The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

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).

Your statement is an established fallacy.

The Pauline Corpus does not even claim that the writers knew Jesus of Nazareth before his supposed death.

The Pauline writers claimed to be contemporaries of a Fiction character [the resurrected Jesus--the Lord from heaven].

There is also no evidence at all in all antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was composed before the story of Jesus was known and composed.

In fact, the Pauline writers claimed they PERSECUTED those who believed the stories of Jesus and there were OVER 500 persons who was seen of the resurrected Jesus BEFORE him.


Based on writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, and Celsus there were NO Pauline Corpus up to at least c 180 CE and NO Gospels known as "according" to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The version of post-resurrection story in the Pauline Corpus is the LATEST version in the Entire NT Canon and was UNKNOWN to ALL the authors of the Gospels.

It is virtually impossible to show that the Pauline Corpus predates gLuke or gJohn.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is an established fallacy.

The Pauline Corpus does not even claim that the writers knew Jesus of Nazareth before his supposed death.

That's not what maximara stated. He stated this.

the only possible contemporary we have is "Paul" and he is going on about the Jesus in his head.

which means the opposite of what you say. "Jesus in his head" means maximara is saying Paul didn't know Jesus. So you're the one whose ridiculous fallacies can easily be established.

The Pauline writers claimed to be contemporaries of a Fiction character [the resurrected Jesus--the Lord from heaven].

No they didn't. Its you who claim that Jesus was fictional. Paul doesn't say "James is supposed to be the Lord's brother, but the Lord is fictional. I just made him up."

That's the sort of thing you say, dejudge, but Paul didn't say things like that.

 

[maximara]

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.

Actually that is not true as most of Christianity has been holding on to what Remsburg called "Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity".

The "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, [who] is a possible character and may have existed" scares them witless.

That Jesus is a "shadow of a shadow", "a composite Uncle Sam like figure", a Tabula Rasa "ventriloquist dummy" that depending on the researcher is a messianic king, a progressive Pharisee, a Galilean shaman, a magus, a Hellenistic sage, a misunderstood Buddhist or what other idea the researcher has in his head.

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.

I wouldn't go that far. It is more that the supposed "iron clad" evidence has turned out to be smoke and mirrors.

Paul is babbling about a Jesus in his own head rather then any actual man who preached in Galilee.

The Gospels often presented as being written by people close to Jesus even when reading them shows that to be untrue. We can't even say when before 130 CE any of them were written.

Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is a clear later insertion and there is evidence the brother him called Christ regarding the James is suspect.

Our oldest copy of Tacitus shows signs of tampering so we don't know how valid it is.

Tertullian claimed 'We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith." but in fact Suetonius says NOTHING of the sort. All he says is "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." but no mention of the nature of that punishment. The Christians could have simply been driven from Rome as had been the case with Jewish and Egyptian worshipers under Tiberius in 19 CE. Their lands and wealth could have been confiscated for the good of the state or they may have been enslaved or many other non bloody ways of punishment.

Every so often the Talmud is trotted out. Like anybody can even agree on who Jesus is in that and the majority seem to say that the Jesus there lived c 100 BCE and was executed by a Jewish King.

The biggest joke is Thallus. The only way this even fits is if one claims Eusebius totally FUBARed his numbers and the 167th Olympiad (or 109 BCE) should really be 217th Olympiad. The idiocy of trying to say Herod the Great actually died 1 BCE rather then 4 BCE is on par with this stupidity (let's find some way to MAKE things fit).

When you realize that the quality of the "evidence" is not what it has been claimed for nearly 1500 years you are going to tend to have a bad reaction.

 

[Craig B]

Actually that is not true as most of Christianity has been holding on to what Remsburg called "Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity".

The "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, [who] is a possible character and may have existed" scares them witless.

I think that's very misleading. What would scare the Christians even more would be proof that there was no human being at all behind their doctrine of a divine Jesus. Contrary to dejudge and others, it is evident that there is a necessary human element in the Jesus story, that God sent His son to live among men, so that we might be saved, and so on. If there was no human Jesus at all, that doctrine falls down.

Unlike the mythicists, the Christians simply can't reconcile themselves to the idea that Jesus was a purely metaphysical being living in a sub lunar never land. That makes nonsense of every part of their Christology.

 

[dejudge]

That's not what maximara stated. He stated this. which means the opposite of what you say. "Jesus in his head" means maximara is saying Paul didn't know Jesus.

Your statement is ridiculous and irrelevant.

I have shown what is stated in the NT and Apologetic writings. I am showing the EVIDENCE from Antiquity.

The evidence from antiquity OPPOSES maximara.

