There is ample reason to assume that the "Lord" is Jesus, and that he was a normal human brother. No proof of these suppositions, but good reason to believe them. And that has been stated hundreds of times as well.Weasel words noted. The scare quotes are a nice touch, too.
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
True, but we have no evidence that Mark was written any early then 100 though given it has the Jewish war of 70 CE in mind so one would expect it to be reasonably close to that period.
Revelation is as Carrier puts it a "Five hour acid trip so bizarre if you actually made it into a movie it would actually outdo Eraserhead for the title of ‘Most Annoying Weird Movie Ever Made’."
And based on the handful of people on Youtube who have actually make Revelation into a movie that is not far for the true especially the one who used CGI animation to do it. Given Revelation is a trip though la la land and in some places seems to be a reworking of Daniel 7 I don't see what relevance it has to a historical Jesus
Last edited:
Ah, Carrier says ... But in fact I've read more useful comments on Revelation.
Do you see what relevance it has to this, to which it is a reply?
Weasel words noted. The scare quotes are a nice touch, too.
OK, so you have no credible argument, and no credible evidence either. Your posts like the above are of no use here.
You are claiming that my wording saying "supposedly genuine" is a "weasel wording" in something called "scare quotes". But it's not any such thing at all.
The reason I said "supposedly" is that apart from the fact that we really don't know if Paul was a real person, and some doubt that he was, we certainly don't know that anyone called "Paul" actually ever wrote any letters about anything.
Paul was supposedly a street preacher, who although "educated" in religious belief of the OT, was, like almost everyone else at the time, quite probably unable to read or write well enough to compose extensive articulate letters. E.g., iirc, in one of his letters he actually says that he is not educated in the formal ways of others. So I suspect that it's more likely that somebody else wrote the 6 or 7 so-called "genuine" letters of Paul (the other 6 or 7 being apparently written by other unknown people).
That's the first thing which should make any of us, inc. you, cautious about saying these letters were indeed personally written by Paul.
But the second point is - even if 6 or 7 of the 14 "Pauline letters" were thought to have been originally written by Paul himself, the fact is that we do not have a single word of any such original writing. All that we have are later copies written from around 200AD and later by anonymous Christians who were apparently writing the letters in Egypt!
That's why I add the caution of saying these letters were only "supposedly" genuine writing from Paul himself.
And in case you really needed an explanation of why I put quotes around the name "Paul" - as I just explained, and it's apparently a "fact" (as much as we can know what any "facts" are in this subject) that we don't really know who Paul was, or if he was even ever a real person, far less do we know that he ever wrote any original letters under his own name. All that we have are much later Christian copies that even Christian bible scholars agree were certainly written by somebody else entirely.
Last edited:
It has been "stated" by you and other HJ posters here. But you have stated it without any credible supporting evidence. And in fact, stated by you against a long list of quite contrary factual evidence which your sceptical opponents have given here in detail many many times.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Ditto JC, the Apostles and every other Christian in the NT may we assume?
Who was real during that period?
Last edited:
Two things here. The literary level of the Roman Empire in general and Palestine in particular may have bee far higher then was once supposed:
Like all Roman children, Tiro was sent to elementary school, the ludus litterarius, to learn reading and writing. This was not an act of generosity but necessity. Rome was the most literate society of the classical world, “a civilization based on the book and the register,” and “no one, either free or slave, could afford to be illiterate”:
The written word was all around them, in both public and private life: laws, calendars,regulations at shrines, and funeral epitaphs were engraved in stone or bronze. The Republic amassed huge archives of reports on every aspect of public life. Praetors and magistrates kept records of every judgment that was handed down, . . . [which] formed the cornerstone of Roman jurisprudence. . . . At home, too, writing was important. Noble families . . . had their own [ancestral] archives. . . . But all families . . . kept books of farming tips, prayers, and remedies. Writing played a vital role in business too: contracts of sale, hire, association and estate management were all recorded on tablets and registers. Then there were the innumerable letters that Romans traveling far from home sent back to their friends in the City. (Dupont 223)" - Di Renzo, A (2000) “His master's voice: Tiro and the rise of the Roman secretarial class,” Journal of technical writing and communication, vol. 30, (2) 155-168
Second, even if Dupont and Di Renzo have the Roman Empire as a whole far more illiterate then it was Paul could have dictated his letters to someone else who wrote them down for him.
In fact buried in Romans (16:21-22) is evidence that Paul did dictate his letters:
Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you. I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord. (KJV)
As far as total contents is concern that is true but we have references to Paul or parts of his letters way before that.
