The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Maximara is fixating on the TF in Antiqs. XVIII, which is not what Tim O'Neill is referencing in his 2012 post at all (and which, N.B., was brought up here by others). Tim is referencing the JtB (John the Baptist) material in Antiqs. XVIII and the stoning of James in Antiqs. XX. Neither of those have anything to do with "the bible". Yet Ian S was instead imputing Tim's point as referencing only "the bible"! Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither the JtB stuff in ANtiqs. XVIII nor the James stoning in Antiqs. XX is remotely connected with "the bible".

I also have a feeling Ian S knows very, very well that neither have anything to do with "the bible", and he is just throwing up dust to deflect from any discussion of the blatant double standard that mythers perversely apply when they use one "method" to approach the JtB material in Antiqs. XVIII but quite another for the James stoning in Antiqs. XX. Tim is right that that shows a ridiculous double standard. And I'm hardly surprised that no myther has ever addressed this double standard duly exposed by Tim, since Slippery is every myther's middle name.

Stone

Your statement is fallacious. You have a double standard. You have one standard for John the Baptist and another standard for Jesus, the Transfiguring Water Walker, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

John the Baptist is not FATHERED by a Ghost or God Creator in the Christian Bible or a Transfiguring Water Walker.


Christians writers of antiquity have DENIED that James the Apostle was an actual brother of Jesus the Lord from heaven who was born of a Ghost.

Examine ORIGEN'S Commentary on Matthew X.

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.

There is no character called or identified as Jesus of Nazareth in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1. or any contemporary historical source of antiquity.

In addition, the very people who argue for HJ DENY their HJ was the Jewish CHRIST.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 could NOT be a reference to an historical Jesus CHRIST because the prophesied Jewish Messiah has NOT yet come up to this very day and there are NO documented Jewish King or High Priest in the time of Tiberius called Jesus of Nazareth.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is completely USELESS in the HJ argument.

 

[Craig B]

There is no character called or identified as Jesus of Nazareth in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1. or any contemporary historical source of antiquity.

This is laughable. You want a reference to "Jesus" (rather than simply "The Lord") You get one. So, OK it's not "of Nazareth". If you got that, you'd say, well it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John. And if you got that, you'd say, it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John and who walked on water, and if you got a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water, then it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee, and if you got ....

 

[dejudge]

This is laughable. You want a reference to "Jesus" (rather than simply "The Lord") You get one. So, OK it's not "of Nazareth". If you got that, you'd say, well it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John. And if you got that, you'd say, it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John and who walked on water, and if you got a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water, then it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee, and if you got ....

Your post is void of logic. How many times are going to post the same nonsense??

There are many persons called Jesus in Antiquities of Jews so it cannot be presumed that the mention of the name Jesus must refer to Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of a Ghost.


Jesus was in the company Satan and Angels in a wilderness in Judea in gMark 1.

You get a mention of Satan and angels in the company of Jesus so does that mean Satan and Angels existed?

Jesus of Nazareth is a Myth/Fiction character in the FABLES called Gospels!!!

Why do you believe the Ghost stories in the Christian Bible are historical accounts?

The authors of the NT wrote that Jesus of Nazareth born of a Ghost was a TRANSFIGURING WATER WALKER who resurrected on the THIRD day so that the audience would know that they were NOT writing history.

The Jesus story was known fiction/mythology and a pack of Lies since at least the 4th century.

 

[IanS]

Maximara is fixating on the TF in Antiqs. XVIII, which is not what Tim O'Neill is referencing in his 2012 post at all (and which, N.B., was brought up here by others). Tim is referencing the JtB (John the Baptist) material in Antiqs. XVIII and the stoning of James in Antiqs. XX. Neither of those have anything to do with "the bible". Yet Ian S was instead imputing Tim's point as referencing only "the bible"! Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither the JtB stuff in ANtiqs. XVIII nor the James stoning in Antiqs. XX is remotely connected with "the bible".