The INTERNAL evidence from writings of antiquity show that the Pauline Corpus was an EXTREMELY LATE writing and was UNKNOWN up to at least c 180 CE or was composed by a GROUP of persons AFTER "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.

1. Celsus in "True Discourse" [ C 175 CE] did NOT know that OVER 500 persons and Paul was seen of the Resurrected Jesus based on Origen's Against Celsus.

2. Celsus in "True Discourse" [c 175 CE] did NOT know of Gospels named "according" to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John based on Origen's Against Celsus.

3. Origen in "Against Celsus" admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING about Paul.

4. Celsus in "True Discourse" [c 175 CE] did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles based on Origen's Against Celsus.

So you're the one whose ridiculous fallacies can easily be established.No they didn't. Its you who claim that Jesus was fictional. Paul doesn't say "James is supposed to be the Lord's brother, but the Lord is fictional. I just made him up."

Your statement is void of logic.

The NT does state that Jesus was born of a Ghost and was God Creator.

It is the NT that presents a Myth/Fiction character.

The Pauline Corpus also contains the very SAME Fiction character.

The Pauline Corpus does state that Jesus was the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

It would appear that you have NO knowledge of or is unable to discern fiction.

Jesus in the ENTIRE NT is a Myth/Fiction character UNTIL historical data can be found.

None has been found for at least 1800 years.

 

[dejudge]

I think that's very misleading. What would scare the Christians even more would be proof that there was no human being at all behind their doctrine of a divine Jesus.

Your statement is a known fallacy.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED that Jesus was NOT born.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED that Jesus was Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED the Son of God was a PHANTOM.

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Walter Ego]

“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!

We're definitely in the land of conspiracy theories with this Jesus denialism stuff. Google "Jesus conspiracy" and you'll get about 21M hits. Can I assume you're not saying the holocaust never happened?

(That "acoustical evidence" in the JFK assassination was later discredited, btw. )

 

[IanS]

We're definitely in the land of conspiracy theories with this Jesus denialism stuff. Google "Jesus conspiracy" and you'll get about 21M hits. Can I assume you're not saying the holocaust never happened?

(That "acoustical evidence" in the JFK assassination was later discredited, btw. )

I can't claim to have read everything said here by Max or dejudge, but where is there any mention of any "Conspiracy" in any of my posts? Where is there any "Theory" of "Christ Myth" in my posts.

You have been taking exception to all my posts in this thread and arguing quite insistently that I am wrong and that you are right. So please quote any of my posts where I have ever suggested any conspiracy theory of any kind, or any "Christ Myth Theory" of any kind ... because you just said that is "definitely" what is happening here when people "deny Jesus".

And if there are any non-posting watchers of this thread, then they might like to notice two very significant things about Walter Ego's above post -


1. It yet again makes no attempt whatsoever at producing any evidence of Jesus, but instead just consists of an undisguised attempt at personalised character attack by saying others here are only engaged in a conspiracy theory.


2. But in fact it is Walter Ego himself who just a few posts ago, did actually present his own conspiracy theory by saying that his opponents here are operating a hidden agenda whereby they are only claiming to doubt Jesus in order to undermine current day Christianity.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is a known fallacy.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED that Jesus was NOT born.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED that Jesus was Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED the Son of God was a PHANTOM.

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

There were indeed such Christians. They have been rejected as heretics. Their heresy is called "docetism".

 

[dejudge]

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED that Jesus was NOT born.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED that Jesus was Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED the Son of God was a PHANTOM.

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

There were indeed such Christians. They have been rejected as heretics. Their heresy is called "docetism".

What???

Your post is extremely laughable!!!

The Christians who claimed Jesus was BORN of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father were the so-called ORTHODOX.

Ignatius ARGUED that Jesus was God but born of a Ghost.

Aristides claimed Jesus is God who came down from heaven.

Irenaeus ARGUED that Jesus was TRULY Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Justin Martyr ARGUED that Jesus was born WITHOUT Sexual union.

Origen claimed Jesus was Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Tertullian claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

The Roman Government did concede that Jesus was God of God and Born of a Ghost WITHOUIT a human father at the Council of Nicea and Constantinople in the 4th century using the NT.

There was NO evidence from antiquity--No historical data-- to prove to the Roman Government that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual man and was NOT God of God and was NOT born of a Ghost.

If there was actual DOCUMENTED historical data that Jesus was a mere man who could NOT save the Roman Emperor then the Roman Government may have EXECUTED all the Christians who attended the Council of Nicea.

