The Historical Jesus III

[IanS]

Not quite. He did preach quite a bit of nonsense, too. But yeah, as I said before, there's so much made up stuff that there's not much left for us to determine anything about his life, if life there was.

Amazing what faith does isn't it ? If Jesus actually existed, is the son of the, and came back today, nobody would believe it.


This wasn't what I was suggesting. I was simply making a point about the writing style. I'm not saying, at all, that we should remove the supernatural and give any credence to the mundane.

The point is that it's hearsay. We have only Plato's word. By your own logic, his belief about Socrates' existence.

I would have to get back to you on that, but I'm not sure that a match is required for us to be discussing standard of evidence.

Indeed. I'm still puzzled as to why he'd even mention meeting the disciples if there was no preexisting cult, however.

Not only. He goes from place to place, talking nonsense to people and doing things that may seem miraculous to some but not necessarily to the reader, and then also a number of actual BS miracles that can't possibly have happened. I'm not sure I'd characterise the stories even as "mostly" miracles. I guess I'd have to read them again but... my is that book boring.

Paul really was an *******. I can see him meeting the disciples, and then one of them mentions the last supper and he's like "yeah, er... I knew about that! [takes notes]"

Ok. That's actually very close to my own take on it, actually.

The information or data (or testimony) only becomes genuinely "evidence" of that which is being claimed, after it has been subjectively decided that the claim itself was really true. To that extent, as I said above, there is a conceptual and practical problem with the whole idea of "evidence".

Well, I can't agree to that. I think there should be a way through which we can all agree that X is evidence for A, even pending a consensus or conclusion, and that this fits with how the word is used in every day life, in science, in court, and in dictionaries.

Well, this isn't a court. I don't think reasonable doubt should be our threshold in such historical contexts, unfortunately. I really wish we had more complete records of stuff, but unfortunately people keep destroying our heritage.


I'll bow to his superior knowledge.

OK, well without commenting on all the above (I think we have both commented before on most if not all these various issues, and we obviously agree on most of it anyway), just on that highlighted passage re. what the word “evidence” either does mean or what it should or could ever mean -

- if you look at dictionary definitions you will find they are self-contradictory. That is they say that “evidence” is information or data connected to or indicative of something, but then in the next line they will define "evidence” as data or information showing the truth or fact of something. Well those statements are contradictory with one-another, unless they means that what is said to be merely "indicated" is itself true as an actual "fact".

And then of course if you try to check what is meant by a "fact", that leads you into even bigger problems, because the discovery of Quantum Theory in the 1920's showed that in a universe where everything is composed of what we call atoms (actually various interacting energy fields), there are no actual "facts" in the sense of literally certainty for anything. Instead, all that is ever possible is a quantum probability of various states for anything.

So what is "evidence" and "fact" in respect of real world observations of anything?

Well ... a "fact" is something that is assumed to be true (e.g. as a matter of an established and tested scientific "theory") when the probability of that thing is shown to be extremely high, i.e. as close as possible to 1. And what then is "evidence" that supports that conclusion of "fact"? Well, "evidence" of anything claimed to be a "fact" or claimed to be "true" (such as the existence of Jesus) is whatever data, information, testimony etc. is claimed to show the claim itself as true.

However if for a moment we ignore all of that, and continue to use the word “evidence” despite it’s various problems, then we have to ask - what do we have as the claimed "evidence" in the case of Jesus?

Well all that we actually have, is the biblical writing in which anonymous writers who had never met anyone called Jesus, say that other unnamed unknown people of the past had met Jesus and told of his adventures. So what is that "evidence" of? Well firstly it cannot be the biblical writers own personally known evidence of Jesus, because none of them had ever met Jesus. It can only be "evidence" of the biblical writers beliefs or claims that other people in the past had once claimed to have their own personal evidence of knowing Jesus. Though none of those other people were ever produced to confirm that they had any such personal evidence of ever meeting Jesus.

So all you are left with as “evidence” in that biblical writing is evidence of the biblical writers believing or claiming that some other unknown earlier people once had the evidence of knowing Jesus.

Is there any other "evidence" apart from evidence of the biblical writers un-evidenced beliefs about what they thought other people had once known? Apparently the answer is no ... there is apparently no other evidence of any sort. No physical evidence of any kind, no independent official written records of any kind (such as Roman court or trial records), nothing at all except for the evidence of beliefs from the biblical writers.

