The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

And the elephant in the living room here is that since the family thought he had gone nuts, they had obviously not had any woo-woo visits from angels at all, back when Mary was pregnant. Instead, Jesus's talk about Kingdom of God and blah blah blah was a -- nasty -- bolt from the blue for them. DeJudge goes banging on and on about Jesus as some supernatural baby, but here's something right in the same accounts showing Jesus's folks not only oblivious of any of that supernatural stuff about their own kid but freaked out when their own kid talks like that!

CONTRADICTION ANYONE?! Duh.

It's obvious that we have a major OOPS in Mark here where the real history accidentally peeks out, and the crap about supernatural birth is shown up as simply added later, as if to say, yeah sure, Jesus's mom knew he was deep and wise all along (I offer a bridge for sale).

Stone

As I have said before DeJudge has long pointed to the absurdity of the triumphalist Jesus as if it refuted a reductive Jesus. That said even Mark is wonky.

Why have this elaborate betrayal thing with Judus? it makes no sense.

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 quirk of the Sanhedrin court was that a unanimous verdict for conviction resulted in acquittal

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. As Kenneth Humphreys points out in his youtube Enter Jesus, stage left and Joseph of Arimathea – the Man who Laid Jesus page a man who amounts to little more then a plot device to get Jesus off his cross and in the tomb pops up does his thing and is never heard of again. Never mind here again we have things at odds with the culture as we know it.

So Joseph of Arimathea is little more then a plot device especially as no one can figure where Arimathea even was.

Kenneth Humphreys also points to another strange thing about the account Why was the stone moved?. Clearly it was so the collection of half-wits who were going to anoint a body with no clue on who was going to move the stone blocking the entrance could enter and find some weirdo in white who could then tell them Jesus had risen.

 

[dejudge]

Yes. Mark says nothing about any magic birth. Neither does Paul. Neither does Jesus in any if the synoptic sayings sources. Nor do any of the non-Pauline epistles.

gMark talks about Satan but says nothing about his birth.

Satan was in the company of Jesus during the Temptation in gMark.

gMark say Jesus was a Transfiguring water walker.

The Pauline corpus says Jesus was the Lord God from heaven and God's Own Son.

The Pauline corpus talks about Satan but says nothing about his birth.

Our only informants are gMatthew and gLuke, and they disagree on almost every detail of the alleged event.

We have multiple Christian informants of antiquities who agree or adnmit that their Jesus was born of a Ghost.

This is a partial list of informants of antiquity.

Ignatius--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.
Justin Martyr--Jesus, the son of God, was born of a Ghost.
Irenaeus--Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a Ghost.
Tertullian--Jesus, the Son of God was born of a Ghost.
Origen--Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a Ghost.
Eusebius--Jesus, the Son of God was born of a Ghost.

By the way, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn agree that Jesus was a Water walker and/or Transfigurer.

Jesus was a myth/fiction character in gMark.

 

[Craig B]

gMark talks about Satan but says nothing about his birth.

Also he doesn't say that Satan was a carpenter with a mother and brothers and sisters living in Galilee.

This is a partial list of informants of antiquity.

<snip partial list of informants of antiquity> Oh, God: not another of these lists, dejudge.

 

[Craig B]

We have multiple Christian informants of antiquities who agree or adnmit that their Jesus was born of a Ghost.

This multiplicity of informants agree or admit simply what they have read in the later Synoptics which they believe implicitly for ideological reasons. They are not independent witnesses corroborating one another's testimony.

This is a partial list of informants of antiquity.

Mmm. I wonder who's on dejudge's list this time. Let's see, shall we?

Ignatius--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels.

Justin Martyr--Jesus, the son of God, was born of a Ghost.

This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels.

Irenaeus--Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a Ghost.

This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels.

Tertullian--Jesus, the Son of God was born of a Ghost.

This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels.

Origen--Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a Ghost.

This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels.

Eusebius--Jesus, the Son of God was born of a Ghost.

This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels.

By the way, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn agree that Jesus was a Water walker and/or Transfigurer.

Damn it, I'll need to delete this post. I thought we were talking about the Son of God born of a Ghost. Mark and John don't have that story.

