The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

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

One day, dejudge, you will be Pope.

Craig B, what Penultimate Amazing propaganda, fiction and false prophecy you post.

You and the Pope use the childish foolish myth fables called the New Testament to argue that Jesus did exist.

You may qualify to be the Pope because you have defended the writings of the Mother Church for years. You are BLESSED because you BELIEVE Jesus existed WITHOUT seeing him and WITHOUT evidence.

You and the Pope have FAITH that the New Testament is a credible historical source for Jesus.

Your FAITH that Jesus existed is based on the writings of the Holy Mother Church.

You and the Pope will not tell us that the Jesus stories are childish foolish myth/fiction.

Against the Galileans

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

You and the Pope will NOT admit that the stories of Jesus were VAMPED up by men who were LIARS.

Against Hierocles

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards

The HJ argument is the very worst argument known to mankind since it is based on known childish foolish fiction and LIES for at least 1600 years.

And it gets worse, the Jesus cult Christians SLAUGHTERED other cults of Christians who REJECTED their childish foolish FICTION.


Against the Galileans

....you emulate the rages and the bitterness of the Jews, overturning temples and altars, and you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics, because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves.

 

[Belz...]

Why? The issue is Jesus on par with other historical of supposed equal status.

I think you just didn't follow the conversation between IanS and myself. IanS says that we need _more_ evidence for Jesus than for another character because he's more historically important. I disagree with that notion, and for now I don't think either IanS or myself is going to be able to convince the other.

 

[Mcreal]

I'd say it would be good to have some suitable evidence for the NT Jesus given the significance the story has, and the fact the vast majority of people world-wide believe he existed.

As it stands; the NT is historically important, but the principle character actually isn't historical

ie. 'He' is not verified by the Historical Method.

 

[IanS]

I think you just didn't follow the conversation between IanS and myself. IanS says that we need _more_ evidence for Jesus than for another character because he's more historically important. I disagree with that notion, and for now I don't think either IanS or myself is going to be able to convince the other.

It does not need to be more evidence, it just needs to much better evidence.

At present there really is no evidence of Jesus himself as human person.

What is presented as the evidence is really only evidence of peoples religious beliefs written in the bible by people who actually had no evidence of this person, except for what they believed other earlier people had once believed (but where those other earlier people never wrote to show any evidence either).

But beyond that - when we compare Jesus to other figures of ancient history, such as Socrates, Pythagoras, or Julius Caesar or whoever, we really are not comparing like-with-like for several absolutely crucial reasons.

The first crucial difference between Jesus and all those other figures, is that Jesus was famous purely and entirely as a supernatural messianic scion of God in the heavens. He did not produce any mathematical equations or any proto-scientific theories attempting to explain why the earth was flat, round or spherical, or explain why substances should all be composed of "atoms". And he did not write any genuine philosophical treatise such as those attributed to famous Greek philosophers. He did not do anything like that at all. Instead he was famous purely and entirely as the constantly miraculous supernatural son of the heavenly God.

The second crucial difference is that none of those other figures has any importance at all today in the daily lives of ordinary people. The existence or otherwise of Socrates is of absolutely zero importance to anyone alive today. Whereas the existence of Jesus, as the entire basis of a worldwide church preaching and insisting on the truth of the holy bible, is of such immense importance that it directly affects the lives of literally everyone on this planet.

So you might ask "why should the importance of any figure dictate the need for better evidence of their existence?". But the answer to that should be obvious to everyone - if the figure does not matter, then nobody outside a niche area of a few academics, is going to bother asking what the evidence really is for that persons existence. So it does not matter if the evidence for a figure like Socrates is weak to the point of non-existence, because nobody actually cares if there is good evidence or not - they simply can't be bothered to argue about it, because it's of virtually no interest to anyone.