And those were in fact, let us not forget, the biblical writers un-evidenced religious beliefs in a figure unknown to them, who was said to have been known to earlier unknown people who witnessed him countless times performing acts of the supernatural as a scion of God.

Is that enough to think he (Jesus) was more likely than not? I don't think it is.

 

[dejudge]

Special pleading of the most desperate kind to alleviate a chronic and acute Cognitive Dissonance... and in many cases of these "scholars" there is a lot of vested interest even if it is not on the conscious level................

So they rationalize that ok, we can throw away the fairy tale aspect, but then there is still REAL stuff left in there and we have not been UTTERLY AND TOTALLY DUPED for all those centuries by a MYTHICAL FABLE.

They are desperate to prove that it is not all a big hoax like all the other woo they are increasingly beginning to realize is claptrap.

These same desperate people do not throw away the fairy tales of the Creation story with God in Genesis. They do not throw away the fairy tales of Satan, the Holy Ghost, and the Angel Gabriel.

Their Jesus is a special case.

The Jesus story MUST be changed.

HJ is a modern fiction character derived from mutilating the NT.

Much like children who are driven to tears and dismay after discovering the level of adult complicity of their society and parents in deceiving them for so long and in so many ways with the Santa fable.

Unlike children, They have gone one step further. It would appear that after they were "driven to tears and dismay" that they have recently INVENTED their OWN 'Jesus fable'.

 

[IanS]

Correction - in post #1256, where it says

....who will "rise up from below", in some sort of symbolic act of salivation ...

that word should of course have been “salvation” (not salivation lol)

 

[Craig B]

I don't think you need to spend time replying to each individual point (or any of the points really). Because apart from anything else, it's mostly all stuff I've said many times before.

I've been following that policy, for that very reason, for a long time now. I'm glad to note it meets with your approval. But in the field of repetition of things many times you are not worthy to carry the sandals of another contributor to this thread. Behold!

We are told God exists by people who claim Jesus did exist.
We are told Satan exists by people who claim Jesus did exist.
We are told the Holy Ghost exists by people who claim Jesus did exist.
We are told the Angel Gabriel exists by people who claim Jesus did exist.

The same people who claim Jesus did exist have DENIED the existence of ALL other Gods and sons of Gods like Jupiter, Zeus, Romulus, Remus, Mars, Aesclapius, Dionysius, Hercules, Perseus and Apollo.

The inconsistency of the HJ argument is blatant.

It is, if this is true. People who believe in the Holy Ghost, Gabe etc, believe that Jesus existed. Therefore all people who believe that Jesus existed believe in God, the Holy Ghost, Gabe etc. There's no point in arguing with that.

 

[Belz...]

Is that enough to think he (Jesus) was more likely than not? I don't think it is.

As I said before, that's a rational conclusion to take. My beef is simply with how you apply different standards depending on the person's importance. I think we've covered this topic for now, however. Perhaps later we'll both think of a new angle to discuss this from.

 

[Belz...]

Correction - in post #1256, where it says

....who will "rise up from below", in some sort of symbolic act of salivation ...

that word should of course have been “salvation” (not salivation lol)

I don't know. I think 'salivation' works even better.

 

[Belz...]

It is, if this is true. People who believe in the Holy Ghost, Gabe etc, believe that Jesus existed. Therefore all people who believe that Jesus existed believe in God, the Holy Ghost, Gabe etc. There's no point in arguing with that.

If we threw away scientific theories developed by theists we'd be in deep ****.

 

[dejudge]

I've been following that policy, for that very reason, for a long time now. I'm glad to note it meets with your approval. But in the field of repetition of things many times you are not worthy to carry the sandals of another contributor to this thread. Behold! It is, if this is true. People who believe in the Holy Ghost, Gabe etc, believe that Jesus existed. Therefore all people who believe that Jesus existed believe in God, the Holy Ghost, Gabe etc. There's no point in arguing with that.

What bizarre nonsense you post.

The people who claimed Jesus existed did also claim God and the Holy Ghost exist.

You forget that we have the CREED of the Jesus cult of Christians.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

And [we believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.

Through him all things were made. For us, humans, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. He rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who in unity with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. [We believe] in one holy universal and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Your supposed HJ [a mere man with a human father] is FICTION.

Your supposed HJ NEVER EVER Existed.

 

[Craig B]

What bizarre nonsense you post.