 

[Stone]

This multiplicity of informants agree or admit simply what they have read in the later Synoptics which they believe implicitly for ideological reasons. They are not independent witnesses corroborating one another's testimony. Mmm. I wonder who's on dejudge's list this time. Let's see, shall we? This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels. This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels. This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels. This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels. This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels. This is not an independent informant with his own sources of information. He's merely repeating what he read in the Gospels. Damn it, I'll need to delete this post. I thought we were talking about the Son of God born of a Ghost. Mark and John don't have that story.

You know, the double standard used by so many mythers, including DeJudge, boggles the imagination. We DO have independent informants with their own sources, like Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15, which are non-apologetics that plainly confirm a normal non-supernatural Yeshua who was nothing but a simple human rabbi who was nailed by the Romans, period.

Yet mythers conveniently dismiss those independent non-apologetics as somehow based on hearsay while still jumping up and down excitedly about tertiary apologetic sources like Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc., of no independent documentary level at all. Mytherism is such an obviously crooked racket.

Stone

 

[maximara]

You know, the double standard used by so many mythers, including DeJudge, boggles the imagination. We DO have independent informants with their own sources, like Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15, which are non-apologetics that plainly confirm a normal non-supernatural Yeshua who was nothing but a simple human rabbi who was nailed by the Romans, period.Stone

No we don't.

As pointed as far back as the late 19th century there is NOTHING in Antiqs. 20 that shows that the the Jesus mentioned is the same in the Gospels. In fact, until the Christ mythers started pointing out the James there has to have died around 62 CE and Christians were claiming this James was informed of Peter's death which could not have occurred any earlier then 64 CE by their own accounts and so were happy to put James the Just's death around 69 CE some 7 years after the James in Josephus died. When that fact come up they con't drop the 69 CE date fast enough...even after claiming that date for nearly 15 centuries!


As pointed out before Annals 15 at best is not reporting actual history but what the Christians themselves believed.

If Nero really did go after Christians as firebugs why would they in "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE) claim Nero considered to "destroy all those brethren who had been made disciples by Peter" but had a dream after Peter's death (either 64 or 67 CE) which said 'you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ.' and a frightened Nero 'kept away from the disciples . . . and thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord . . .'.

More over why does Suetonius have the removal of Christians as just one of the "many abuses" that were "severely punished and put down", i.e. part of a general house cleaning of Rome and only gets to the fire some 16 paragraphs later with no mention of Christians being targeted as the ones responsible? The date for this is c 112 CE very close to the date Tacitus supposedly wrote his thing. Guess who wrote to both Suetonius and Tacitus? Yep our friend Pliny the Younger! So how did Tacitus know something neither Pliny the Younger or Suetonius knew? More importantly why didn't Tacitus relay this important information on to them?

Even in 1909 Remsburg who felt there was enough to show Jesus lived as an action person said:

"This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.

2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.

3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.

4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.

6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.

7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.

8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.

9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.

10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.

11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.

12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.

13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."

14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation."

This is all ignoring the fact that the entire section of the Annals covering 29-31 CE is missing “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.”

The two best examples of evidence are iffy which means the whole Historial Jesus castle is built on sand.

Also as Proof Tacitus Manuscript was Altered points out we don't know what the word translated as "Christ" really is as there is no vowel between the "r" and the "s".

 

[Craig B]

As pointed out before Annals 15 at best is not reporting actual history but what the Christians themselves believed.

Is he indeed? The Christians believed this, did they?

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

I don't know many Christians who believe that. In fact I don't know any.

 

[dejudge]

Also he doesn't say that Satan was a carpenter with a mother and brothers and sisters living in Galilee.

gMark does not state Jesus was a carpenter. It has already been shown that Jesus was NOT EVER described as a carpenter in the Gospels in Origen's Against Celsus 6.

You appear to be blind to writings of antiquity.

Origen's Against Celsus.

...being blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

You know that a real carpenter could not Transfigure AFTER he walked on water.

You know a real carpenter could not have been in the company of Satan.

Oh, God: not another of these lists, dejudge.

God cannot help you. You appear to be terrified by the evidence from antiquity.

You might as well pray to a stone God. At least stones are REAL.