But Jesus is the complete opposite. He is vastly important. In fact in his case it's his actual existence itself which is the crucial factor - if Jesus did not really exist, then the entire basis of the Christian church disappears. That's not true for any of those other figures though - in the case of people like Socrates, or Pythagoras, or Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar, or any of them (any of them except for overtly religious figures like Mohamed, that is), what is important to historians (or anyone) about those figures is not their actual existence, but what was said to have been done in their name, i.e. the philosophical movements of the time, such as the Pythagorean Philosophy, or Platoism, or the discoveries such as Pythagoras Theorem, or the building of great monuments and the military conquests of armies sent to fight in different lands (e.g. Romans in Britain). Those things are fully supported by a huge mass of entirely independent historical accounts of the time, and often even by museums filled with the physical artefacts themselves. So it is beyond dispute that whether the emperors name was Julius Caesar or not, some Roman ruler at that date was responsible for sending armies into various battles, and whether his name was Pythagoras or not, someone really did discover that theorem and did start a philosophical movement that became known as the Pythagoreans.

But Jesus is totally unlike any of that. He was not famous for any of those purely human actions. He was famous purely & entirely as a believed supernatural miraculous deity ... a superhuman scion of the heavily God who is sent to earth to guide the faithful and who proves his heavenly origins by rising from the dead and returning to the heavens in full view of everyone. But where nothing at all of his earthly deeds is left behind except for a book of religious preaching-beliefs written by people who gave no actual evidence of anyone ever knowing any such figure, except knowing him as Paul knew him through religious faith.

But in case that 2nd point is somewhat lost in the last two paragraphs - the point is we are not comparing like-with-like when those other figures are compared to Jesus. If those other figures had today the direct importance that Jesus now has, where say Socrates had become the figurehead of a powerful and influential religion, then we certainly would be asking for good reliable evidence of his existence, because a great deal hangs upon it.

The only reason that today nobody outside of a handful of niche academics cares about the evidence for the existence of say Apollonius of Tyana, is because it doesn't matter to anyone if the evidence of his existence is atrocious to the point of non-existence ... because it's of absolutely no consequence.

But the opposite is the case for Jesus, he is not remotely like Apollonius of Tyana in that respect (even though Apollonius is probably the closest in description to the way Jesus was described). So the importance of Jesus, in fact the importance of his actual existence (and not merely what was claimed to have been done in his name), does require very good evidence indeed. It's an extremely important claim which has had monumental and often deadly consequences for vast numbers of people for 2000 years, so it most certainly does require extremely robust and clear evidence ... it certainly requires something far better than a 2000 year old book of the supernatural called the bible which in fact actually has no evidence of Jesus in it anyway.

 

[dejudge]

I think you just didn't follow the conversation between IanS and myself. IanS says that we need _more_ evidence for Jesus than for another character because he's more historically important. I disagree with that notion, and for now I don't think either IanS or myself is going to be able to convince the other.

You have not been following your OWN post. You have already admitted the case for a historical Jesus is weak in a previous post.

...The case for a historical Jesus, weak as it is, is based on more than cherry-picking the bibble.

The Jesus character is nothing more than cherry-picking myth fables called the OT.

 

[Leumas]

It does not need to be more evidence, it just needs to much better evidence.

At present there really is no evidence of Jesus himself as human person.

What is presented as the evidence is really only evidence of peoples religious beliefs written in the bible by people who actually had no evidence of this person, except for what they believed other earlier people had once believed (but where those other earlier people never wrote to show any evidence either).

But beyond that - when we compare Jesus to other figures of ancient history, such as Socrates, Pythagoras, or Julius Caesar or whoever, we really are not comparing like-with-like for several absolutely crucial reasons.

The first crucial difference between Jesus and all those other figures, is that Jesus was famous purely and entirely as a supernatural messianic scion of God in the heavens. He did not produce any mathematical equations or any proto-scientific theories attempting to explain why the earth was flat, round or spherical, or explain why substances should all be composed of "atoms". And he did not write any genuine philosophical treatise such as those attributed to famous Greek philosophers. He did not do anything like that at all. Instead he was famous purely and entirely as the constantly miraculous supernatural son of the heavenly God.

The second crucial difference is that none of those other figures has any importance at all today in the daily lives of ordinary people. The existence or otherwise of Socrates is of absolutely zero importance to anyone alive today. Whereas the existence of Jesus, as the entire basis of a worldwide church preaching and insisting on the truth of the holy bible, is of such immense importance that it directly affects the lives of literally everyone on this planet.