The people who claimed Jesus existed did also claim God and the Holy Ghost exist.

You forget that we have the CREED of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Your supposed HJ [a mere man with a human father] is FICTION.

Your supposed HJ NEVER EVER Existed.

I hope, dejudge, that this post is not intended to convince me that you do not in fact repeat things many times.

If the HJ is FICTION, what about the CREED Jesus, whom Christians believe exists along WITH God and the Holy GHOST? Does the creed JESUS exist?

 

[dejudge]

I hope, dejudge, that this post is not intended to convince me that you do not in fact repeat things many times.

If the HJ is FICTION, what about the CREED Jesus, whom Christians believe exists along WITH God and the Holy GHOST? Does the creed JESUS exist?

The Jesus of the Church is NOT your supposed HJ [a mere man with a human father].

The Jesus of the NT is NOT your supposed HJ [a mere man with a human father]

Jesus of the Church and NT was GOD from the beginning.

Your supposed HJ is a recent modern FICTION.

The people who claimed Jesus existed ALSO claimed God and the Holy Ghost exist.

The same people claimed God the Father, God the Ghost and God the Son are ONE and the same substance.

Jesus the Son cannot be separated from God the Father and God the Ghost

On the Trinity

4. Wherefore, our Lord God helping, we will undertake to render, as far as we are able, that very account which they so importunately demand: viz., that the Trinity is the one and only and true God, and also how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are rightly said, believed, understood, to be of one and the same substance or essence

It is clear that those who claim Jesus was a separate entity [a mare man with a human father] using the NT are writing FICTION.

The NT does not support the modern invented HJ.

 

[IanS]

As I said before, that's a rational conclusion to take. My beef is simply with how you apply different standards depending on the person's importance. I think we've covered this topic for now, however. Perhaps later we'll both think of a new angle to discuss this from.

Well when we say "different standards", we are talking about the evidence claimed by bible scholars. And that evidence is the writing of anonymous un-evidenced religious beliefs in the bible.

That may be a standard of evidence acceptable to bible scholars, but I don't think there is any good reason why the rest of the world should be bound by a standard as poor as that. And especially not for a figure whose existence transcends a mere niche subject in academia, and actually underpins the existence of a Christian church which has direct power & influence within some of the most powerful governments and ruling monarchy’s around the world.

For a figure like that, I think we are entitled to require a rather higher standard than is offered as evidence from the bible.

Richard Carrier again had something to say about those standards in his book "Proving History". And it's something he has repeated in almost all his You Tube debates and discussions ever since (and no doubt repeated also in his most recent peer-reviewed book, "On the Historicity of Jesus"). And what he says is this - when he began writing Proving History he decided first to examine the methods being used by bible scholars to asses the evidence of all of that ancient writing about Jesus in both the biblical texts and in the non-biblical texts, i.e. methods such as "criteria of embarrassment, “multiple attestation“, “Aramaic context “, etc. (Carrier lists 18 such methods that have been used to claim evidence of Jesus ; page 121, Proving History).

And of that, Carrier says he checked the research literature for all the academics who had examined those methods being used by bible scholars. And Carrier says that without exception, every single one of those academics concluded that the methods were fallacious and not valid.

There's a lot more to say about why we should ask for a higher standard of evidence than the bible scholars are offering, but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[maximara]

Perhaps, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about requiring MORE evidence for characters with more historical importance, something I disagree with. Whether or not your statement above is true is irrelevant to that.

Why? The issue is Jesus on par with other historical of supposed equal status. Look who the evidence for Jesus is often compared to; people for whom the evidence is in far better shape.

Why do some scholars compare Jesus to Alexander the Great, Socrates, or some other major personage when the evidence is actual on par with that for Robin Hood or King Arthur?

It is NOT that the mythists are for MORE evidence of OTHER historical persons of similar or even LESSER importance but that Jesus be held tot he SAME standards as those other figures. Which he is NOT.

Another problems is that the Christians were the one doing the copying for whatever reason failed to salvage key documents.

* Philo (ca. 25 BCE - ca. 50 CE): In nearly every list of people who should have mentioned Jesus but didn't appears Philo. Philo had strong connection to both the Priesthood in Judea and Herodian Dynasty; even if he himself didn't live in Jerusalem he had communication with those who did. Philo's Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE) is known to have covered at least five volumes including one entire volume that covered Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea in detail which was NOT the two works the Christians preserved and if

* Philo did mention Jesus the Christian copyists didn't preserve it. This became such a problem that Eusebius in his The History of the Church created the elaborate fiction that Philo not only knew the apostles but met Peter himself in Rome.