 

[maximara]

Is he indeed? The Christians believed this, did they? I don't know many Christians who believe that. In fact I don't know any.

The Christians believed that Nero sought them out as the one to blame for the fire. Now would anyone portray such a group as believe in nice teddy bears and more happy things then a freaking Care Bear could stomach?

No, they would justify their going after your group by saying your movement was the most vile thing they could imagine and that is exactly what we see with this whole passage. This is what the Christians believed how their foes saw their beliefs in Nero's time and in the time of Tacitus.

It is clear despite Pliny the Younger's statement that Christians would "bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." they were still viewed as "nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."

So Tacitus tone was set from the get go. But his other remarks don't gel with Pliny the Younger who he was friends with and regularly corresponded with. How could a group that took an oath to "not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so" have "a hatred of the entire human race"?

If anything this reads like what the Christians supposedly extracted from "followers" of the the now known to be nonexistent 16th Century Satanism. The "confessions" match the abominations and most mischievous superstition with a hatred against mankind described in the Malleus Maleficarum and yet we know that that entire religion didn't exist.

Also you seem to forgotten The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) where the Christians are killed not for causing any fire in Rome but due to the death of some guy named Patroclus who Nero then saw alive and was told that Christ Jesus would "overthrow all kingdoms" and this man was now a solder in Jesus' army. with Paul being beheaded.

"In the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire while Nero was stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and the emperor was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means that he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night. It was in this way that cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians. Afterward, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were given, and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a Christian. At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to capital punishment, of whom the one was beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion." - Sulpicius Severus c 400 CE

Here we see the Tacitus and The apocryphal Acts of Paul being woven together with some additional elements.

 

[dejudge]

You know, the double standard used by so many mythers, including DeJudge, boggles the imagination. We DO have independent informants with their own sources, like Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15, which are non-apologetics that plainly confirm a normal non-supernatural Yeshua who was nothing but a simple human rabbi who was nailed by the Romans, period.

Your statement is a well established fallacy.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 and Tacitus' Annals 15.44 do not identify an OBSCURE character called Jesus of Nazareth.

The character called Jesus the anointed in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was ALIVE in the time of Albinus.

Christians of antiquity have denied their Jesus had a brother called the Apostle James.

Christian writers have already admitted over 1600 years ago that James the Apostle was ALIVE AFTER James in AJ 20.9.1 was dead.

James, the Apostle, in Galatians 1.19 was called the brother of the LORD GOD--Not Jesus.

The name Jesus is NOT found in Galatians 1.19.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery fabricated no earlier than the 5th century. NO Christian writer of antiquity used Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus.

Yet mythers conveniently dismiss those independent non-apologetics as somehow based on hearsay while still jumping up and down excitedly about tertiary apologetic sources like Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc., of no independent documentary level at all. Mytherism is such an obviously crooked racket.

Euhemerists, people who historicise mythology, use the NT [a compilation of fiction and mythology] to argue that Jesus, the son of Ghost, was really a human being.

Euhemerus argued that Zeus the Myth God was really a mortal man.

Today, HJers, argue that Jesus the Myth God was really a mortal man.

Christians themselves argued that THEIR Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

It is just completely void of logic to use the Christian Bible to argue for an historical Jesus when the very same Bible was used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus.



Stone[/QUOTE]

 

[Craig B]

You know that a real carpenter could not Transfigure AFTER he walked on water.

You know a real carpenter could not have been in the company of Satan.

Yes. Therefore I don't believe Jesus walked on water, or was ever in the company of Satan. I find it easier to suppose he was a carpenter, but someone who doesn't think there's a reason to suppose one thing rather than another will have problems with that. Normal people won't.

 

[GDon]

It is clear despite Pliny the Younger's statement that Christians would "bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." they were still viewed as "nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition."

That's right. And, despite Pliny the Younger discovering that the Christians bound themselves by oath to not commit fraud, theft, adultery, etc, he still put them to death if they didn't stop being Christians.

This is consistent with the writings of the Second Century apologists like Justin Martyr, who argued that Christians were being persecuted just for being Christians. From Justin's First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

... if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment...