So you might ask "why should the importance of any figure dictate the need for better evidence of their existence?". But the answer to that should be obvious to everyone - if the figure does not matter, then nobody outside a niche area of a few academics, is going to bother asking what the evidence really is for that persons existence. So it does not matter if the evidence for a figure like Socrates is weak to the point of non-existence, because nobody actually cares if there is good evidence or not - they simply can't be bothered to argue about it, because it's of virtually no interest to anyone.

But Jesus is the complete opposite. He is vastly important. In fact in his case it's his actual existence itself which is the crucial factor - if Jesus did not really exist, then the entire basis of the Christian church disappears. That's not true for any of those other figures though - in the case of people like Socrates, or Pythagoras, or Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar, or any of them (any of them except for overtly religious figures like Mohamed, that is), what is important to historians (or anyone) about those figures is not their actual existence, but what was said to have been done in their name, i.e. the philosophical movements of the time, such as the Pythagorean Philosophy, or Platoism, or the discoveries such as Pythagoras Theorem, or the building of great monuments and the military conquests of armies sent to fight in different lands (e.g. Romans in Britain). Those things are fully supported by a huge mass of entirely independent historical accounts of the time, and often even by museums filled with the physical artefacts themselves. So it is beyond dispute that whether the emperors name was Julius Caesar or not, some Roman ruler at that date was responsible for sending armies into various battles, and whether his name was Pythagoras or not, someone really did discover that theorem and did start a philosophical movement that became known as the Pythagoreans.

But Jesus is totally unlike any of that. He was not famous for any of those purely human actions. He was famous purely & entirely as a believed supernatural miraculous deity ... a superhuman scion of the heavily God who is sent to earth to guide the faithful and who proves his heavenly origins by rising from the dead and returning to the heavens in full view of everyone. But where nothing at all of his earthly deeds is left behind except for a book of religious preaching-beliefs written by people who gave no actual evidence of anyone ever knowing any such figure, except knowing him as Paul knew him through religious faith.

But in case that 2nd point is somewhat lost in the last two paragraphs - the point is we are not comparing like-with-like when those other figures are compared to Jesus. If those other figures had today the direct importance that Jesus now has, where say Socrates had become the figurehead of a powerful and influential religion, then we certainly would be asking for good reliable evidence of his existence, because a great deal hangs upon it.

The only reason that today nobody outside of a handful of niche academics cares about the evidence for the existence of say Apollonius of Tyana, is because it doesn't matter to anyone if the evidence of his existence is atrocious to the point of non-existence ... because it's of absolutely no consequence.

But the opposite is the case for Jesus, he is not remotely like Apollonius of Tyana in that respect (even though Apollonius is probably the closest in description to the way Jesus was described). So the importance of Jesus, in fact the importance of his actual existence (and not merely what was claimed to have been done in his name), does require very good evidence indeed. It's an extremely important claim which has had monumental and often deadly consequences for vast numbers of people for 2000 years, so it most certainly does require extremely robust and clear evidence ... it certainly requires something far better than a 2000 year old book of the supernatural called the bible which in fact actually has no evidence of Jesus in it anyway.

 

[Leumas]

What is presented as the evidence is really only evidence of peoples religious beliefs written in the bible by people who actually had no evidence of this person, except for what they believed other earlier people had once believed (but where those other earlier people never wrote to show any evidence either).

Let's not also forget that much of the narrative in the NT could not have had any witnesses.

For example the frolicking Jesus and the Devil did in the wilderness.

For example what Jesus said and did in the garden of Gethsemane when he tried to beg his sky daddy to cancel his scheduled gay BDSM session.

Who could have been a witness to what Zechariah the father of John the Baptist did or saw or thought in the Temple with the angel?

Who could have witnessed what the Holy Casper did or said with and to poor poor Mary?

Who was a witness to the dream of Joseph?

Who witnessed how John the Baptist got so excited when still in Elizabeth's womb when he met Jesus who was also still gestating in Mary's womb?


Does all this NARRATION sound more like a LITERARY TALE… much like a writer of a story like say Beewolf or King Arthur and Merlin would tell us what went through the head of Arthur or what Merlin told Arthur?

Which one of the disciples had god-like oversight powers to be able to observe the Devil's and Jesus' actions and conversations?

