The Historical Jesus III

[Mcreal]

... Justin's Trypho character's point is that the office of Christ can only be given by Elijah. Since Elijah had not come to do that, then the man Jesus could not be Christ. As Trypho says in Ch 49 of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."​

There's nowhere in the text that suggests the Trypho character thought there was no historical Jesus, only that the Christ had not yet come.

.
That - Chapter 49 - reads like a prophecy about someone yet to come.

Previously, in Chap 48 -

And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

And I replied to this, "I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the [requirements] of God, but [ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself."

And later in Chapter 49

"And, accordingly, our Lord in His teaching," I continued, "proclaimed that this very thing would take place, saying that Elijah would also come. And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in[the person of] John, a prophet among your nation; after whom no other prophet appeared among you.

... Wherefore also our Christ said, [when He was] on earth, to those who were affirming that Elijah must come before Christ: 'Elijah shall come, and restore all things; but I say unto you, that Elijah has already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they chose.' And it is written, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake to them about John the Baptist.' "

And Trypho said, "This statement also seems to me paradoxical; namely, that the prophetic Spirit of God, who was in Elijah, was also in John."

To this I replied, "Do you not think that the same thing happened in the case of Joshua the son of Nave (Nun), who succeeded to the command of the people after Moses, when Moses was commanded to lay his hands on Joshua, and God said to him, 'I will take of the spirit which is in thee, and put it on him?' "

Martyr is talking about "when Jesus Christ shall come" ie. future tense.

and, Reference to Joshua the son of Nun, who succeeded Moses, invokes other texts that also refer to him -

• Joshua 1
• Numbers 11:28;
• Numbers 13:8; -> Numbers 13:16;
• Deuteronomy 34:9; and
• Theophilus's Apology to Autolycus

 

[Craig B]

So was Jesus the man just the illegitimate product of a rape or of an adultery committed by a young girl who cuckolded poor Joseph?

Why didn't the fabricators of the NT myths not just say he was the son of Joseph?

Why did they have to go to all that trouble to make it look like he was the result of the rape of a young married virgin girl by the Holy Casper?

You once asked me the below and I responded with what I thought... so can you tell me what you think is the answer to the above question!

There is no answer to the question why the fabricators of the NT myths didn't say he was the son of Joseph. They DID say he was the son of Joseph, as you really ought to know.

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
John 6:41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

Can you not get it into your head that the different gospels all have different things to say about the origin of Jesus? And if you think that any of them describes the rape of a young married girl by the Holy Casper, whatever that may be supposed to mean, you're wrong. The account stresses the consent of the person involved in this fictitious story.

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

So what you make the fabricators say in the NT myths they do not say; and you peremptorily ask me why they don't say something that in fact they do say. This is painful stuff. Really.

 

[Leumas]

There is no answer to the question why the fabricators of the NT myths didn't say he was the son of Joseph. They DID say he was the son of Joseph, as you really ought to know.

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael...

...

So now gJohn is back into your graces?

You dismiss gJohn when it suits you because what it says attests to your illogic.

... gJohn contains little or no genuine historical material, but is late and elaborated.....

Then you quote gJohn when it suits you to bolster your illogic.

This is painful stuff. Really.

Absolutely agree... your hypocritical illogic is definitely painful to see.

 

[Craig B]

So now gJohn is back into your graces?

You dismiss gJohn when it suits you because what it says attests to your illogic.

Then you quote gJohn when it suits you to bolster your illogic.

Absolutely agree... your hypocritical illogic is definitely painful to see.

Good try. Now read again your own words.

Why didn't the fabricators of the NT myths not just say he was the son of Joseph?

The fabricators of the NT myths did say he was the son of Joseph, didn't they? Now show me where they said Mary was raped by the Holy Caspar.

 

[Mcreal]

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary,
How did your Garden of Eden grow?

 

[Leumas]

Good try. Now read again your own words.

The fabricators of the NT myths did say he was the son of Joseph, didn't they? Now show me where they said Mary was raped by the Holy Caspar.

So now you add a disingenuous misrepresentation of what I said to all your other illogic.... oh wait... you have been doing that for a while now... so nothing new.

I know that you are capable of reading and understanding English very well... so the only explanation for your misrepresentation is a disingenuous attempt at obfuscating and nothing more.