In our case, who pledge ourselves to do no wickedness, nor to hold these atheistic opinions, you do not examine the charges made against us; but, yielding to unreasoning passion, and to the instigation of evil demons, you punish us without consideration or judgment.​

This reflects what we see in Pliny the Younger's letter.

So Tacitus tone was set from the get go. But his other remarks don't gel with Pliny the Younger who he was friends with and regularly corresponded with. How could a group that took an oath to "not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so" have "a hatred of the entire human race"?

Because Christians rejected the "true gods" of Rome. Rejecting the gods of the ruling class has always been a bad career move, whether under pagan governments or Christian ones!

 

[Leumas]

Yes. Therefore I don't believe Jesus walked on water, or was ever in the company of Satan. I find it easier to suppose he was a carpenter, but someone who doesn't think there's a reason to suppose one thing rather than another will have problems with that. Normal people won't.

Normal people won't.

But Intelligent Logical people will not SUPPOSE that a book full of fables and magic and miracles and fabricated tall tales must have some "core truth" after having CHERRY PICKED OUT the fables and magic and myths out of it.

Intelligent and logical people unlike normal people with wishful thinking and circular reasoning do not CHERRY PICK some bits out of a book full of fables and magic and myths and say that those were perhaps maybe more likely to have been true.... JUST BECAUSE I SAY SO... or some brainwashed since childhood biased people with major vested interests in protecting their careers and credibility say so while at the same time maligning and denigrating and dismissing other SCHOLARS who say otherwise!

Here Craig.... tell me which parts of this account of my visit to England are true... is there a "core truth" in there somewhere?

When I was in London last year I took a rocket powered Taxi Cab and he took me from London to Oxford in 5 minutes and while I was in Oxford I climbed to the top of the Bodleian and flew all the way to Pembroke College and landed on their Quad and then I had dinner in their dining hall with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes and afterwards I used the fire place there to go to Windsor where I met Queen Elizabeth for breakfast.​

Here are my snapshots... unfortunately I have no picture of the Queen, I ran out of FILM!

Also mysteriously the pictures I took of Doyle and Holmes seem to never appear except on my computer... weird huh?

This is the rocket propelled Taxi Cab that carried me from London to Oxford in 5 minutes.

[imgw=300]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Taxi_in_London_2.jpg[/imgw]

I took this image of the Bodleian when I jumped off its roof and flew to Pembroke College.

[imgw=200]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Radcliffe_Camera%2C_Oxford_-_Oct_2006.jpg[/imgw]


This is where I landed in Pembroke College

[imgw=300]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/UK-2014-Oxford-Pembroke_College_04.jpg[/imgw]

This is the dining hall where I met Sir Arthur and Sherlock

[imgw=300]http://oxfordstudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Pembroke-College-Oxford-a18857054.jpg[/imgw]

I took this one while travelling by fire place flumes from Pembroke Oxford to Windsor on my way to have breakfast with Queen Elizabeth.

[imgw=300]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Windsor_Castle_from_the_Air_wideangle.jpg[/imgw]

 

[Leumas]

...
Here Craig.... tell me which parts of this account of my visit to England are true... is there a "core truth" in there somewhere?

When I was in London last year I took a rocket powered Taxi Cab and he took me from London to Oxford in 5 minutes and while I was in Oxford I climbed to the top of the Bodleian and flew all the way to Pembroke College and landed in their Quad and then I had dinner in their dining hall with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes and afterwards I used the fire place there to go to Windsor where I met Queen Elizabeth for breakfast.​

Here are my snapshots... unfortunately I have no picture of the Queen, I ran out of FILM!

Also mysteriously the pictures I took of Doyle and Holmes seem to never appear except on my computer... weird huh?

...

Let me show you the PROCESS of CHERRY PICKING and illogic that you are utilizing but applied to my TALL TALE.

• London is a real city.
• Taxi Cabs are real things in London.
• The Bodleian is a real tall building in Oxford.
• Pembroke College is real.
• The Dining Hall in Pembroke is real.
• Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is real.
• Windsor Castle is real.
• The Queen does very often reside in Windsor for a fact.

So it seems there are OODLES of REAL FACTS in the above story.

OK... we cannot really accept a rocket powered cab nor that someone can travel by fire place flumes also it is very unlikely that a normal person can in fact be granted a breakfast in Windsor with the Queen.