Which one of the NOT YET DISCIPLES was there at Jesus' baptism?

Did you read the NT? Did you read how every one of the disciples did not even know who Jesus was when he came to recruit them into his cult?

Did you read the NT? Which one of the disciples saw GOD SPEAKING FROM THE SKY to Jesus and tell him that he is his son and yet later had doubts about who Jesus was... was it Thomas?

So the disciples who have not been born yet were present during the rape session of Mary and saw that it was the Holy Spook indeed who impregnated her?

Some of the disciples could have participated with the very same dream that Joseph had?

While Jesus and John B were inside their mothers' wombs one of the disciples was watching and recording word for word what they said to each other and how the fetus John B was so moved by the presence of the fetus Jesus?

Mary telling the disciples that Jesus is the bastard son of the Holy Casper regardless of how gullible the disciples were does not make the disciples or the gospel writers eyewitnesses to the claim.

Besides the NT does not say that Mary told them that that is what happened… the NT as is written tells the story as if it is what happened… it does not say Mary claimed this… it says this IS what happened.

Mary telling them that Jesus is the result of an adultery and rape session with a phantasmal manifestation of YHWH and given what she had at stake in defending herself is a very doubtable claim.

The disciples later reporting it as if it is what happened without any hint of how it is a claimed report makes it a misleading hearsay of an anecdote at least if not a lie .... and people much later reporting to the people who later reported to the people who wrote the gospels makes it repeated compounded hearsay on top of hearsay on top of an incredible anecdote.

People in the 21st century pathetically and credulously repeating and believing and gullibly defending the fabulous compounded hearsay on top of hearsay of incredible anecdotes is nothing but a humongous shame and insult to rationality and logic and sanity and intelligence.

Seriously? What Christians? There were no Christians yet… at that time they were still a handful of peripatetic beggars and filthy jobless hobos going around begging and telling people the world is about to end. Much like many of the crazy people we see on street corners and parks in big cities like New York and London and Paris and Athens and Istanbul and Los Angeles etc.

And what is a "SOLDIER sympathetic to Christians" doing still soldiering in the service of a despotic tyrant? Why was he not hoboing around with Jesus?

A SOLDIER sympathetic to the yet nonexistent Christianity who is GREEDY and COWARDLY and pathetic enough to still be soldiering in a despot’s army telling the disciples what could have been fabricated stuff to curry favors or even deceive does not make the disciples or the gospel writers eyewitnesses to the claim.

Besides the NT does not say that an unnamed nice soldier told them that that is what happened… The NT as is written tells the story as if it is what happened… it does not say a soldier still working for a despot despite being a nice soldier claimed this... it says this IS what happened.

A soldier telling them what could have been a fabricated tall tale to gain favor or even mislead and the disciples later reporting it as if it is what happened without any hint of how it is a claimed report makes it a misleading hearsay of an anecdote at least if not a lie .... and people much later reporting to the people who later reported to the people who wrote the gospels makes it repeated compounded hearsay on top of hearsay on top of an anecdote.

People in the 21st century pathetically and credulously repeating and believing and gullibly defending the fabulous compounded hearsay on top of hearsay of incredible anecdotes is nothing but a humongous shame and insult to rationality and logic and sanity and intelligence.

You do know that Luke was not a disciple...right?

Luke 1:1-4

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.​

Notice how Luke does not claim that he was a witness himself... nor does he even say that he was there at the time.

He claims to have "perfect understanding" of what has been "set forth" by those people who have been "delivered" those "facts" which THEY BELIEVE and those "facts" have been "delivered" to them from those who were witnesses.

So Luke is saying that he was not a witness and he says he was not a disciple. He also is saying that he did not talk to the disciples or witnesses himself.

He only says that he has a "perfect understanding" of those early "facts" and thus wishes to write his own EXPLICATION of the accounts that "they delivered them unto us" so that Theophilus can understand them more clearly.

Yet there is not a single verse in Luke’s god-spiel that says "so and so said this is what happened" or "it was claimed that this occurred" or "so and so said this and I have these proofs for it" or "it was wrongly claimed this and that which I have verified to have been not true because of the following".

