The Historical Jesus III

[Leumas]

...I have already posted the dictionary definition of evidence....

I'm not sure that this is what's being done, however. The case for a historical Jesus, weak as it is, is based on more than cherry-picking the bibble.

No... it really is not... there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence for Jesus outside the Buybull.

...I'll ask you to consider that your support for the MJ side of the debate is designed to 'fit' with your atheism. I've been there, so I know it's a real thing.

...I'm simply saying that there is, actually, some evidence to work with, some of which is outside of the bibble.

...What? Pray tell!

But first...please save yourself some embarrassment and read the thread or the books or watch the videos before you start REHASHING already debunked rubbish.

All the illogical fallacies you have so far offered for your original claim so many posts ago of having evidence are thus far

• Language and semantic chicanery are not evidence.
  
  

  Depends what you consider 'evidence'.

  __
  
• Christianity itself is not the evidence.
  
  

  Is Christianity itself not evidence?

  __
  
• Myths are not evidence.
  
  

  Is Christianity itself not evidence ? Even if it turns out to be based on a total myth?

  __
  
• Falsities and forgeries are not evidence.
  
  

  Are the Josephus passages evidence ? Even if they are not genuine?

  __
  
• You simply saying there is evidence is not evidence.
  
  

  I'm simply saying that there is, actually, some evidence to work with, some of which is outside of the bibble.

  __
  
• Other false theories are not evidence.
  
  

  After all, the motions of the stars is evidence for geocentrism.

  __
  
• Calling proven facts a "preponderance" is not evidence even if you misspell the the word.
  
  

  It's just that the preponderence of evidence points to heliocentrism.

  __
  
• And this claptrap is not evidence either.
  
  

  The bibble is the major part of the evidence, but I disagree that it is the whole of it, under any definition of 'evidence' that I know of. Do I find said evidence convincing ? To a degree; probably not to Craig's degree, but more than Maximara's. However, what I won't do is either deny categorically that the evidence is there, nor will I categorically claim that it's solid.

  __
  
• Appeal to motive and other illogical fallacies are not evidence.
  
  

  ...
  Or, here's another one for you: ....I'll ask you to consider that your support for the MJ side of the debate is designed to 'fit' with your atheism. I've been there, so I know it's a real thing.

  __
  
• You being prone to wishful thinking and biased illogical thinking altogether is not evidence.
  
  

  ...
  I've been there, so I know it's a real thing.

  __
  
• Claptrap stories about bloody knives which are not in fact evidence are not evidence.
  
  

  I tried, and will try again: let's say you find a bloody knife next to a dead victim. Blood on the knife's the victim's. Knife's the husband's. Is it evidence against the husband ?...

  __
  
• "Evidence" that turns out to be incorrect is not evidence.
  
  

  Doesn't matter if it turns out the theory is incorrect. My point is that there _is_ evidence for the historical Jesus outside of the bibble. It might not be convincing to you, or to me, but it is evidence.

 

[dejudge]

Yes. That must be very difficult for you, and I apologise for presenting you with such a brain-numbingly complex concept. Not I alone, but scholars in general, believe that Paul, or perhaps one of his early copyists, has included words from hymns extolling Jesus within the texts of Pauline epistles.

What absurdities you post.

We already know that there are BILLIONS of people who BELIEVE the Myth fables of the NT WITHOUT evidence.

This thread is NOT about the QUANTITY of BELIEVERS but the QUANTITY of evidence.

Some Scholars are right now praying to Jesus for ETERNAL LIFE and for Remission of Sins.

In addition, atheists don't play the numbers game.

You make atheists look like idiots because they are outnumbered by those who BELIEVE the myth fables called the New Testament without corroboration.

Based on your logic, if an unknown idiot claims without evidence that Paul wrote a letter and Plenty people believe the idiot then Paul most likely did.

There is simply no evidence of an historical Paul and it is well known that the Pauline Corpus is a major source of fiction and mythology.

Jesus in the Pauline Corpus was a GHOST/GOD/MAN--MULTIPLE MYTHS IN ONE.

 

[Leumas]

You're going to decide there was an HJ based on the perceived behavior of posters on this forum?

Well in the midst of a litany of illogic what's one more?

Depends what you consider 'evidence'....

...
Or, here's another one for you: ....I'll ask you to consider that your support for the MJ side of the debate is designed to 'fit' with your atheism. I've been there, so I know it's a real thing.