So let's see what the "core truth" of the story must have been.

When I was in London last year I took a rocket powered Taxi Cab and he took me from a train from Paddington train station London to Oxford in 5 130 minutes and while I was in Oxford I climbed to the top of the Bodleian and flew in a helicopter all the way to Pembroke College and landed on their Quad and then I had dinner in their dining hall with actors who acted the parts of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes in well known TV shows and afterwards I used the fire place there to go to Windsor where I met Queen Elizabeth for breakfast.​

There you are... it can be SUPPOSED that that is more likely to be the truthful real story.

Now any NORMAL person might miss all the ILLOGIC of the SUPPOSITIONS and CHERRY PICKING and AMENDMENTS that were made to the tall tale to make the fable fit reality according to the wishful thinking of the NEW FABRICATORS of the NEW TALL TALE.

However, intelligent logical reasonable people who are not DESPERATE to construe some ACCEPTABLE factual story out of what is OBVIOUSLY A LOAD OF CLAPTRAP might just say

The story is obviously a pile of hogwash.

It is doubtful that you were even in England at all last year.

It is a waste of time to even listen to your laughably fabricated tomfoolery.​

Could the "core truth" be that I went to England last year ?

Why do you EVEN CARE? My story is pure and utter poppycock regardless of any possible supposed likely tortuously construed "core lies or truths"!

 

[dejudge]

This multiplicity of informants agree or admit simply what they have read in the later Synoptics which they believe implicitly for ideological reasons. They are not independent witnesses corroborating one another's testimony.

Your argument is void of logic and evidence. You AGREE with the very same LATER Gospels.

You use the very Gospels which are considered forgeries or falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as evidence for your HJ.

You openly use gMark to argue that Jesus was a carpenter when such a claim is NOT corroborated in the ENTIRE NT Canon.

You use the very same LATER Gospels as independent sources to argue that Jesus was from Nazareth, had siblings, was Baptized by John and Crucified under Pilate.

Your argument is typically "chameleon" to blend with the surroundings.

You forget that the same LATER Gospels that you use as independent corroborated sources also independently corroborates the Myth fables that Jesus was a Transfiguring Sea water walker who was born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator.

Your HJ--the Obscure Criminal--cannot be found in any source of antiquity--independent or not.

Your HJ appears to be a "chameleon" derived from independent fiction.

One time he is OBSCURE--then he is NOT.

Another time he is the Christ--then he is NOT.

Another time he is from the NT--then he is NOT.

Another time he is a Criminal--then he is NOT.

HJ was ALWAYS Transfiguring.

The HJ argument makes no sense.

 

[dejudge]

That's right. And, despite Pliny the Younger discovering that the Christians bound themselves by oath to not commit fraud, theft, adultery, etc, he still put them to death if they didn't stop being Christians.

Again, as a Christian, you should know that all persons called Christians of antiquity did NOT accept that Jesus Christ was born.

Why do you persist with such an absurd notion?

How many times do we have go through your baseless argument?

1. The Greek for word 'Christ' [Anointed] PREDATED the Jesus story.

2. People were called Christ [Anointed] PREDATED the Jesus story.

3. There were MULTIPLE Christian cults who did NOT accept the Jesus story.


The supposed historical Jesus was NOT the Christ but is claimed to be an OBSCURE Criminal/rebel/preacher/sage or some scarcely known character.

The Pliny letter does not identify any character called Jesus of Nazareth and the word Christian cannot be ASSUMED to mean ONLY followers of the IMAGINED undocumented Obscure HJ.


We have "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, and "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus so it just a WASTE of time giving the impression that Christians can ONLY refer to followers of Jesus, the Son of God.

There were MULTIPLE CHRISTIAN cults of antiquity who did NOT believe the Jesus story.

Please, stop the propaganda.

Pliny letters are completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus or for a cult of Christians who accepted the Jesus story.

 

[Leumas]

...

Your HJ appears to be a "chameleon" derived from independent fiction.

One time he is OBSCURE--then he is NOT.

Another time he is the Christ--then he is NOT.

Another he is from the NT--then he is NOT.

Another time he is a Criminal--then he is NOT.