Let's have a look at what I said.

...
Why didn't the fabricators of the NT myths not just say he was the son of Joseph?
...

Do you not know that word? Do you not understand what it means or are you JUST dissimulating?

Your attempt at misrepresenting my understanding is chicanery since you know jolly well that I know the NT better than you do and in fact I was called a closet Christian by Concern Trolls for quoting it all the time... and others objected violently to me quoting it all the time by calling me all sorts of vile epithets... and some even suggested I get a lobotomy... oh wait that was you.

... But if that's what he's got in his subconscious he needs a visit from Dr Freud. Or a lobotomy.

You know very well that just a few posts back I was arguing with you about him being called a carpenter's son objecting to your illogic in CHERRY PICKING that part and dismissing others as you STILL insist on doing all the time. And what is even more laughable is that you dismiss the entire gJohn as a late fabrication with no historical value when it is quoted against your illogic and then you turn around and quote gJohn when it suits you to bolster your illogic.

So you know that I know.... but you conveniently skimmed over my words missing out the word JUST and tried to misrepresent my position as not knowing that the NT does say he is the son of Joseph in some places AS WELL AS ALSO IN ADDITION to calling him the son of god and the product of the virgin impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spook.

Your utterly illogical argument for HJ is based upon pure illogic and wishful thinking and bare assertions and appeal to biased authority.... but above all CHERRY PICKING to suit your own needs.... nothing but utter illogic.

Ah... and let's not forget you maligning people who oppose your illogic by labeling them as crazy in need of psychoanalysis performed by long dead psychiatrist and suggesting they get a lobotomy to boot.... as well as REPEATEDLY and disingenuously STRAW MANNING them too.

But that does not make him an "observant Jewish preacher" does it.

Can you explain how a blaspheming deluded man who thought that he was the son of god and that he will sit on the right hand side of god in heaven could be considered as an "observant Jewish preacher"

Can you explain why you reject the verses below from ALL THREE gospels (not counting gJohn which you have decided to CHERRY PICK out entirely) while YOU KEEP HARPING ON ABOUT THE CARPENTER stuff being true?

Do you have "reasons for supposing that the gospel material below is less likely to be authentic" than the carpenter stuff you love so much... that is other than bare assertions and wishful thinking and special pleading and appeal to biased authority?

Why are you hedging your bets and suppositions and wishful thinking on the carpenter bit in gMark but not the BLASPHEMER bits in the very same gospel?

There is nothing magical about a guy being deluded to the point of claiming to be the son of god... it is not a magical event or a miracle for a delusional man to claim he is the son of god.

So you cannot apply that criterion here....ALL THREE gospels (in addition to gJohn which you cherry pick out) report that Jesus is a BLASPHEMER who was so deluded to think that he can forgive sins and is the son of God.

Do you have any rational logical reason to reject those verses while you HOLD TENACIOUSLY to the reality of the carpenter verses?

The carpenter verses are only in Matthew (carpenter's son) and Mark (carpenter) and they are contradictory while the blaspheming stuff is THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT.... why so much betting on those two contradictory verses to be true while verses attested to by the entire NT you reject as false?

Why do you not consider the following verses as part of the "core truth"... is it just utter wishful thinking and special pleading on top of piles of other illogical fallacies?

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.

​

 

[Craig B]

So now you add a disingenuous misrepresentation of what I said to all your other illogic.... oh wait... you have been doing that for a while now... so nothing new.

I know that you are capable of reading and understanding English very well... so the only explanation for your misrepresentation is a disingenuous attempt at obfuscating and nothing more.

Let's have a look at what I said.




Do you not know that word? Do you not understand what it means or are you JUST dissimulating?

Your imbecilic attempt at misrepresenting my understanding is nothing but a failure since you know jolly well that I know the NT better than you do and in fact I was called a closet Christian by Concern Trolls for quoting it all the time... and others objected so much to me quoting it too... and some suggested I get a lobotomy... oh wait that was you.




You know very well that just a few posts back I was arguing with you about him being called a carpenter's son and your illogic in CHERRY PICKING that part and dismissing others as you are STILL persisting in doing all the time. And what is even more laughable is that you dismiss the entire gJohn as a late fabrication with no historical value when it is quoted against your illogic and then you turn around and quote gJohn when it suits you to bolster your illogic.