* Damis, author of Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher and mystic who was a contemporary with Jesus.
Pliny the Elder, who wrote, in 80 CE, a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor. Pliny the Elder also wrote a History of Rome from 31 to then present day (sometime before his death in 79) with a volume for each year which the Christians didn't perverse.

* Seneca the Younger's On Superstition (c40 - c62) which covered every cult in Rome was not preserved. The only reason we know it did NOT talk about Christianity at all is Augustine in the 4th century complained about it. But if the book could have been as early as 40 CE that would have made perfect sense so Augustine's issue only makes sense if the work was near the 62 CE date. Seneca's lack of mention was sufficiently troublesome to some early Christians that they forged correspondence between Seneca and Paul of Tarsus. Jerome, in de Viris Illustribus 12, and Augustine, in Epistle 153.4 ad Macedonium, both refer to the forged communication.

* Juvenal, Martial, Petronius, and Persius, Roman satirists who favored topics similar to Jesus's story.

* Cassius Dio's Roman History has the sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE missing.
Pausanias, whose massive Guide to Greece includes mentions of thousands of names, including minor Jewish figures in Palestine.
Historians Epictetus and Aelius Aristides, who both recorded events and people in Palestine.

* Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero which would have documented the active persecution of Christians by Nero was not preserved.

* Tacitus: the entire section covering 29-31 CE of the Annals “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.”

Note in a world of hand copied documents you don't need a conspiratory but just one copyist early enough along the process to not copy the work.

To be fair to the Christian copyists, as James Burke related in the "A Matter of Fact" episode of The Day the Universe Changed Christian copyists had a load of problems finding what they did bother to copy.

There wasn't enough knowledge in any one monastery to separate the works into separate subjects or categories. Texts had their titles inscribed on page edges or on the first page of the book, and those titles often said little about the contents of the text. Worst of all the "library" was more often than not a spare room where anything extra got dumped a "medieval Higgledy-piggledy" as Burke puts it. Burke's example, Sermones Bonventurae (Sermons of St. Bonaventure) shows just what kind of mess things were. This book could be

Sermons composed by St Bonaventure of Fidenza

Sermons composed by somebody called Bonaventure

Sermons copied by a Bonaventure

Sermons copied by somebody belonging to church of St. Bonaventure

Sermons preached by a Bonaventure

Sermons once owned by a Bonaventure

Sermons once owned by church of St. Bonaventure

Sermons by various people of whom the first or most important was by somebody called Bonaventure--the rest of the book? No clue.

With this kind of filing system it is clear why the claim Christians were actively destroying what had been saved from the collapse of Rome is insane...odds are they didn't know what they had in the first place. In fact it was due to the Renaissance and interest in the Classical world that many copies of Greek and Roman works that monasteries didn't even know they had were as Burke put it "saved from the mildew and the rats". And even then some works were missed; for example, Books IV–X of Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies was found in a monastery of Mount Athos in 1842!

Still there is a pattern and a disturbing one at that.

And THAT is the issue.

 

[IanS]

Behold! It is, if this is true. People who believe in the Holy Ghost, Gabe etc, believe that Jesus existed. Therefore all people who believe that Jesus existed believe in God, the Holy Ghost, Gabe etc. There's no point in arguing with that.

I don't know if dejudge has actually said that to you (i.e. your highlight), but can you quote anyone else here who has ever said anything remotely like that to you in these threads?

The only person here who I know of who has made that suggestion (repeatedly), is you yourself!

 

[IanS]

Perhaps, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about requiring MORE evidence for characters with more historical importance, something I disagree with. Whether or not your statement above is true is irrelevant to that.

Why? The issue is Jesus on par with other historical of supposed equal status. Look who the evidence for Jesus is often compared to; people for whom the evidence is in far better shape.

Why do some scholars compare Jesus to Alexander the Great, Socrates, or some other major personage when the evidence is actual on par with that for Robin Hood or King Arthur?
It is NOT that the mythists are for MORE evidence of OTHER historical persons of similar or even LESSER importance but that Jesus be held tot he SAME standards as those other figures. Which he is NOT.

And THAT is the issue.