Instead he just writes his god-spiel as if he were there and he were telling us pure facts that he knew for sure first hand were true.

For example

Luke 1:5

1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea Long long ago in a land far far away, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.​

Does this sound like a REPORT or a TALE?

In the stuff below… how does Luke know that an angel did in fact appear to Zacharias? Which of the so called witnesses was in the temple with Zacharias to verify the “fact”? Could Zacharias have been fibbing? Could he have been delusional?

How did Luke verify the veracity of the TALE even if it had been handed down by the so called witnesses which Luke only knows about from the people the alleged witnesses purportedly told it to?

It is quite obvious that the “witnesses” were not even born by that time.

So the “witnesses” were only reporting a TALE they heard from other people… and Luke heard those tales from people who claim the witnesses told them… so Luke was reporting HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY UPON HEARSAY and making it appear as if it is pure fact which he claims he had “perfect understanding” of and he wants Theophilus to believe it too as if it were real true facts.

Which of the “witnesses” was there to transcribe the details of the “he said and he answered” between Zacharias and Gabriel?

So the purported witnesses are alleged to have heard the claimed tale and to have supposedly retold it to the people who claim to have heard it from the so called witnesses and from there Luke managed to get a "perfect understanding" of these anecdotes of hearsay of anecdotes of hearsay.

How did those “witnesses” get into the head of Zacharias to know he was troubled? How did they get into the heads of the multitude to verify that they did in fact think Zacharias had seen a vision?

Does all this sound more like a LITERARY TALE… much like a writer of a story like say Beewolf or King Arthur and Merlin would tell us what went through the head of Arthur or what Merlin told Arthur?

Luke 1:11-23

1:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
1:12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

1:22 And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
1:23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.​

 

[Mcreal]

The Jesus character is nothing more than cherry-picking myth fables called the OT.

To clarify, the Jesus character (of the NT) is an elaboration of myth fables of the OT with added Greco-Egyptian concepts, such as a human aspect to the a savior god, and a resurrection narrative for that human-god as a form of salvation for the masses, among others.

 

[dejudge]

To clarify, the Jesus character (of the NT) is an elaboration of myth fables of the OT with added Greco-Egyptian concepts, such as a human aspect to the a savior god, and a resurrection narrative for that human-god as a form of salvation for the masses, among others.

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr did admit that his Jesus story was NO different to those of Greeks/Romans.

Justin's Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

Justin's First Apology

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

Tertullian has ALREADY explained the nature and origin of his Jesus.

On the Flesh of Christ

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Jesus was GOD Creator who ASSUMED Flesh--NOT man who was assumed to be God.

 

[Leumas]

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr did admit that his Jesus story was NO different to those of Greeks/Romans.

Justin's Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

Justin's First Apology

Tertullian has ALREADY explained the nature and origin of his Jesus.

On the Flesh of Christ

Jesus was GOD Creator who ASSUMED Flesh--NOT man who was assumed to be God.

Exactly!!

 

[maximara]

I think you just didn't follow the conversation between IanS and myself. IanS says that we need _more_ evidence for Jesus than for another character because he's more historically important. I disagree with that notion, and for now I don't think either IanS or myself is going to be able to convince the other.

I didn't get that from IanS at all. I got a the impression of more evidence for Jesus just to bring him up to par with other characters who are pronounced as historical.

No, it was clear. I simply disagree that testimony in court isn't evidence. I think that all of it is evidence. Some of it support guilt, the rest does not, and it is the preponderance of evidence which will determine the verdict (in theory). I think it should be the same here.

We had a LONG talk about this regarding hearsay and how in general it is NOT allowed in a court criminal, civil, or military

History has a LOT more wiggle room that then but still there are aspects of the the historical method that are just crap with regards to Jesus:


First, all other things being equal the closer a piece of evidence is to event in question the better it is regarded. These levels of evidence are:

1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened -- documents, media accounts, eyewitness accounts, etc.

2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that uses contemporary evidence from the contemporary record that has since been lost, such as histories written in ancient times.

3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known phenomena of the time.

---

At ALL of these levels the evidence for Jesus is in trouble.