 

[maximara]

We're definitely in the land of conspiracy theories with this Jesus denialism stuff. Google "Jesus conspiracy" and you'll get about 21M hits. Can I assume you're not saying the holocaust never happened?

As I have said numerous times before the evidence for the Holocaust is far better then that for Jesus has ever been, so saying they are anyway comparative is intellectually bankrupt.

I would like to to point out that "Jesus conspiracy" also covers the historical Jesus (such as Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married and the Holy Grail is a blood line not a cup theory)

Joseph Wheless' 1930 Forgery in Christianity is likely one fo the most detailed in the mammoth illuminati level conspiracy books out there.

That said there is a pattern regarding what was not preserved by the Christians:

Seneca the Younger's On Superstition which recorded every cult in Rome and could have been too early (40 CE) to record Christianity---not preserved.

Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE) was a five volume set which included and entire volume covering Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail. Only two books, the one on Flaccus in Egypt and the one on Caligula, survive.

Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero which could have verified Nero's persecution of Christians is also gone.

Pliny the Elder's history of Rome from 31 to then present day (sometime before his death in 79) with a volume for each year which could have documented Paul's activities in Rome as well as Nero's persecution of Christians was not preserved.

The Annals of Tacitus show that the entire section covering 29-31 CE can been cut from the work as if by surgeon's scalpel and given what he says in the preserved 64 CE section (which the oldest copy has been tampered with) it seems Tacitus never mentioned Christianity before that.

Ovid's Fasti which stops right before it gets to the annual Roman passion play of July 7 and originally covered the entire year.

Cassius Dio's Roman History has two sections not preserved: 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE.

Given that such works needed to be hand copied and the monasteries who did such copying didn't have a library but rather a spare room were nearly anything extra got dumped one doesn't need a 'conspiracy' to explain this issue.

After all the the tampering if not outright forging of the Testimonium Flavianum is thought to be the work of ONE person: Eusebius which one 19th historian described as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity"

In fact, only one book of Hippolytus's 10 volume Refutation of all Heresies was thought to have been preserved until the 19th century when books 4 through 10 were found in a Mount Athos monastery. Yet books 2 and 3 which detailed the secret doctrines of the mystery religions of his day were not preserved.

There odds are no conspiracy but there is a pattern and not one conducive to a historical Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

What???

Your post is extremely laughable!!!

The Christians who claimed Jesus was BORN of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father were the so-called ORTHODOX.

Ignatius ARGUED that Jesus was God but born of a Ghost.

Aristides claimed Jesus is God who came down from heaven.

Irenaeus ARGUED that Jesus was TRULY Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Justin Martyr ARGUED that Jesus was born WITHOUT Sexual union.

Origen claimed Jesus was Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Tertullian claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

The Roman Government did concede that Jesus was God of God and Born of a Ghost WITHOUIT a human father at the Council of Nicea and Constantinople in the 4th century using the NT.

There was NO evidence from antiquity--No historical data-- to prove to the Roman Government that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual man and was NOT God of God and was NOT born of a Ghost.

If there was actual DOCUMENTED historical data that Jesus was a mere man who could NOT save the Roman Emperor then the Roman Government may have EXECUTED all the Christians who attended the Council of Nicea.

You have forgotten what you wrote. It was this.

There were Christians of antiquity who ARGUED the Son of God was a PHANTOM.

That is docetism. Because a phantom is not a "mere man". And what is this nonsense?

There was NO evidence from antiquity--No historical data-- to prove to the Roman Government that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual man and was NOT God of God and was NOT born of a Ghost.

Before I can believe Jesus was human, I've got to prove he wasn't a God? Do I need to prove Augustus wasn't a God too?

 

[maximara]

I think that's very misleading. What would scare the Christians even more would be proof that there was no human being at all behind their doctrine of a divine Jesus. Contrary to dejudge and others, it is evident that there is a necessary human element in the Jesus story, that God sent His son to live among men, so that we might be saved, and so on. If there was no human Jesus at all, that doctrine falls down.

Unlike the mythicists, the Christians simply can't reconcile themselves to the idea that Jesus was a purely metaphysical being living in a sub lunar never land. That makes nonsense of every part of their Christology.

You do know that some people labeled "mythicist" also hold there was or may have been a historical Jesus, right?

David Strauss, Sir James George Frazer, John M. Robertson, John Remsburg, and GA Wells' current mythical Jesus of Paul + not crucified Jesus = Gospel Jesus are the most obvious examples of this.

As I have pointed out before the 1982 and 1995 editions of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia expressly state that "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus [NOT the man himself] is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

Even Ehrman defines the Christ myth as saying "no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed" ie even if there was a flesh and blood Jesus "he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" more or less the SAME definition John M. Robertson used back in 1900.