Doesn't matter if it turns out the theory is incorrect. My point is that there _is_ evidence for the historical Jesus outside of the bibble. It might not be convincing to you, or to me, but it is evidence.

Is Christianity itself not evidence?

Is Christianity itself not evidence ? Even if it turns out to be based on a total myth?

Are the Josephus passages evidence ? Even if they are not genuine?

Doesn't matter if it turns out the theory is incorrect. My point is that there _is_ evidence for the historical Jesus outside of the bibble. It might not be convincing to you, or to me, but it is evidence.

...However, what I won't do is either deny categorically that the evidence is there, nor will I categorically claim that it's solid.

 

[Leumas]

"I became like a Jew" makes it sound as if 'Paul' were a Gentile/pagan. I wonder which Christ and his law 'Paul' was 'under'.

The preamble in 1 Cor 9 before verse 20 is pretty wacky, too. In 1 Cor 9:3-14, Paul asserts his 'apostolic rights' to make his living from the gospel. His rhetorical questions presents rationale for his financial support.

What I cannot understand is that even sane people who are supposedly atheists cannot see that the Pauline epistles are nothing but fakery and pretense with the aim of bamboozling and fleecing.

Why would Paul have been anything different from the THOUSANDS of vile mountebanks that we have TODAY let alone throughout the history of humanity... except perhaps in not having in fact existed except as a pseudonym for a groups of hucksters.

• Muhammad
• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• Charles Taze Russell
• Harold Camping
• Margaret Rowen
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Bahá'u'lláh
• Baba Buta Singh
• Swami Vivekananda
• David Koresh
• Joseph Hibbert
• Jim Jones
• Charles Manson
• Sathya Sai Baba
• Gerald Gardner
• Claude Vorilhon
• Pat Robertson
• Kenneth Copeland
• Joel Osteen
• Paula White
• Robert Tilton
• Benny Hinn
• William M. Branham
• Louis Farrakhan
• David Berg
• Chen Tao
• Jerry Falwell
• David Horowitz
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

 

[Elagabalus]

What I cannot understand is that even sane people who are supposedly atheists cannot see that the Pauline epistles are nothing but fakery and pretense with the aim of bamboozling and fleecing.

Why would Paul have been anything different from the THOUSANDS of vile mountebanks that we have TODAY let alone throughout the history of humanity... except perhaps in not having in fact existed except as a pseudonym for a groups of hucksters.

• Muhammad
• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young
• Charles Taze Russell
• Harold Camping
• Margaret Rowen
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Bahá'u'lláh
• Baba Buta Singh
• Swami Vivekananda
• David Koresh
• Joseph Hibbert
• Jim Jones
• Charles Manson
• Sathya Sai Baba
• Gerald Gardner
• Claude Vorilhon
• Pat Robertson
• Kenneth Copeland
• Joel Osteen
• Paula White
• Robert Tilton
• Benny Hinn
• William M. Branham
• Louis Farrakhan
• David Berg
• Chen Tao
• Jerry Falwell
• David Horowitz
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

Anything substantive you would like to add, Leumas? Or will you just keep posting these diatribes about perceived enemies who do not think like the Great Leumas? Serious question ...

 

[Craig B]

What absurdities you post.

We already know that there are BILLIONS of people who BELIEVE the Myth fables of the NT WITHOUT evidence.

This thread is NOT about the QUANTITY of BELIEVERS but the QUANTITY of evidence.

Some Scholars are right now praying to Jesus for ETERNAL LIFE and for Remission of Sins.

In addition, atheists don't play the numbers game.

You make atheists look like idiots because they are outnumbered by those who BELIEVE the myth fables called the New Testament without corroboration.

Based on your logic, if an unknown idiot claims without evidence that Paul wrote a letter and Plenty people believe the idiot then Paul most likely did.

There is simply no evidence of an historical Paul and it is well known that the Pauline Corpus is a major source of fiction and mythology.

Jesus in the Pauline Corpus was a GHOST/GOD/MAN--MULTIPLE MYTHS IN ONE.

Can you please EXPLAIN to me what on earth your post has to do WITH the fact that, as I have stated, scholars in general BELIEVE that Paul, or perhaps one OF HIS early copyists, has included words from hymns EXTOLLING Jesus within the texts of Pauline epistles? That's WHAT they think. How can that possibly mean that I am MAKING atheists look like idiots because they are outnumbered by those who BELIEVE the myth fables called THE New Testament without corroboration?