But the point is Paul doesn't really bring anything useful to the Historical Jesus table. There are no real clear details about Jesus in Paul's seven letters; only vague almost cold reading like generalities. This is the sort of thing one would expect regarding a vision inspired being rather then of a actual historical person.
Paul shows little to no knowledge of the Gospels which makes perfect sense if his writings proceeded the Gospels. Given the Gospels all end with the or shortly after the resurrection it makes perfect sense that the account would not include writings not started for another 15 years.
Last edited:
Your statement has confirmed your absurdity, extreme lack of logic and lack of historical data.
Suppositions and Assumptions are unreasonable.
This thread and forum was not initiated for baseless ASSUMPTIONS and SUPPOSITIONS.
It cannot be ASSUMED that Jesus in the NT was human when it is stated he was born of a Ghost and that he was God Creator.
The very NT was used to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus [a Jesus with a human father] and Christian writers who made reference to the NT ADMITTED and ARGUED that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father and was God from the beginning.
The Church which Canonised the NT have conceded that Jesus of the NT was Born of a Ghost and was True God of True God.
NT Jesus was a MYTH/FICTION as described.
NT Jesus was a MYTH/FICTION character unless historical data can be found.
None has been found for at least 1800 years.
The Pauline Corpus LACKS corroboration in and out the Bible and cannot be ASSUMED to be historically accurate.
Christian writers have claimed that the author of the Pauline Corpus was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed and the letters to Churches were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John [Revelation].
Apologetic writings have placed "Paul" as late as the 2nd century so it is just a waste of time for people here to assume WITHOUT evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.
The Pauline Corpus is completely useless in the HJ argument.
The Pauline writers are WITNESSES of Fiction--the Resurrection of the Lord God from heaven on the THIRD day.
The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage.
maximara said:
points: One, thanks Maximara, well done, appreciate your time and effort to address the question of evidence supporting the legend that Paul wrote before Mark.
That is not meant to shortchange IanS' rejoinder, that it is completely a waste of bandwidth to argue this idea.
I simply have an interest in resolving this point, and right now, I am firmly on the side of dejudge, who has, in my opinion, done an admirable job, highlighting the rationale for considering that Paul's letters were issued, after, not before, Mark's gospel. To my way of thinking this issue underlies the main focus of the thread, was Jesus an historical person. A lot of the argument supposedly attesting to Jesus' human existence, is derived from Paul's letters.
I will address the quote above, momentarily, but, first, I notice, Maximara, that you ignored, again, the thrust of my comments regarding both Luke, and Justin Martyr:
1 Timothy, (ostensibly written by Paul), quoting Luke 10:7 regards grafe, γραφη, as "Scripture", and therefore quotes from it. Do you, maximara, regard γραφη, as "Scripture"?
waters said:
Now to your conclusion:
Nope. Clearly I believe, based on what little I have read, that Justin Martyr had not quoted Paul's epistles. I will need to read Werline's thesis, and I have not yet begun to do that. So, I am ill-prepared to offer a proper refutation of his argument, but, he does write:maximara said:
Let me translate that into ordinary English:Rodney Werline said:
Folks, come right up, take a good long gander at this here snake oil. Yessir. Guaranteed 100% pure snake oil. Cures menstrual irregularity, and male infertility.
Maximara, your conclusion is wrong. Yes, his text is not in agreement with my supposition. That may well indicate that my premise is either flawed, or false, but it also could mean, instead, that Werline's conclusion is inadequate, incorrect, or misleading.
We cannot assert that Darwin is "not accurate", based on the text of Genesis? right? My conclusion may well be shown inaccurate, incomplete, or completely wrong. Fine. But that demonstration hasn't yet been accomplished. Werline's text, as quoted here, is meaningless, in addressing the question of whether or not Justin Martyr had one or more of Paul's epistles before him, as he wrote, Dialogue, and Apology 1 & 2.
So, he is assuming the very fact which we seek to validate. "General motors cars' ignition switches are certainly without any problem." How did that work out?Werline said:
Yes, if you begin by writing, X = Y, then, is it not clear that Mr. Werline is not writing an article attempting to demonstrate that X = Y. He assumes it, and states it as a given. He no more needs to prove that, than he would need to prove the obvious: The sun moves around the earth.