"The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb."

(...)

"The mistake was to suppose that Jesus could come to mean more to our time by entering into it as a man like ourselves. That is not possible. First because such a Jesus never existed. Secondly because, although historical knowledge can no doubt introduce greater clearness into an existing spiritual life, it cannot call spiritual life into existence. History can destroy the present; it can reconcile the present with the past; can even to a certain extent transport the present into the past; but to contribute to the making of the present is not given unto it." - Albert Schweitzer

As I said before most of Christianity has locked itself into a Myth, madman, messiah dynamic. If Jesus wasn't a [philosophical] myth and messiah is out because of all its supernatural baggage then all they have left is madman ie Jesus as the 1st century equivalent of David Koresh or Charles Manson.

Christianity is not just dependent on Jesus existing as a human being but being what the Gospels claim he was.

Why do you think people are so driven to prove as much of the Gospels are history even if it makes no sense?

Why else do a crap load of ad hoc handwriting to get Matthew and Luke to agree?

Why else attempt to push Herod the Great's death forward to 1 BCE?

Why else ignore all the factors that show the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate trials are most likely total fabrications?

Why else imply the evidence for Jesus is as good as that for the moon landing or Holocaust?

One doesn't do all that if one are simply trying to say their founder existed as human being. One only does all that if then need to show that the story of their founder is more historical then the Penny Dreadful-Dime Novels starring known historical people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

For most of Christianity the story of Jesus is as important as the man himself.

 

[Walter Ego]

It is Walter Ego himself who just a few posts ago, did actually present his own conspiracy theory by saying that his opponents here are operating a hidden agenda whereby they are only claiming to doubt Jesus in order to undermine current day Christianity.

I was quoting Bart Erhman and here it is again.

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.

I don't see where Erhman is suggesting a conspiracy among Jesus denialists... and besides people who think exactly alike don't need to conspire with each other. They can, however, individually hatch their own CTs.

ETA:

Some proponents of the Jesus-myth or Christ-myth theory consider that the whole of Christianity is a conspiracy. American author Dorothy M. Murdock aka "Acharya S" in The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999) argues that Jesus and Christianity were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion, and that these people drew on numerous myths and rituals which existed previously and then constructed them into Christianity that exists today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_conspiracy_theory#Jesus-myth_theory

 

[Walter Ego]

More Conspiracy Theories

Story of Jesus Christ was 'fabricated to pacify the poor', claims controversial Biblical scholar.

A controversial American biblical scholar is set to make his first appearance in London next week to present a discovery that he claims proves the story of Jesus Christ was invented as a system of mind control to enslave the poor.

Joseph Atwill, who is the author of a book entitled 'Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus', asserts that Christianity did not begin as a religion, but was actually a sophisticated government propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire...

Mr Atwill's theory is simply one of a number of what are known as Bible conspiracy theories.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lical-scholar-8870879.html?printService=print

 

[Craig B]

You do know that some people labeled "mythicist" also hold there was or may have been a historical Jesus, right?

Yes, but dejudge is not one of them.

 

[IanS]

I was quoting Bart Erhman and here it is again.

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.

I don't see where Erhman is suggesting a conspiracy among Jesus denialists... and besides people who think exactly alike don't need to conspire with each other. They can, however, individually hatch their own CTs.

ETA:

Quote:
Some proponents of the Jesus-myth or Christ-myth theory consider that the whole of Christianity is a conspiracy. American author Dorothy M. Murdock aka "Acharya S" in The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999) argues that Jesus and Christianity were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion, and that these people drew on numerous myths and rituals which existed previously and then constructed them into Christianity that exists today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_c...us-myth_theory

Well you gave that quote from Ehrman in post #116 without any comment from you except a wink. So you were obviously endorsing that as your opinion too. And Max, myself, and dejudge immediately replied explaining why that claim from Ehrman was both untrue nonsense, and a typical example of someone trying to mount a personal character assassination of opponents rather than actually countering the arguments against Jesus.

And then after that in your post #127 you reply to us saying "We're definitely in the land of conspiracy theories with this Jesus denialism stuff. Google "Jesus conspiracy" and you'll get about 21M hits." ... in fact his your entire post quoted below -

We're definitely in the land of conspiracy theories with this Jesus denialism stuff. Google "Jesus conspiracy" and you'll get about 21M hits. Can I assume you're not saying the holocaust never happened?