So you know that I know.... but you conveniently skimmed over my words missing out the word JUST and tried to misrepresent my position as not knowing that the NT does say he is the son of Joseph in some places AS WELL AS ALSO IN ADDITION to calling him the son of god and the product of the virgin impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spook.

Your utterly illogical argument for HJ is based upon pure illogic and wishful thinking and bare assertions and appeal to biased authority.... but above all CHERRY PICKING to suit your own needs.... nothing but utter illogic.

Ah... and let's not forget you maligning people who oppose your illogic by labeling them as crazy in need of psychoanalysis performed by long dead psychiatrist and suggesting they get a lobotomy to boot.... as well as REPEATEDLY and disingenuously STRAW MANNING them too.

I'm sure nobody would now presume to make any such suggestion.

You were referring to Mary being raped by the Holy Caspar, but now I see that has been slightly amended to her Virgin impregnation by the Holy Spook. Is there any significance in that change of wording?

 

[GDon]

.
That - Chapter 49 - reads like a prophecy about someone yet to come.

Previously, in Chap 48 -

And later in Chapter 49

Martyr is talking about "when Jesus Christ shall come" ie. future tense.

Well, yes Justin does. But so? In the paragraph before, he talks about two advents of Christ:

"... two advents of Christ were predicted to take place,--one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious. and Judge of all"​

"When Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven" obviously refers to the second advent.

 

[Leumas]

I'm sure nobody would now presume to make any such suggestion.

You were referring to Mary being raped by the Holy Caspar, but now I see that has been slightly amended to her Virgin impregnation by the Holy Spook. Is there any significance in that change of wording?

Only in your illogical cherry picking.

Go read the NT and you will see the proof for yourself... oh... wait... you cannot do that without cherry picking and wishful thinking and relying on biased authority to tell you how to read it.... oh well... no use then.

 

[GDon]

But John Frum was thought to have existed in various different ways...just like Jesus was.

Depending on the sect you asked in 1957 John Frum was a dark skinned native, or a dark skinned serviceman, or a white skinned serviceman, or a white skinned navyman. One sect held we was the god Karaperamun made manifest (sound familiar?), other held he was the son of a ruler of a faraway land and has Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as his brother (can you James the Just? I knew you could )

Prince Philip being the brother of a non-existent person is a fascinating parallel between James and the proposed mythical Christ. But again, it is not really evidence of anything other than "it is possible for a non-existent person to be believed to have a real person as a brother", which is not being argued against. As actual evidence for or against a historical Jesus, John Frum and Ned Ludd tells us nothing.

Thanks to Paul's vague description it isn't until the Gospels (written after Paul's death by most accounts) that we get a time table for when Jesus preached on earth. If we use Paul seven epistles on their own (remembering they were edited into this form) the "within 20 years" falls apart.

I think there are enough hints in those seven epistles to reasonably establish:
(1) Paul as writing around the mid-First Century
(2) Paul regarding Jesus to be a near contemporary.

This was something that was laid out on another website. I'll reproduce it here once I've found it among my notes.

 

[Craig B]

Only in your illogical cherry picking.

Go read the NT and you will see the proof for yourself... oh... wait... you cannot do that without cherry picking and wishful thinking and relying on biased authority to tell you how to read it.... oh well... no use then.

You could have picked for me the passage you had in mind. But for my part I am unable to find any text in which Mary is stated to have been raped by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Leumas]

Well, yes Justin does. But so? In the paragraph before, he talks about two advents of Christ:

"... two advents of Christ were predicted to take place,--one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious. and Judge of all"​

"When Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven" obviously refers to the second advent.

What puzzles me to no end is why would a liberal Christian, who WORSHIPS Jesus the hero of a collection of myths and fairy tales, want to keep on arguing for a historical flesh and blood delusional blaspheming man with no magical powers of any sort and not the bastard son of any holy poltergeists?

I do not understand it... you claim you are a liberal Christian and then you want to argue that Jesus was just a man.... does it make sense that you worship a man?

Do you think the historic flesh and blood deluded moron Jesus got crucified and then got resurrected all for your sake?