I also have a feeling Ian S knows very, very well that neither have anything to do with "the bible", and he is just throwing up dust to deflect from any discussion of the blatant double standard that mythers perversely apply when they use one "method" to approach the JtB material in Antiqs. XVIII but quite another for the James stoning in Antiqs. XX. Tim is right that that shows a ridiculous double standard. And I'm hardly surprised that no myther has ever addressed this double standard duly exposed by Tim, since Slippery is every myther's middle name.
Stone

Well you are continuing to impugn other peoples motives, even though I have patiently and politely told you here many times before that what you keep saying about me (and about others here) is simply not true.

To reiterate what I just said above about your acronym "T.O.N." - I had no idea what or who that was supposed to mean.

But (to repeat) - if you are referring to anything written by Josephus, then -

1. Josephus is not a primary source for anything he writes about Jesus (the actual source is almost certainly the biblical writing).

2. Josephus is not remotely credible as a source on Jesus anyway. Because it's brief hearsay mention of Jesus (and "James") comes apparently in writing produced 1000 years after the events. That fact alone rules it out as reliable in any measure at all.

And as far a “James” is concerned - apart from all sorts of apparent confusions about which of several different “James” was actually meant in any of that writing, the actual fact is that where, in one never again repeated few words in one sentence in just one of Paul’s letters, it says “save James, the Lords brother”, there is (as I explained above) actually more evidence in the biblical writing to show that the words probably only ever meant a brother in belief, and not any actual blood relative of Jesus ... if indeed the words were not in fact a later interpolation anyway (for which there is also an indication in the words themselves ... as I have also explained here many times before).

 

[Craig B]

I predicted:

This is laughable. You want a reference to "Jesus" (rather than simply "The Lord") You get one. So, OK it's not "of Nazareth". If you got that, you'd say, well it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John. And if you got that, you'd say, it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John and who walked on water, and if you got a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water, then it's not Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee, and if you got ....

and you have amply fulfilled my prediction.

There are many persons called Jesus in Antiquities of Jews so it cannot be presumed that the mention of the name Jesus must refer to Jesus of Nazareth who was Born of a Ghost.

So if if you got a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee, you'd want a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee who was Born of a Ghost. So it goes ...

 

[dejudge]

...So if if you got a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee, you'd want a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee who was Born of a Ghost. So it goes ...

Again, your post is void of logic.

You expose your ridiculous Ghost story with suicidal demons as the source for your HJ argument.

When John Baptised Jesus a Holy Ghost Bird landed upon him and a voice from heaven claimed Jesus was his Son..

What historical garbage!!!

The myth/fiction ghost stories called Gospels were used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [Jesus with a human father] and NO contemporary sources of antiquity identify a character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth is a myth /fiction character until credible historical data can be found.

 

[IanS]

I predicted: and you have amply fulfilled my prediction. So if if you got a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee, you'd want a Jesus of Nazareth baptised by John who walked on water and made pigs jump into the Sea of Galilee who was Born of a Ghost. So it goes ...

Craig - you are not credible in "predicting" anything about anyone here.

What is repeatedly being explained to you, with almost god-like levels of patience, and what you seem to be incapable of understanding even though it is not possible for you to argue against it, is that the bible is not by any educated persons objective neutral estimation, a credible source of historical fact for what it's uneducated superstitious preaching of the 1st century says about peoples messiah beliefs.

And that is really definitive. Because you really don't have any other known source of Jesus belief except for the NT bible.

Your belief in Jesus depends utterly and completely upon the bible.

 

[tsig]

You mean John metaphysically baptised people in the sublunar realm?

No.

 

[tsig]

Craig - you are not credible in "predicting" anything about anyone here.

What is repeatedly being explained to you, with almost god-like levels of patience, and what you seem to be incapable of understanding even though it is not possible for you to argue against it, is that the bible is not by any educated persons objective neutral estimation, a credible source of historical fact for what it's uneducated superstitious preaching of the 1st century says about peoples messiah beliefs.