Contemporary evidence is non existent; anything to show what we have Derivative evidence is useless and the Comparative evidence is a train wreck in terms of known historical data (how the Romans behaved case in point)

----

Historians evaluate this available evidence in two main ways:

Source criticism

This covers determining the reliability of a given source, procedures regarding contradictory evidence, and quality of possible eyewitness evidence including indirect witnesses and oral tradition.

Synthesis: historical reasoning

This covers argument to the best explanation (ie Which competing theory is more likely to explain a given bit of evidence?) sometimes using statistical inference and-or argument from analogy.

---

Synthesis: historical reasoning is where the whole Jesus issue falls over out of the starting gate with two broken legs. Reasoning seems to have have gone out the window here.

 

[maximara]

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr did admit that his Jesus story was NO different to those of Greeks/Romans.

Right and in that time the stories of the Greeks/Romans were believed to be exaggerations or the result of apotheosis of real living people.

Justin's Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

And some stories of Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato had them being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people. So this is no big deal as I said before an unusual birth (to a woman thought to be barren, past child baring age, or a virgin) seems to have been a way to show the soon to be demonstrated "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual".

It was SYMBOLIC no more meant to be literally then being born with a silver spoon in the mouth. Do we asked if the silver spoon someone had in their mouth when they were born silver or plate? No because we know it is symbolic; same thing with the virgin birth.

"He [Cerinthus] represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. " - Irenaeus (c180) Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 26, Paragraph 1

"while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him" - Irenaeus (c180) Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 11, Paragraph 3

As I said before can NOT look just at the sect of Christianity that ultimately won the conflict but ALL sects. Unless you buy into Carrier's cosmic sperm bank idea then Paul is talking about a HUMAN Jesus in Romans 1:1 being born "from the seed of David, according to the flesh" (the belief at the time was that women were the earth into which men planted their seed so here Paul expressly states that Jesus link to David is through the male line ie Joseph...though admittedly the original Greek here is strange to say the least) Paul is clearly trying to sale his readers on a Jesus who had normal parents but at the same time was the divinely chosen of God. Heck, in Galatians 4:4 Paul stated “God sent his Son, born of a woman” using the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin).


Irenaeus shows there WERE sect of Christianity that said Jesus was simply a man inspired by God. Other sects said that the essence of God entered Jesus when he was baptized with the souls of Jesus and God in some kind of weird timeshare in the body of Jesus. (hey, I said it was weird). Still other sects said that Jesus was born the normal way but God put his essence in what was originally a soulless shell (making Jesus God but eliminating the whole virgin birth thing)

 

[Leumas]

Right and in that time the stories of the Greeks/Romans were believed to be exaggerations or the result of apotheosis of real living people.



And some stories of Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato had them being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people. So this is no big deal as I said before an unusual birth (to a woman thought to be barren, past child baring age, or a virgin) seems to have been a way to show the soon to be demonstrated "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual".

It was SYMBOLIC no more meant to be literally then being born with a silver spoon in the mouth. Do we asked if the silver spoon someone had in their mouth when they were born silver or plate? No because we know it is symbolic; same thing with the virgin birth.

"He [Cerinthus] represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. " - Irenaeus (c180) Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 26, Paragraph 1

"while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him" - Irenaeus (c180) Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 11, Paragraph 3

As I said before can NOT look just at the sect of Christianity that ultimately won the conflict but ALL sects. Unless you buy into Carrier's cosmic sperm bank idea then Paul is talking about a HUMAN Jesus in Romans 1:1 being born "from the seed of David, according to the flesh" (the belief at the time was that women were the earth into which men planted their seed so here Paul expressly states that Jesus link to David is through the male line ie Joseph...though admittedly the original Greek here is strange to say the least) Paul is clearly trying to sale his readers on a Jesus who had normal parents but at the same time was the divinely chosen of God. Heck, in Galatians 4:4 Paul stated “God sent his Son, born of a woman” using the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin).


Irenaeus shows there WERE sect of Christianity that said Jesus was simply a man inspired by God. Other sects said that the essence of God entered Jesus when he was baptized with the souls of Jesus and God in some kind of weird timeshare in the body of Jesus. (hey, I said it was weird). Still other sects said that Jesus was born the normal way but God put his essence in what was originally a soulless shell (making Jesus God but eliminating the whole virgin birth thing)

And every single one of these people was expressing his opinions much like historicists are doing right now 1900 years later.

