken together you get this:

Reductive theory (Remsburg's Jesus of Nazareth): "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" rather than being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who

Triumphalist theory (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem): "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true" rather than being works of imagination like those of King Arthur.

Marshall warned "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." and Carrier states "Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)"

Somebody wake me up when he stops shouting.

If we did that you would make Rip Van Winkle look like an insomniac

Though he denies it, dejudge uses the Triumphalist aspects of the Jesus story (born of a Ghost, etc) to argue against there being any historical man behind the story. As I have pointed out before there is strong evidence that 'born of a virgin' was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual".

Various known historical people were said to be born of virgins: Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, and Plato. Even the "Pagan Christ", Apollonius of Tyana, who [supposed] personal writings and references to known contemporaries put him in a better position then Jesus got this treatment.

So being 'born of a virgin' in of itself is NOT evidence of Jesus being a total fictional creation.

It is in the mundane non supernatural events that the Jesus story falls apart.

Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents is ridiculous. Given he supposedly had his guards kill all male first borns 2 years and younger mean he basically sat only his hand for nearly 2 years before deciding 'hey, perhaps I should have this kid killed'.

The Sanhedrin trial account is totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century. In fact a little known quirk of the Sanhedrin court was that a unanimous verdict for conviction resulted in acquittal - Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin, 9:1

Pontius Pilate is totally out of character based on other accounts. Josephus relates two accounts where Pilate's solution to mobs causing a disturbance was brutally simple--have Roman soldiers go out and kill them until they dispersed. Moreover it is never really explained in the Bible why, if Jesus' only crime was blasphemy, Pilate would need to be involved. If Jesus' crime has been sedition, then there would be no reason for Pilate to involve Herod Antipas--or for the Sanhedrin to be involved for that matter.

The crucified were left to rot as a warning to others unless there was intervention on the behalf of an important person per The Life of Flavius Josephus (75)

Given Jesus' short time on the cross and reports of him being out and about afterwards, certainly the Romans might have wondered if they had been tricked. Never mind that theft of a body was a capital crime, yet there is nothing in the reports about the Romans acting on either possibility. Carrier describe how the Romans would have handled the situation and it is totally at odds with the account in Acts.

So when we come to something specific to Jesus we can check Gospels and Acts are shown to be spouting fiction.