I think the evidence of Jesus (such as it is) is actually more on par with that of gods such as Osiris, Romulus, and Dionysus ... i.e. much more on par with figures who were said to be constantly supernatural in almost every significant mention of them.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, the evidence outside the bibble is unconvincing, to say the least. I think it's safe to say that, within the bible, Paul and Mark are the only actual sources we have, and Paul tells us he never met Jesus, only his disciples.

Within the Bible there are no actual sources for an historical Jesus.

gMark tell us that Jesus of Nazareth was a Transfiguring Water Walker who was raised from the dead.

The Pauline Corpus tell us that Jesus was God Creator, the Lord from heaven, was God's Own Son who was raised from dead and that dead people will meet Jesus in the AIR he blows a trumpet.

Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character in all sources.

Jesus of Nazareth is found ONLY in myth/fiction fables.

 

[Mcreal]

I think the evidence of Jesus (such as it is) is actually more on par with that of gods such as Osiris, Romulus, and Dionysus ... i.e. much more on par with figures who were said to be constantly supernatural in almost every significant mention of them.

Jesus is on par with Serapis, the god either (i) literally created out of Osiris's image, or (ii) co-opted by Ptolemy I Soter; or both. There are various assertions of the true origin of Serapis. The cult of Serapis had it's genesis with Ptolemy Soter.

After the death of Alexander the Great, Ptolemy Soter made efforts to integrate Egyptian religion with that of their Hellenic rulers through a deity that should win the reverence alike of both groups. There had been various problems: eg. curses of Egyptian priests against the gods of the previous foreign rulers, such as 'Set', who was lauded by the Hyksos. Alexander the Great*had attempted to use Amun for this purpose, but Amun was more prominent in Upper Egypt, and not as popular with those in*Lower Egypt, where the Greeks had stronger influence.

The Greeks had little respect for animal-headed figures, so a Greek-style anthropomorphic statue was chosen as the idol, and proclaimed as the equivalent of the highly popular Apis. It was named 'Aser-hapi'(i.e. Osiris-Apis), which became Sarapis/Serapis, and was said to be Osiris in full, rather than just his 'Ka' (life force).

Serapsi ('king of the deep') had supposedly been significant in the Hellenic psyche, through involvement in Alexander's death, and this is said to have contributed to the development of Osiris-Apis as the chief Ptolemaic god.

Apis may have been portrayed as a bull or a sacrificed calf, and variously became Serapis when dead.

 

[dejudge]

Jesus is on par with Jewish, Greek/Roman mythology.

Romulus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, when he died night was turned into day, his dead body vanished but he resurrected, was seen by people after the resurrection and then ascended to heaven.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

Also, like Jesus there are multiple irreconcilable versions of the Romulus story.

Examine Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho".

Justin Martyr admitted the Jesus story is NO different to Greek mythology.

 

[dejudge]

..... I think the safest conclusion is just to say that whilst he might have lived, there is actually no evidence of that ... and the best conclusion is then to say that it's impossible to make any meaningful guess as to any probability of whether he was more likely, or less likely, or any such guess at any likelihood all.

The safest thing to say is what is actually written.

This is safe to say--it is written in gMatthew.

Jesus was born AFTER his mother was found with child of a Ghost.

This is safe to say--it is written in gMark.

Jesus TRANSFIGURED after he WALKED on water.


This is safe to say--it is written in gJohn.

Jesus the Logos was God and the Creator.

This is safe to say--it is written in Acts of the Apostles.

Jesus ASCENDED IN A CLOUD AFTER the Resurrection.

This is safe to say--it is written in the Pauline Corpus that Jesus was the Lord from heaven.

It is extremely safe to say and well corroborated that Jesus is described as a myth/fiction character in the NT.

It can be easily and safely argued that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of myth/fiction .

 

[Mcreal]

Jesus is on par with Jewish, Greek/Roman mythology.

Except the Serapis scenario shows Egyptian and Greco-Roman mythology had, to a significant degree, been fused by the time the Jesus narrative was being formulated and developed.

Moreover, the cult of Serapis was spreading through the Roman Empire at that time (particularly in the East), as was Mithraism (some in the East, but more centrally and to the west). Both were creating archaeological records in the 2nd and 3rd centuries when Christianity was not.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus the Son cannot be separated from God the Father and God the Ghost.

One day, dejudge, you will be Pope.