Perhaps for 99.999% of the world, X does = Y, and Justin did indeed have Paul's epistles in front of him. I may be only one of two people on the planet who deny that there is a scintilla of evidence supporting this conclusion. I certainly do not accept one word of Werline's logic:
To my way of thinking, this logic is flawed. We need x --> y, not x <--> y. Werline cannot disprove the converse, that "Paul" had Justin's text before him, as he wrote his epistles.Rodney Werline said:
What????
Utterly foolish.
We need a chart, three items would suffice, three instances, where Skarsaune claims abc. For each of these three instances, we need to see six columns: Justin, LXX, Paul, Masoretic text, Leningrad codex, DSS.
The extant LXX, for example in Codex Sinaiticus, has certainly been corrupted by Christians, living two centuries after Justin Martyr.
My claim, without data of course, is that if anyone copied someone else, it was "Paul" who copied Justin Martyr, not vice versa. More likely, in my opinion, is that Justin and "Paul" both relied on whatever version of the Torah had been available, and used it. If I quote from Merchant of Venice, and maximara quotes from the same play, how likely is it that our quotes, based on the specific issue of societal recognition or denial of the perception of hostility to Jews, will be almost identical? Does that mean, then, that I copied maximara's text?
The gospels show zero knowledge of any of the epistles attributed to "Paul". By maximara's logic, this point represents harmony with the notion that Paul FOLLOWED, rather than preceded "Memoirs of the Apostles". Maximara, do you suppose that Justin Martyr included Paul's epistles in the Memoirs? Did Tatian, Justin's student, cite from them in his harmonization of the gospels?maximara said:
Your statement is void of logic and the facts.
The writings attributed to Justin Martyr do NOT mention Paul, the Pauline Corpus, Pauline Churches and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.
The writings attributed to Justin Martyr do NOT acknowledge at all a character called "Paul" who preached a supposed Revealed Gospel to the NON-Jewish populace of the Roman Empire.
The writings attributed to Justin Martyr refer DIRECTLY to the MEMOIRS of the Apostles called Gospels.
The writings attributed to Justin Martyr state that it was TWELVE ILLITERATE men who preached the Gospel to EVERY RACE of MEN in the WORLD.
First Apology"
It is extremely clear that the author called Justin Martyr knew NOTHING of the character called Paul who claimed he was COMMISSIONED to preach the Gospel to Non-Jews.
There is also "The Apology" attributed to Aristides where there is ZERO acknowledgment of a character called Paul who supposedly evangelized the Roman Empire.
Aristides' Apology
The Pauline Corpus was FABRICATED no earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER the writings of Celsus "True Discourse".
Who was real? Well as you probably know there is a particular problem with the named religious figures in OT and NT writing from that era. For example, biblical scholars now apparently agree that the most important named heroes of the OT, i.e. Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, may never have been more than fictional figures. And the events associated with their names, such as the mass Jewish exile into Babylon and Moses coming down from a mountain with the ten commandments etc., probably never happened.
Without specifically checking, afaik it's also the case that few if any of the religious figures in the NT, such as Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, the named disciples etc. are known from much if any independent corroborated evidence. By which I mean, afaik, objective accounts of those individuals all stress that evidence for them is scant and a matter of various disputes.
So as always, it's a question of evidence. And in the case of Jewish religious writing in the OT and NT, if there is no evidence for such figures outside of the biblical writing, then we should certainly keep an open mind as to whether they were ever real people or not.
I explained this is the VERY NEXT SENTENCE which you snipped:
Given the Gospels all end with the or shortly after the resurrection it makes perfect sense that the account would not include writings not started for another 15 years.
As I said before expecting the Gospels to have anything about Paul it is like expecting a book on the US Civil War to talk about Speaker of House Samuel J. Randall or Joseph Warren Keifer (during Grant's term as President) some 20 years later...and about as nonsensical.
Over on freethought nation forum's there is this post by silkworm:
"Paul knew nothing about the annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel, the virgin birth, the star of Bethlehem, the wise men, Herod, the slaughter of the innocents or the flight into Egypt. In fact Paul knew nothing at all of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth. He knew of no disciples, friends, or earthly enemies, nor of any baptism by John in the Jordan. He didn’t mention or quote any teachings, parables or sermons or morals. In fact he attributed no ethical instruction to the earthly Jesus at all.
Nor did he seem to know of any healings of the blind or lame or lepers, or of any of Jesus’ especially spectacular miracles like bringing the dead to life, changing water to wine, feeding five thousand, stilling the storm or walking on water.
He knew of no temptation in the wilderness or dialogue with the Devil, no exorcisms, and no evil spirits falling down in fear before Jesus.