For all we know they were all opinionating and rationalizing the FABLES they heard from people who heard from people who heard... much like comics fans or Harry Potter Fans argue today.

And every single one of these people's OPINIONS carried as much historical weight as does that of historicists today.

Not a single one of those people knew anything based on any facts other than OPINIONS and factionally motivated bare assertions and rationalizations as historicists are doing today.

 

[dejudge]

Writings attributed to Justin Martyr did admit that his Jesus story was NO different to those of Greeks/Romans.

Right and in that time the stories of the Greeks/Romans were believed to be exaggerations or the result of apotheosis of real living people.

So, God Creator, Satan, the Holy Ghost and the Angel Gabriel were believed to be figures of history.

1.Satan was with Jesus in Jerusalem during the Temptation.

2.The Angel Gabriel was in converstation with Mary in Galilee.

3. The Holy Ghost impregnated Mary.

4. Jesus was God Creator.

Mis-guided beliefs have ZERO effect on the myth/fiction characters called God, Satan, Angels and Jesus the Lord from heaven.

Jesus cult Christians did admit THEIR Jesus had NO human father.

Jesus cult Christians did ADMIT that the historical Jesus was a Big Lie.

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

There was NEVER any established historical data for Jesus of Nazareth as a mere man.

Jesus of Nazareth was BELIEVED to have existed as a God, as a Ghost and as a man from the beginning.

It must be obvious that a God/Ghost/man is a fiction/myth character and may appear to be a God, then a Ghost or as a man.

Jesus cult Christians worshiped God the father , God the Ghost and God the son.

 

[IanS]

Just as a tentative observation, and it might amount to nothing suspicious, but having just looked at the particular sentence from Antiquities 20, which says “so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,...” ... I notice that it’s structure is remarkably similar to the structure of Paul’s sentence where his letter says “other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother."

I have remarked several times before that the sentence in Paul's letter has a structure which makes it appear to be composed of a series additional afterthoughts. That is - it's as if the original author ("Paul") had at first only written "other apostles saw I none”. And then as if in an afterthought somebody has added "save James”. And after that, as if someone has added another explanatory afterthought thinking it was necessary to explain who James was by adding “the lords brother".

Just to emphasise that structure in Paul's letter, I'll just repeat it below colour coding the additional stages of apparent afterthought -

“other apostles saw I none, ... save James ... the Lords brother."
​

OK, so now compare that to the passage in Antiquities 20 where it says “so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,...” .

So that sentence starts by saying “so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus ” ... and then as if in an explanatory afterthought someone adds “ who was called Christ , as if to explain which "Jesus" was being talked about. And then as a further explanatory afterthought somebody adds "“whose name was James,...”, as if he thought it was necessary to explain to people who the brother of Christ was.

Again, below I'll just emphasise that structure in Antiquities 20 by colour coding the additional stages of apparent afterthought -

“so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, ... who was called Christ, ... whose name was James”​

Of course it might all be completely innocent and may just be the way that Paul, and then Josephus tended to write as if in a series of explanatory afterthoughts.

But a series of explanatory afterthoughts like that might also indicate the hand of later copyists adding successive interpolations. Perhaps for example (as I think several sceptical authors have suggested about other passages) starting first just as a single explanatory marginalia, which later gets incorporated into the main text ... and then at some later date another explanatory marginalia is thought necessary, and then later still that too gets put into the main text.

 

[dejudge]

...Of course it might all be completely innocent and may just be the way that Paul, and then Josephus tended to write as if in a series of explanatory afterthoughts.

Again, we have no writings from Paul if it is argued that Paul lived in the time of King Aretas.

ALL the letters under the name of Paul are dated to the 2nd century or later.

In addition, the letter entitled to the Galatians does NOT identify a character call Jesus in Galatians 1.19.

The passage in Galatians that is denoted as Galatians 1.19 uses the NOMINA SACRA for the LORD GOD of the Jews.

The earliest Greek manuscripts Papyri 46 mentions an Apostle James the brother of the LORD GOD.

The Lord God is NOT OBSCURE HJ.