And that is really definitive. Because you really don't have any other known source of Jesus belief except for the NT bible.

Your belief in Jesus depends utterly and completely upon the bible.

He seems to be waging a campaign against those evil mythers who are out to destroy Christianity by denying Jesus and lay waste to all history.

 

[Stone]

But (to repeat) - if you are referring to anything written by Josephus, then -

1. Josephus is not a primary source for anything he writes about Jesus (the actual source is almost certainly the biblical writing).

LOLOL!!! Well, you definitely don't know what you're talking about here, for starters. For one thing, very little in Josephus's account in Antiqs. XX of James's end is paralleled in any biblical account! It comes obviously from non-Christian sources to which Josephus had access. So your repeated claim that Tim is referencing stuff wholly dependent on "the bible" collapses right there. Next.

2. Josephus is not remotely credible as a source on Jesus anyway. Because it's brief hearsay mention of Jesus (and "James") comes apparently in writing produced 1000 years after the events. That fact alone rules it out as reliable in any measure at all.

More comedy. Why goodness me, if that comes from 1000 years later(!), then Origen's two(!) different references to the same Josephan passage -- and Origen lived from before the time that Constantine even "mainstreamed" Christianity -- must each coincidentally come from 1000 years later as well. My oh my oh my.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

LOLOL!!! Well, you definitely don't know what you're talking about here, for starters. For one thing, very little in Josephus's account in Antiqs. XX of James's end is paralleled in any biblical account! It comes obviously from non-Christian sources to which Josephus had access. So your repeated claim that Tim is referencing stuff wholly dependent on "the bible" collapses right there.

What a waste of time!!! Your argument is completely flawed.

Christian writings of antiquity state Clement wrote to James the Apostle AFTER Peter was dead.

In Christian writings, Peter was crucified in the 14th year of Nero c 68-69 CE.

James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was stoned c 64 CE.

James the Apostle called the Lord's brother was NOT the James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.


In Christian writings, James the Apostle was the son of Joseph and another woman before Mary.

Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and a Virgin called Mary.

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of myth/fiction.

There is no person identified as Jesus of Nazareth in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 and people who argue for an HJ claim their Jesus was an OBSCURE CRIMINAL/SAGE/PROPHET/UNKNOWN character.

ONLY Jesus the High Priest the son of Damneus was qualified to be called ANOINTED [CHRIST].

James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was the brother of Jesus the ANOINTED [christ] High Priest the son of Damneus.

 

[IanS]

But (to repeat) - if you are referring to anything written by Josephus, then -

1. Josephus is not a primary source for anything he writes about Jesus (the actual source is almost certainly the biblical writing).

LOLOL!!! Well, you definitely don't know what you're talking about here, for starters. For one thing, very little in Josephus's account in Antiqs. XX of James's end is paralleled in any biblical account! It comes obviously from non-Christian sources to which Josephus had access. So your repeated claim that Tim is referencing stuff wholly dependent on "the bible" collapses right there. Next.

Why don't you read what people actually write, instead of replying with a criticism of something they did not write?

You quote something from me which does not mention anyone called "James" at all (see the highlighted quote above), and you reply to that complaining "you definitely don't know what you're talking about" because "very little in Josephus's account in Antiqs. XX of James's end is paralleled in any biblical account! " ... well what you just quoted from me doesn't mention James at all, does it!

2. Josephus is not remotely credible as a source on Jesus anyway. Because it's brief hearsay mention of Jesus (and "James") comes apparently in writing produced 1000 years after the events. That fact alone rules it out as reliable in any measure at all.

More comedy. Why goodness me, if that comes from 1000 years later(!), then Origen's two(!) different references to the same Josephan passage -- and Origen lived from before the time that Constantine even "mainstreamed" Christianity -- must each coincidentally come from 1000 years later as well. My oh my oh my.