He knew nothing of the times, places or circumstances of the crucifixion. He never mentioned Gethsemane, or the betrayal by Judas (he merely said Jesus ‘was delivered up’ for crucifixion), or the denial by Peter or the disciples, or trials, or scourging, or judgment by Pilate, or Roman soldiers, or Golgotha or vigil at the cross. No last words – nothing!
Paul appears to have believed that after three days Jesus ascended directly to heaven without any intervening time on earth, and he certainly didn’t cite any empty tomb. "
It is clear from that Paul was was pushing the views a certain way which mean if he was writing after Mark which was dated to the 40s by some in the 19th century (it is still a part of the Two-gospel hypothesis that is kicked around today) then why doesn't he use any of Mark.
This theory says that Paul wanted a more Gentile Gospels and so commissioned Luke to write one. There are a multitude of reasons this theory fell out of favor even among mainstream Biblical Scholars with having to explain why if Paul has access to any Gospel why didn't he try and use it in his writings to push his own agenda.
Last edited:
Your statement is not logical.
The Gospels mention the people who were seen of and COMMISSIONED to preach the Gospel by the Resurrected Jesus BEFORE he ASCENDED in a cloud.
The Pauline writer is NOT included in the post-resurrection narrative of the Gospels which indicates that the Pauline Post resurrection story was UNKNOWN to the authors of the Gospels.
In the Gospels the resurrected Jesus COMMISSIONED the disciples [NOT PAUL] to preach the Gospel to the WHOLE WORLD.
Even Acts of the Apostles does NOT state that Saul/Paul was seen of the resurrected Jesus even though it was supposedly written AFTER the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.
In facts, Acts of the Apostles contains a post resurrection narrative that is similar to the Gospels--NOT the Pauline Corpus although Acts mentions Paul OVER 100 times.
The Pauline writer is NOT seen of the resurrected Jesus in Acts.
In addition, it is NOT expected that the Pauline Corpus would have much about the life and miracles of Jesus.
ALL Epistles in the NT Canon which were supposedly written AFTER the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus have virtually nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus even though it was claimed they were written by disciples and relatives of Jesus.
The Epistles attributed to James, Jude, John, Peter also have virtually nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus.
In fact, there are HUNDREDS of Epistles with virtually nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus.
The existing written statements in Apologetic writings, the Canonised Gospels and Acts show that the NT authors were most likely UNAWARE of the Pauline Corpus.
If the Pauline Corpus was early and the Pauline writers did PREACH the Gospel around the Roman Empire since 37-41 CE then we would EXPECT the authors of the Gospels to have emulated the Pauline writings.
The authors of the Gospels used and emulated the short gMark instead.
The VERSION of the Jesus story in the short gMark PREDATED the version of the story in the Pauline Corpus.
The Pauline Corpus contains the LATEST version of the Jesus story in the NT Canon.
Last edited:
Walter Ego
Illuminator
What a ridiculous fallacious statement by Bart Ehrman!!!
Bart Ehrman very well knows that the very Christians writers of antiquity ARGUED AGAINST an historical Jesus [a Jesus with a human father].
Bart Ehrman very well knows that Christian writers of antiquity claimed the historical Jesus [Jesus with a human father] was a LIE.
See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.
See "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.
See "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.
See "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian.
The Jesus of the NT was a MYTH/FICTION character based DIRECTLY on the writings attributed to Christians of antiquity.
1. Writings attributed to Ignatius state his Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.
2. Writings attributed to Justin Martyr state his Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.
3. Writings attributed to Irenaeus state Jesus was born of a Ghost.
4. Writings attributed to Tertullian state Jesus was Born of a Ghost without a human father.
5. Writings attributed to Hippolytus state Jesus was God Creator [the Logos].
6. Writings attributed to Origen state Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost.
7. Writings attributed Aristides state Jesus was God from heaven.
8. The writings called gMark state Jesus was a TRANSFIGURING Water Walker and the TRUE Son of God.
9. The writings called gMatthew state Jesus was born of a Ghost.
10. The writings called gLuke state Jesus was the offspring of an OVERSHADOWING Ghost.
11. The writings called gJohn state Jesus was God Creator from the beginning.
12. The Pauline Corpus state Jesus was the Lord from heaven and God Creator who was raised from the dead on the THIRD day.
The existing evidence from antiquity do support the argument that Jesus of Nazareth was a Myth/Fiction character.