Does it make sense that you are trying to wring a historic character out of what you yourself admit is nothing but a collection of myths and fairy tales?

And if we do admit to you for argument's sake that yes there was a delusional blaspheming peripatetic hoboing idiot who went around ranting to people claptrap about how his father the god of the universe is going to end the world soon and put him on a throne on his right side.... let's say that there was such a crazy idiot... how does that bode for your liberal Christian worship of such a man?

 

[Leumas]

You could have picked for me the passage you had in mind. But for my part I am unable to find any text in which Mary is stated to have been raped by the Holy Ghost.

I'll gladly help you out with remedying your failures in understanding the NT ... but ... first you need to apologize for all your chicanery and shenanigans in straw manning me.

Oh and you also need to apologize for calling me crazy and psychologically damaged in need of a lobotomy.... but no apology is needed for suggesting I get psychoanalyzed by Freud. I would have very gladly done that if only to have had the privilege of just being in the presence of such a GREAT ATHEISTIC MIND.

 

[Mcreal]

Well, yes Justin does. But so?

There's no indication any of it is documenting history; other than documenting discussion of emerging theology or possible theology.

In the paragraph before, he talks about two advents of Christ:

"... two advents of Christ were predicted to take place, - one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious. and Judge of all"​

Again, aspirational commentary; not documentation.

 

[Craig B]

I'll gladly help you out with remedying your failures in understanding the NT ... but ... first you need to apologize for all your chicanery and shenanigans in straw manning me.

Oh and you also need to apologize for calling me crazy and psychologically damaged in need of a lobotomy.... but no apology is needed for suggesting I get psychoanalyzed by Freud. I would have very gladly done that if only to have had the privilege of just being in the presence of such a GREAT ATHEISTIC MIND.

And you get to lie on a comfy sofa too. But you have to pay the possessor of the Great Mind many Austro-Hungarian Crowns.

 

[maximara]

Prince Philip being the brother of a non-existent person is a fascinating parallel between James and the proposed mythical Christ. But again, it is not really evidence of anything other than "it is possible for a non-existent person to be believed to have a real person as a brother", which is not being argued against. As actual evidence for or against a historical Jesus, John Frum and Ned Ludd tells us nothing.

But what they do shows is that the Christ Myth theory as a general concept is not off in tin foil land (though things like Zeitgeist are there but their are historical Jesus theories just as bonkers)

I think there are enough hints in those seven epistles to reasonably establish:
(1) Paul as writing around the mid-First Century
(2) Paul regarding Jesus to be a near contemporary.

I agree with point one but not point two. George Wells in Jesus Legend points out all the issue Paul has with regard to the Gospels story which he could (and in some cases should) have used but doesn't. In fact, if you really look as what Paul is writing the time the events he see through visions are indeterminate. If anything Paul seem to make a point of using terms to obscure just when the events in his visions supposedly occured.

 

[Craig B]

If anything Paul seem to make a point of using terms to obscure just when the events in his visions supposedly occured.

What "events" occur in his visions?

 

[dejudge]

Since at least the second century christians themselves argued that their Jesus of Nazareth was born of a ghost.
It is most laughable that people in the 21st century are now using the same christians writings to argue that Jesus the son of the ghost., the transfiguring water walker was a real man.
Jesus of Nazareth was a real ghost like Romulus in antiquity.

 

[dejudge]

What "events" occur in his visions?

What "visions" and when?

 

[dejudge]

Prince Philip being the brother of a non-existent person is a fascinating parallel between James and the proposed mythical Christ.

Galatians 1.19 does not identify any person called Jesus, the Christ, or Jesus Christ.

Please, help us stop the propaganda.

Galatians 1.19 contains the NOMINA SACRA for the LORD God of the Jews.

It is most disturbing when people continue to spread fallacies and argue AGAINST their own Faith.

I think there are enough hints in those seven epistles to reasonably establish:
(1) Paul as writing around the mid-First Century
(2) Paul regarding Jesus to be a near contemporary.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the Pauline Corps was written around the mid-1st century.

Which Papyri was written in the mid-1st century?

Papyri 46?

Papyri 75?

This was something that was laid out on another website. I'll reproduce it here once I've found it among my notes.

Your use of known fallacious arguments based on the Bible is of no real historical value.