 

[maximara]

Going with dictionary definitions is a problem ?

Can be, as demonstrated by the slight of hand Josh McDowell was doing in the late 1980's. He was using definitions of science that by their very nature EXCLUDED such sciences as anthropology, archeology, communication studies, economics, education, geography, and about any other social science you could mention. This was so he could claim the existence of Jesus con't be determined scientifically (since even back then History was a social science this was garbage)

Needless to say later editions fixed that definition

Some modern dictionaries still get evolution wrong:

a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time - online Merriam-Webster


The very long time would exclude the way bacteria evolve (geologically speaking we are talking instantaneously)

Oxford is far closer to the mark:

The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

"What's YOUR definition of evidence, and why is it better than the dictionary's ?

I have several all from the dictionaries or text of my various archeology or anthropologically textbooks.

Data acquisition: A stage in archeological research design in which data art gather, normally by three basic procedures-reconnaissance, surface survey, and excavation (Chapters 4-7) - Archaeology Discovering Our Past (1987) pg 590

Bruce G. Trigger's 1987 A History of Archaeological Thought ISBM 0-521-33818-2 cites Wylie in that : "The most straightforward observational experience is actively structured by the observer and acquires significances as evidence...only under theory- and 'paradigm' specific interpretation" - pg 382


The danger as Miner showed in 1956 with bitingly satirical "Body Ritual among the Nacirema." article is the theory and 'paradigm' can drive the data rather then the other way around.

This is what happened with Piltdown Man-it fit so well with the theory and 'paradigm' they used that the majority of scientists ran with it as evidence of human evolution even as a handful were saying that something was way wrong with it: David Waterston of King's College London in 1913, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule in 1915 and 1923 Franz Weidenreich flat out said it was a fraud.



Binford and Dunnel in their nearly decade long 'does style have function?' debate concluded that data is not 'set' in value or importance but fluctuates with more new data and with the theories and 'paradigms' in play.

Piltdown Man and Bermuda Triangle quality of data is not evidence...and that is what nearly all of the material for a historical Jesus is on par with.

 

[Leumas]

...
Piltdown Man and Bermuda Triangle quality of data is not evidence...and that is what nearly all of the material for a historical Jesus is on par with.

 

[Leumas]

Anything substantive you would like to add, Leumas? Or will you just keep posting these diatribes about perceived enemies who do not think like the Great Leumas? Serious question ...

 

[Craig B]

Piltdown Man and Bermuda Triangle quality of data is not evidence...and that is what nearly all of the material for a historical Jesus is on par with.

That is the totality of this version of the MJ argument. Well, some scholars believed in Piltdown Man; though in the end it was science that destroyed the illusion. The data were of poor "quality" because they were faked, a situation that honest scholars were inadequately prepared for.

In this case too, of the historicity of Jesus, dejudge bluntly states that the entirety of the texts: the whole NT, and all the relevant passages in Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny et al, are forgeries intentionally designed to deceive their readers. Do you say that? If not, what is the relevance of the Piltdown example?

As regards your other subject: where is the preponderance of scholars which accepts the existence of the Bermuda Triange? If there is no such consensus, what is the relevance of the Bermuda Triangle example?

Also, why have you omitted John Frum? You must always mention John Frum. And you must link to voluminous writings and videos of Carrier.

 

[Elagabalus]

.... Also, why have you omitted John Frum? You must always mention John Frum. And you must link to voluminous writings and videos of Carrier.

Indeed! Or perhaps even Chris Froome? *********** Sky! What are they on this year?

 

[Mcreal]

... dejudge bluntly states that the entirety of the texts: the whole NT, and all the relevant passages in Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny et al, are forgeries intentionally designed to deceive their readers.

It's unlikely Suetonius's or Pliny's letters are forgeries. But they refer to either nonspecific Christians or a Chrestus.

Both Josephus's passages are of dubious authenticity: even the so-called lite-version of Antiq 18 is dubious. The Antiq 20 passage is a weird interlude in a passage otherwise about Ananus (and ,to a lesser extent, Albinus and Festus).

Tacitus Annals 15.44 is hearsay about Christians if authentic, or not authentic. There is no evidence that Nero persecuted anyone, too.