HJ was ALWAYS Transfiguring.

The HJ argument makes no sense.

You forgot to mention yet one more... the "observant Jewish preacher" despite the fact that the NT shows Jesus BLASPHEMING time and again according to the LAWS of the TORAH.

I have to say laws of the Torah instead of just Torah because someone is going to Straw man me as saying that the Torah mentions Jesus when they know jolly well what it means to say that according to the Torah Jesus was a blasphemer.

And of course the entire gospel of John as well the whole point of Christianity have to be cherry picked out of what remains of the NT when most of it is just rejected for no reason other than bare assertions and circular unreasoning and wishful thinking to SUPPOSE that MOST LIKELY Jesus was an "observant Jewish preacher".

Here have a look at all the blaspheming that Jesus did

John 3:16-18

• 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
• 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
• 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 8:57-59

• 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
• 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
• 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Matthew 28:18-20

• 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
• 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
• 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Matthew 16:15-19

• 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
• 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
• 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
• 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
• 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mark 14:61-64

• 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
• 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
• 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Matthew 26:63-66

• 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
• 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
• 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Luke 22:69-71

• 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
• 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
• 22:71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Matthew 11:20-27

• 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
• 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
• ....
• 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
• 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
• 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Mark 2:5- 12

• 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
• 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
• ...
• 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
• 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Matthew 9:2-7

• 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
• ...
• 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
• 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

Luke 2:49-50

• 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
• 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

 

[dejudge]

Yes. Therefore I don't believe Jesus walked on water, or was ever in the company of Satan. I find it easier to suppose he was a carpenter, but someone who doesn't think there's a reason to suppose one thing rather than another will have problems with that. Normal people won't.

Your suppositions are useless at this time.

You knew all along that ALL you had were Suppositions.

You had NO idea that it was NOT NORMAL [Not acceptable] to present Suppositions as evidence.

You Believe what you Suppose!!!

How illogical!!! How absurd!!!

You SUPPOSE Jesus, the Son of God, was a carpenter when the very Christians of antiquity who worshiped him as God stated he was NOT EVER described as a carpenter in the Gospels.

Origen' Against Celsus 6 ----in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

Your HJ is fiction derived from SUPPOSITIONS.

 

[Leumas]

You know, the double standard used by so many mythers, including DeJudge, boggles the imagination. We DO have independent informants with their own sources, like Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15, which are non-apologetics that plainly confirm a normal non-supernatural Yeshua who was nothing but a simple human rabbi who was nailed by the Romans, period.
...

Despite the fact that the WHOLE POINT OF CHRISTIANITY is that he was the SON OF GOD who was conceived when the SECOND God (out of THREE) called the Holy Poltergeist committed adultery and impregnated a 13 years old married little girl and made a cuckold out of poor Joseph?

The ENTIRE NT is BLASPHEMY against YHWH.

Jesus was depicted in the NT as an ARRANT DELUSIONAL blasphemer according to the LAWS OF MOSES and the TORAH.

So he could have NEVER been a Rabbi.

If there was an ordinary Yeshua then he was a bloody fool and not a Rabbi.

Here is how the Torah describes this blaspheming FALSE Rabbi

Deuteronomy 13:1-3

• 13:1If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
• 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
• 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Guess what the Jews were told to do with this blaspheming Rabbi?

Deuteronomy 13:5

• 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God...

To add to the IRONY, even Jesus himself says so

Matthew 7:15-16

• 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
• 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

 

[dejudge]

If an historical Jesus supposedly did exist and was an "observant Jewish preacher" then Tacitus Annals' 15.44 is NOT about the supposed "observant Jewish preacher".

The Christus in Tacitus Annals 15.44 suffered the ultimate penalty for starting a NEW MISCHIEVOUS religion or cult.

An "observant Jewish preacher" would be teaching the Laws of the books of Moses and remission of sins by the sacrifice of animals and birds.

It would be Blasphemy for an observant Jewish preacher to tell people he was God and that he was an Unblemished Sacrifice for Remission of Sins.

The HJ argument makes no sense.

The Blaspheming Jesus character hated NOT only the Jewish religion but the Jews.

Jesus in gJohn claimed the DEVIL was the Father of the Jews.