Stone

What is the earliest date of any extant known copies attributed to the writing Josephus please?

Do you not know it's supposed to be circa. 11th century and later?

What is the date of any known extant copies of Origen? Do you know?

For one thing, very little in Josephus's account in Antiqs. XX of James's end is paralleled in any biblical account! It comes obviously from non-Christian sources to which Josephus had access. .

You say Josephus was quoting from non-Christian sources for what he says about Jesus? OK, so please quote these non-Christian sources that Josephus used for his knowledge of Jesus.

So your repeated claim that Tim is referencing stuff wholly dependent on "the bible" collapses right there. Next.

What I am saying is that if, as you and all other HJ posters here claim, Paul's letters date to circa 50-60AD and the first of the gospels date to circa 70AD, then according to any such dates for that biblical writing, the stories of Jesus, originate with those letters and gospels, and not with the later writing of Josephus.

IOW - according even to your own dating, Josephus is not the primary source for whatever mention he makes of Jesus. The primary source is the bible.

 

[Mudcat]

This is the second reincarnation of this thread in seven years of it running, so I'm kind of curious... Has any consensus been arived yet on whether Jesus has ever existed or is the evidence too weak to come to that conclusion?

 

[maximara]

This is the second reincarnation of this thread in seven years of it running, so I'm kind of curious... Has any consensus been arived yet on whether Jesus has ever existed or is the evidence too weak to come to that conclusion?

Not really as some people think there is some historical fact regarding Jesus behind Paul's visions, the canonal Gospels, and Acts. It is the same smoke-fire mentality that makes people think there must be an actual person behind the Robin Hood and King Arthur myths.


It certainly didn't help that the Christ myth hypothesis started out life as little more then a conglomeration of irregularities in the evidence regarding Jesus being a historical person. Any effort to explain how this happened tended toward either conspiracal or non existent-anachronistic exact parallel nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

...... some people think there is some historical fact regarding Jesus behind Paul's visions, the canonal Gospels, and Acts. It is the same smoke-fire mentality that makes people think there must be an actual person behind the Robin Hood and King Arthur myths.

Isn't it fascinating that the very same people who reject Acts of the Apostles as a credible historical source for Jesus of Nazareth use it as a credible historical source for Paul?

Acts of the Apostles does not even state Paul wrote Epistles to Churches.

It certainly didn't help that the Christ myth hypothesis started out life as little more then a conglomeration of irregularities in the evidence regarding Jesus being a historical person. Any effort to explain how this happened tended toward either conspiracal or non existent-anachronistic exact parallel nonsense.

When did the "Christ myth hypothesis" start?

Who started the "Christ myth hypothesis"?

Which Christ myth theory are you talking about?

We know the history of the Quest for an Historical Jesus and that there have been multiple failures DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE.

The Quest for an Historical Jesus was initiated because Jesus of the NT was considered a FIGURE OF FAITH [a MYTH].

These are THE FACTS--NOT an hypothesis

In the NT, Jesus of Nazareth is ACTUALLY described as GOD CREATOR.

In the NT, Jesus of Nazareth is ACTUALLY described as the OFFSPRING of a Ghost and a Virgin.

In the NT, it is claimed Jesus of Nazareth ACTUALLY Transfigured and WALKED for MILES on WATER.

In the NT, Jesus is ACTUALLY described as the LORD from heaven.

Jesus of Nazareth is a MYTH as ACTUALLY described until historical data can be found.

No historical data has been found for Jesus of Nazareth after at least 1800 years to contradict the MYTHOLOGICAL description of Jesus.

Jesus was a MYTH from Conception to Ascension as described in the Christian Bible.

 

[maximara]

When did the "Christ myth hypothesis" start?

Who started the "Christ myth hypothesis"?

Which Christ myth theory are you talking about?