(That "acoustical evidence" in the JFK assassination was later discredited, btw. )

- and from that in the very next post #128 I ask you to quote from any post of mine where I have ever posted either any "conspiracy" idea about Jesus or any "myth theory" about Jesus, and your reply was the quote above from your where you just say your were quoting Bart Ehrman! Well we know you have quoted Bart Ehrman, you did that in post #116 !! ... so could you give the honest answer to the question I asked you please - where in any of my posts have I suggested any conspiracy theory about Jesus or any specific "Myth Theory" of Jesus?? Can you just quote me doing either of those things please.

And while you are searching in vain to find me ever proposing any particular Myth theory or Conspiracy Theory of Jesus, perhaps in the meantime you can explain why it was in fact YOU that produced the conspiracy theory when you suggested that the reason people like me write posts on a forum like this saying that I don't think the evidence is good enough to be at all confident that Jesus existed, that means I am engaging some sort of "conspiracy theory" (that was tour term "conspiracy theory", i.e. you raised that idea here) whereby I am supposedly operating a hidden agenda of the type you quoted from Ehrman, in which you are claiming that the reason I doubt the existence of Jesus and criticise the claimed evidence of him in the bible, is simply because I have a hidden agenda of trying to "undermine" Christianity ... that was actually a conspiracy theory of yours to suggest that wasn't it! It is actually YOU who is running a conspiracy theory here, not me (and afaik, not any other sceptics here ... though to repeat, I have not read everything dejudge and Max have posted).

So could you please provide some proper answers to the above -

Q1. where in my posts have I promoted a conspiracy theory of Jesus? Just quote from my posts please.

Q2. where in my posts I have I been presenting any particular myth theory of Jesus? Just quote from my posts please.

Q3. Why are you repeating that quote you made before from Ehrman if you are not endorsing that and saying it's true of your opponents here (remember you previously agreed with CraigB on that same accusation, so we can quote your earlier post saying that if necessary).

Q4. why are YOU posting conspiracy theories here saying that myself or others are operating some sort of hidden agenda against Christianity as the only reason why we are critical of the evidence cited by bible scholars like Bart Ehrman as "proving" Jesus was a "certainty"?

 

[tsig]

Story of Jesus Christ was 'fabricated to pacify the poor', claims controversial Biblical scholar.

Why do you post other opinions and not answer the posters here?

 

[IanS]

I think that's very misleading. What would scare the Christians even more would be proof that there was no human being at all behind their doctrine of a divine Jesus. Contrary to dejudge and others, it is evident that there is a necessary human element in the Jesus story, that God sent His son to live among men, so that we might be saved, and so on. If there was no human Jesus at all, that doctrine falls down.

Well for once Craig and I appear to be in agreement re. the above.

Whatever people believed at the time, it's quite certain (afaik) that all Christians today do believe Jesus was a real person who preached on Earth (whether they think he was actually the son of God or not).

But you could not very well have a situation where the Christian church leaders today preached to their congregation every Sunday with the biblical message of Jesus, but then ended the sermon by saying "of course all that I just told you was deliberately untrue because Jesus was just a fictional figure ... please all come back again next Sunday to hear more of my lies about a non-existent Jesus!" ... you really could not have a Christian church that was in effect trying to tell people that every Sunday.

 

[dejudge]

....Whatever people believed at the time, it's quite certain (afaik) that all Christians today do believe Jesus was a real person who preached on Earth (whether they think he was actually the son of God or not).

We are not really dealing with the Belief of Christians TODAY.

It is the very opposite.

We are dealing with the BELIEF of PEOPLE of antiquity which includes Christians, so-called Heretics and Skeptics.

It would appear that PEOPLE of antiquity BELIEVED that Gods, Sons of God, the Holy Ghost, Satan, Angels, the Son of the God of the Jews, Adam and Eve were REAL Persons.

People of the Roman Empire did not require the actual existence of Jesus of Nazareth [the Transfiguring Water Walker] to believe the character existed.

The existence of the Holy Ghost was as plausible as the existence of Romulus, Remus, Adam [the Created man] and Jesus, the Transfigurer.

People of the Roman Empire BELIEVED hundreds of Myth characters existed WITHOUT evidence of their existence.

Examine the HUNDREDS of Myth characters which were BELIEVED to have existed in antiquity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities#V

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

People of antiquity even had IMAGES of Myth characters and Gods that were BELIEVED to have existed which were derived from IMAGINATION.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/apollomyth/ig/Apollo/


It is documented in Christian writings that their Jesus was a Transfiguring Water Walking Son of the Jewish God, Born of a Ghost and was God Creator who was raised from the dead on the Third day.

The Jesus character in existing manuscripts is a MYTH/FICTION character UNLESS historical data can be found.

No historical data for Jesus of Nazareth has been found for at least 1800 years.