As Authur Drewes said in 1912 in 'Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus'

"The first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century. A fuller account is then given in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died 403 AD), [Chronicle 2.29.1-4a] but it is mixed there with unlikely Christian legends, such as the story of the death of Simon Magus, the 'bishopric' and sojourn of Peter at Rome, etc. The expressions of Sulpicius Severus agree, in part, almost word for word with those of Tacitus's Annals 15.44. It is, however, very doubtful, in view of the silence of other authors of the times who used Tacitus, but did not refer to Annals, that Sulpicius used Annals either.

"We are therefore strongly disposed to suspect that the passage in question - in Annals, xv, 44 - was transferred from Sulpicius to the Annals 15.44 by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for "the greater glory of God" in order to strengthen the 'truth' of the Christian tradition by appealing, falsely, to a prominent pagan witness ie. Tacitus."

and
Hochart points out In his De l'Authenticity des Histoires et des Annales de Tacite that, whereas the Life of St. Martin and the Dialogues of Sulpicius were found in many libraries, there was only one manuscript of Sulpicius's Chronicle, probably of the eleventh century, which is now in the Vatican. Hence the work [as with Tacitus' Annales] was unknown throughout the Middle Ages, and no one was aware of the reference in it to a Roman persecution of the Christians. It is noteworthy that Poggio Bracciolini seems by some lucky chance to have discovered and read this manuscript (work quoted, p. 225). Cf. Nouvelles Considerations, pp. 142-72.

 

[Belz...]

You're going to decide there was an HJ based on the perceived behavior of posters on this forum?

I have no idea how you concluded that from my post. But then, I guess I shouldn't expect much more from irrational people.

 

[Belz...]

Well in the midst of a litany of illogic what's one more?

That's a nice set of quotes, there. Could you point out what's illogical about them ?

 

[Belz...]

Can be, as demonstrated by the slight of hand Josh McDowell was doing in the late 1980's.

Here's the problem, though: if you don't use dictionaries, then what do you use ? Your own gut feeling ? A consensus amongst people in the same echo chamber ? Of course not, right ?

You still haven't answered my question: what definition of "evidence" would you want to use; and why is "mine" not adequate ?

Your post is nice but it doesn't address anything.

Data acquisition: A stage in archeological research design in which data art gather, normally by three basic procedures-reconnaissance, surface survey, and excavation (Chapters 4-7) - Archaeology Discovering Our Past (1987) pg 590

Bruce G. Trigger's 1987 A History of Archaeological Thought ISBM 0-521-33818-2 cites Wylie in that : "The most straightforward observational experience is actively structured by the observer and acquires significances as evidence...only under theory- and 'paradigm' specific interpretation" - pg 382

That won't do at all.

Piltdown Man and Bermuda Triangle quality of data is not evidence...

Why not ? What eventually leads us to a conclusion is the preponderance of evidence, so what's the problem with having _some_ of the evidence point in the other direction ?

 

[tsig]

None of that answers the question, which wasn't directed at you anyway. I have already posted the dictionary definition of evidence. I thought, naively I guess, that we would all agree to it, but I guess I underestimated the MJ woo mindset.

Because, yeah, as someone who's been pretty much on the fence on this issue in recent years, the behaviour of the MJ proponents here is apalling and childish.
Anyway, fine, let's get _another_ definition and work with it, but stop dancing around. If you can't provide one, then I'll go with the dictionary definition and you'll be right where you started: wrong.

You're going to decide there was an HJ based on the perceived behavior of posters on this forum?

I have no idea how you concluded that from my post. But then, I guess I shouldn't expect much more from irrational people.

It had something to do with the words you posted, see hilited.

I see you are going with personal insults a sure sign of a losing argument.

 

[Craig B]

I see you are going with personal insults a sure sign of a losing argument.

Poor Belz is "more sinned against than sinner" in this domain. See #1178. By your chosen criterion the MJ argument is well lost. See for yourself.

 

[Belz...]

It had something to do with the words you posted, see hilited.

I saw that. It still doesn't mean what you said it meant. Your ideological filter is altering the meaning of posts you read.

I see you are going with personal insults a sure sign of a losing argument.

Coming from you, that's very ironic.

 

[maximara]

That is the totality of this version of the MJ argument. Well, some scholars believed in Piltdown Man; though in the end it was science that destroyed the illusion. The data were of poor "quality" because they were faked, a situation that honest scholars were inadequately prepared for.

So by this logic David Waterston of King's College London in 1913, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule in 1915 and Franz Weidenreich in 1923 were NOT "honest scholars" because they WERE adequately prepared for such a situation (in that they spotted it)?