Both modern versions (historical and philosophical) originated in the 18th century with Volney and Dupuis. Dupuis the earlier publisher rejected the historicity of Jesus entirely but Volney who used an earlier draft of Dupuis work allowed for the confused memories of an obscure historical figure to also be part of Christianity's formation. - Wells, G. A. "Stages of New Testament Criticism," Journal of the History of Ideas, volume 30, issue 2, 1969.

We know the history of the Quest for an Historical Jesus and that there have been multiple failures DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE./QUOTE]

Which have as a rule been looking for the Triumphalist Jesus (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem) ie a Jesus as close to the Gospel account as possible sometimes with all the supernatural intact.

These searches as a general rule have not simply looking for an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a small mystery oriented religious movement so it is small wonder they have been spectacular failures.

The Quest for an Historical Jesus was initiated because Jesus of the NT was considered a FIGURE OF FAITH [a MYTH].

Remember that all a myth is is a traditional story believed to be true.

Christopher Columbus sailing west to prove the Earth was round is a myth; it just happens to be a myth with a firm historical foundation.

Contrast that with the image of the Spanish Inquisition as an all powerful tyrannical organization composed of sadistic religious zealots answerable to only itself that terrorized areas controlled by Spain from 1478 to its final dissolving in 1813.

While the Spanish Inquisition did exist its excesses of 1500 on are a total fiction; compared to the courts of its day it and the similar Inquisitions were perhaps the most enlighten courts period. In fact, conditions were so bad in many secular courts and prisons of the time that people were blaspheming to get into the Inquisition courts.

Jesus as he stands now is on par with Robin Hood, King Arthur, and even John Henry -if the person existed they were a relative no body that the public for what ever reason latched on and promoted to a level of importance they never had in life.

This is why it is easier to accept the relatively obscure Paul that wrote seven epistles rather then the wildly important Paul of Acts actually existed as a person.

 

[Mudcat]

Jesus as he stands now is on par with Robin Hood, King Arthur, and even John Henry -if the person existed they were a relative no body that the public for what ever reason latched on and promoted to a level of importance they never had in life.

That's on par with all the rest of but a few biblical characters as well, and I'd even go so far as to say that the characters actually based on real characters (such as certain pharaohs for example) aren't really based on the characters as they actually were.

 

[Craig B]

Remember that all a myth is is a traditional story believed to be true.

Christopher Columbus sailing west to prove the Earth was round is a myth; it just happens to be a myth with a firm historical foundation.

Contrast that with the image of the Spanish Inquisition as an all powerful tyrannical organization composed of sadistic religious zealots answerable to only itself that terrorized areas controlled by Spain from 1478 to its final dissolving in 1813.

While the Spanish Inquisition did exist its excesses of 1500 on are a total fiction; compared to the courts of its day it and the similar Inquisitions were perhaps the most enlighten courts period. In fact, conditions were so bad in many secular courts and prisons of the time that people were blaspheming to get into the Inquisition courts.


This is why it is easier to accept the relatively obscure Paul that wrote seven epistles rather then the wildly important Paul of Acts actually existed as a person.

I want to be sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you stating this?

- The purpose of Columbus' voyage was to prove that the Earth is round
- The Inquisition was innocent of excesses, so that people went out of their way to draw themselves to its attention.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

I think for a myth to grow in a certain epoch you need an uneducated mass. For example, Martin Luther King was a popular leader who might be made into a myth if the public wasn't better educated than 2000 years ago. The greatness of MLK stands on itself. I remember people like myself scoffing about him at the time and making crude jokes about the "Doctor" but over the years his worthiness still stands without the need for lies.

 

[Walter Ego]

Here, let me make it official for you JH.

Keep it civil. Keep it on topic. The topic is not the other posters. If there is any more incivility, there will be further action taken including infractions, post moves and possible suspensions.

Am I clear? Good.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Religion is a subject that causes a lot of people, both atheist and theist, to become unhinged, irrational. and intemperate. I don't see this ever changing.