Last edited:
Let's be realistic about what exists for Jesus; the only possible contemporary we have is "Paul" and he is going on about the Jesus in his head. Next comes Mark followed by Matthew, Luke, and John (supposedly). Josephus has issues, Pliny the Younger only confirms some group revered someone titled "Christ" 'as if to a God' and there is evidence that 1st and 2nd century Jews may have revered angels in this manner, our oldest Tacitus has been tampered with and doesn't match what Suetonius says (Were there a pagan group also called Chrestians who refered Osiris under the name Serapis who were regarded as a "folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury"? only adds to the problem here). Thallus supposedly covers events up to the 167th Olympiad (or 109 BCE) but conveniently Eusebius screws up his numbers so perhaps that is 217th Olympiad....yeh riiiight.
This is the overwhelming evidence on par with the Holocaust?!?
This is the overwhelming evidence on par with the Holocaust?!?
Last edited:
The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth CNN article shows this to be not as simple as Ehrman would have people believe.
“I don’t think I’m some Internet kook or Holocaust denier. ... They say I’m a bitter ex-fundamentalist. It’s pathetic to see this character assassination. That’s what people resort to when they don’t have solid arguments.” - Robert Price
“There are people out there who don’t think the Holocaust happened, there wasn’t a lone JFK assassin and Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Ehrman says. “Among them are people who don’t think Jesus existed.”
For the record the INDEX for the evidence of the Holocaust presented in 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trials originally ran was 62 volumes in 1958--just 4 books shy of the number of books (66) traditionally in the entire Bible! Then between 1958 and 2000 they added another 30 volumes, bringing the total to 92. The evidence itself clocks in at 3,000 (yes THREE THOUSAND) TONS.
As for the "there wasn’t a lone JFK assassin" Ehrman seams to have forgotten the Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives of 1979:
"I.B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy."
Ehrman can't even get the history he lived through right!
A 1/3 may be good batting average in baseball but in terms of scholarship it SUCKS.
Crossan who I normally have a high respect for gave this line of stupid:
“It’s a way of responding to something you don’t like,” Crossan says. “We can’t say that Obama doesn’t exist, but we can say that he’s not an American. If we’re talking about Obama in the future, there are people who might not only say he wasn’t American, but he didn’t even exist.”
That is insane. That is not even an apple and orange comparison but on par with comparing an apple and a bowling ball.
Even the ancient Egyptians who memory holed pharaohs they didn't like or considered an embarrassment (such as Nefertiti, Akhenaten, and Tutankhamun) didn't get it all. Something remained to show they existed.
Heck England which has memory holed the short reign of Louis I (which is longer then Queen Jane got to rule) doesn't go so far to deny he existed. Obama may get the Nero or even Caligula treatment but I can't seen anyone in the future saying Obama never existed. It would leave a large hole in history for one just as saying Caesar Augustus didn't exist would.
Last edited:
Quote:
To debunk religion, then, one needs to undermine specifically the Christian form of religion. And what easier way is there to undermine Christianity than to claim that the figure at the heart of Christian worship and devotion never existed but was invented, made up, or created? If Christianity is based on Jesus, and Jesus never existed where does that leave the religion of billions of the world’s population? It leaves it in shambles, at least in the thinking of the mythicists. What this means is that, ironically, just as secular humanists spend so much time at their annual meetings talking about religion, so too mythicists who are so intent on showing that the historical Jesus never existed are not being driven by a historical concern. Their agenda is religious and they are complicit in a religious ideology. They are not doing history, they are doing theology.
Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist, The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, pgs 337-38.
Well Ehrman is right that it would be a serious matter for the church if it's founder and all it's preaching about him, turned out to be fictional superstitious nonsense. That certainly would not do the credibility of the church much good.
But the rest of his deductions (actually accusations) are of course complete nonsense, and entirely untrue.
The reason that for nearly 200 years now, all sorts of authors have written to point out the numerous problems with the biblical stories of Jesus, is because the evidence is actually more against his existence than being in any support of it. That's all.
But anyone such as Walter who is impressed by Ehrman writing a passage such as the above, should keep in mind that in that same book Ehrman claimed to produce all the evidence proving Jesus was a "definite" "certainty". But his only coherent evidence in the whole of that book was to say that Jesus must have been real because in the bible it says Paul once met his brother!
That is apparently the extent of Ehrmans' ability to understand what is evidence vs. what is not evidence of anything. If he wanted to make logical academic arguments about what can be deduced from real objective "evidence", then frankly he should have studied something far more robust and far less subjective than Religious Studies.
- Status