The Lord God in Galatians 1.19 is NOT a figure of history.

The Lord God is a myth/fiction character found in the Greek Septuagint.

We have images of Galatians 1 of Papyri 46 and it does NOT mention anywhere at all James was the brother of Jesus.

http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-2.html

It is time to stop the propaganda and chinese whispers by modern heretics.

Anyone who knows Koine Greek will quickly see that Jesus is NOT mentioned in Galatians 1.19.

The HJ argument is the very worst known to mankind.

The God of the Jews is LORD.

Deuteronomy 6:4 ---Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord

Please, help stop the propaganda.

The LORD GOD in Galatians 1.19 is NOT obscure HJ.

 

[maximara]

Of course it might all be completely innocent and may just be the way that Paul, and then Josephus tended to write as if in a series of explanatory afterthoughts.

From what I have seen neither Paul or Josephus wrote like this:

Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. - Josephus

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, - Paul

Note the structure of the above. Both Josephus and Paul get things explained up front

But a series of explanatory afterthoughts like that might also indicate the hand of later copyists adding successive interpolations. Perhaps for example (as I think several sceptical authors have suggested about other passages) starting first just as a single explanatory marginalia, which later gets incorporated into the main text ... and then at some later date another explanatory marginalia is thought necessary, and then later still that too gets put into the main text.

I agree that there is something way wonky about the structure of both passages referring to James but does this structure appear in the Greek or is it an artifact of transliterating an awkward sentence structure ('I threw myself down the stairs a bucket' is one such transliterating example from German to English)?

 

[Craig B]

The earliest Greek manuscripts Papyri 46 mentions an Apostle James the brother of the LORD GOD.

Of God? That is interesting. Can you cite the wording, including the word God, for I did not know that.

 

[IanS]

I agree that there is something way wonky about the structure of both passages referring to James but does this structure appear in the Greek or is it an artifact of transliterating an awkward sentence structure ('I threw myself down the stairs a bucket' is one such transliterating example from German to English)?

Yes, of course that's possible.

Though I suppose that's a potential problem with all the translations that any of us here are using. I.e., the translations that we see may be misleading, or even simply wrong, for a variety of reasons.

E.g., in Carrier's books, he has quite frequent examples where he says that he has checked what words were actually written in the original extant manuscripts, and crucial words are often different to what appears in the usual translations given by bible scholars or at sites like Bible Gateway, and where the word that was originally used could mean several different things.

E.g. the word that was used to say Jesus was a “carpenter” ... or the word that was used in the Book of Zechariah to describe "Joshua" as being called either "Branch" or "Rising" (the book of Zechariah is said to date from 520 BC, ie 500 years before Paul, and it actually names "Joshua", i.e. "Jesus", as a pre-existent celestial being who is the Son of God, and who seems to have been somehow killed in an act that is supposed to symbolise how God will save the souls of the people of Judah ... i.e. virtually identical to what Paul wrote 500 years later as his visionary belief in Jesus/"Joshua" as a figure he knew “according to scripture“ (or at least that is how Carrier interprets & translates those passages in Zechariah).

 

[Mcreal]

E.g. the word that was used to say Jesus was a “carpenter” ... or the word that was used in the Book of Zechariah to describe "Joshua" as being called either "Branch" or "Rising" (the book of Zechariah is said to date from 520 BC, ie 500 years before Paul, and it actually names "Joshua", i.e. "Jesus", as a pre-existent celestial being who is the Son of God, and who seems to have been somehow killed in an act that is supposed to symbolise how God will save the souls of the people of Judah ... ie. virtually identical to what Paul wrote 500 years later as his visionary belief in Jesus/"Joshua" as a figure he knew “according to scripture“ (or at least that is how Carrier interprets & translates those passages in Zechariah).

and the Hebrew word for branch, n-ts-r/ne.tser/natser/natsar, etc also means a shoot, or 'a descendant'

and n-ts-r/natser transliterates to nazir, from which we get nazirite/nazarite; meaning 'under a vow'/'consecrated'/vow of 'separation'/'crowned'.

Natzeret is the word netzer plus the feminine ending, designated by the letter Tav

and Nazeroth is the feminine plural

ie. the NT is an elaboration of the OT narratives.