Tell me does logic hurt your head or do you just not see the logical quagmires that some of these statements produce?

In this case too, of the historicity of Jesus, dejudge bluntly states that the entirety of the texts: the whole NT, and all the relevant passages in Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny et al, are forgeries intentionally designed to deceive their readers. Do you say that? If not, what is the relevance of the Piltdown example?

Can you say Testimonium Flavianum (ie Josephus)? I knew you could.

Tacitus we KNOW has been tampered with and there are indications that something akin to the Testimonium Flavianum is going on there as well.

Suetonius and Pliny only show that there was a "Christian" cult about. John Frum shows existence of a movement doesn't mean the founder as depicted by the cult existed. That is more along the lines of the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, or early Focal Infection Theory.

Also, why have you omitted John Frum? You must always mention John Frum. And you must link to voluminous writings and videos of Carrier.

Because John Frum is the most documented easily accessed example of how the the more level minded Christ Mythers haven't been in tin foil hat land all this time.

As I pointed for the most part Carrier did NOT bring that much new to the Christ Myth table but he was able to do what no other Christ Myther before him was: get a reasonably comprehensible present referenced version together that passed the peer review process and was published by a recognized scholarly publisher.

Before Carrier all you had was a missmash of sources: Remsburg and Robertson for what Christ Myth theory even was and for some rough points and Drews for some details which at 100+ years were long in the tooth to say the least. And none of those were that well referenced so you were left with 'ok where did that come from?' with some of more interesting parts (like the "in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus" comment in Drews' The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus)

Sure Robert M Price has good points but he hadn't cleared that peer review-recognized scholarly publisher bar.

Carrier rightly blasts the bad part of the Christ Myth theory (Zeitgeist case in point)

 

[Vixen]

Yes, the NT Jesus was/is very likely a rewrite of the OT David of the Books of Samuel; as a better David.

And 'Paul' could easily be based on Saul out of 1 Samuel:

• 1 Samuel 9:6;
• 1 Samuel 9:15-20; then
• 1 Samuel 10:3-7; & 10-11

One day Saul was waiting for Samuel. Samuel was coming to burn sacrifices. Samuel was the only man who should burn sacrifices to God. But he was late. Saul did not wait for him. Saul burned the sacrifices. At last Samuel came. He was angry at Saul, as Saul had not obeyed God. Samuel told him God would choose another king. - 1 Samuel 13:8-14; 1 Samuel 15:11–26

Samuel said unto Jesse: "Are here all thy children?" And he said: 'There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep.' And Samuel said unto Jesse: "Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither". And he sent, and brought him in. Now he [David] was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said: "Arise, anoint him: for this is He." Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. - 1 Samuel 16:11-13.

The David and Goliath story is then narrated.

Saul began to hate David more and more. David had served at Saul's court, had been married to his younger daughter, and had gone to battle numerous times at Saul's command, and Saul began to hope that David would die in battle. When Saul openly tried to murder him was when David took to the hills. For some 20 years David hid in the wilderness from Saul where he gathered an army from the outcasts of Israel. David wrote most of the Psalms at this time and God called him, "a man after My own heart."

7 years after Saul died, the tribes crowned David king at Hebron (supposedly ~1000 BC). David brought the Ark of the covenant (gold box containing the 10 commandments and symbolizing the throne of God) to Jerusalem, which he established as the capital (2 Sam 1-5).

David was Israel's greatest and truly ideal king. He was a great warrior and a man who loved God. He brought great peace and prosperity to the land. But David also had his weaknesses; he was "a sinner".

David took many wives, like other kings, even though this was forbidden by God. He even arranged the murder of one of his soldiers so that he could marry the man's wife who he had already seduced. Even though David was a great sinner, he was also very remorseful and repentant. David also took a census (headcount) of his army, showing a lack of trust in God. God punished David and Israel for his sins.​

The good qualities found in David are a picture of Christ, who would be a descendant of David.

As David, in his old age, looked back on his life and pondered on how God had delivered him from all of his enemies he sang:

2 Sam 22:4 I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised; so shall I be saved from my enemies.

2 Sam 23:1-2 Now these are the last words of David. Thus says David the son of Jesse; thus says the man raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel: "The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue. . ."​

That's very true. The analogies with shepherds and sheep abound. Lots of references back to Psalms.

One difference, David had 700 concubines. At least Jesus "kept it in his trousers", as it were.