The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

1. We have "Against Heresies" 2 attributed to Irenaeus.
2. We have gLuke.
3. We have the dates for the reign of Tiberius.
4. We can do maths.

In "Against Heresies" 2 it is argued that those who claim Jesus was crucified at 30 years of age based on gLuke made a mistake of 20 years.


Against Heresies 2.22

For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.

For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed Jesus, the son of the Ghost, was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius as STATED in gLUKE.

Against Heresies 2

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it..

Luke 3.1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar

Luke 3. 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius

Tiberius reign began c 14 CE so Jesus, the son of the Ghost, in gLuke is about 30 years of age c 29 CE.

In "Against Heresies" it is implied Jesus was crucified around 20 years AFTER he was about 30 years old or 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius.

In France, at the Church of Lyons, it was preached and taught that Jesus was crucified at an OLD age c 49 CE.

"Against Heresies" has single-handedly destroyed the NT Canon including the Pauline Corpus.

The myth/fiction fables of Jesus and Paul varied with geographic location.

In the 2nd century, if you were in LYONS, it would be taught in the Church that Jesus would still be alive up to at least the 8th year of Claudius.

Paul could NOT have preached Christ Crucified in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE if Jesus was crucified c 44 or 49 CE in the time of Claudius.

 

[Mcreal]

Read Book III, Chapter 11 and find out some of them

It's got a mixture of theologies: the Demiurge; the Son of the Demiurge; "this world was made, was produced from the Mother".

The reference to Soter is interesting, too.

... But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge. For he (Soter) caused such similitudes to be made, after the pattern of things above, as they allege; but the Demiurge accomplished the work of creation. For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:14

3. But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Æons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if anyone carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; while others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, And the Word "was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:14

The role of alcohol -

5. That wine, which was produced by God in a vineyard, and which was first consumed, was good. None John 2:3 of those who drank of it found fault with it; and the Lord partook of it also. But that wine was better which the Word made from water, on the moment, and simply for the use of those who had been called to the marriage.

 

[maximara]

1. We have "Against Heresies" 2 attributed to Irenaeus.
2. We have gLuke.
3. We have the dates for the reign of Tiberius.
4. We can do maths.

In "Against Heresies" 2 it is argued that those who claim Jesus was crucified at 30 years of age based on gLuke made a mistake of 20 years.


Against Heresies 2.22

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed Jesus, the son of the Ghost, was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius as STATED in gLUKE.

Right and asI said a LONG time ago since these ruling years were inclusive and did NOT begin January 1 things are not as you paint them.

The first year of Tiberius would have been September 18, 14 CE to September 17, 15 CE meaning the 15th year of Tiberius was September 18, 28 CE to September 17, 29 CE.

The "about 30 years old" could mean as young as 26 or as old as 34.

Tiberius reign began c 14 CE so Jesus, the son of the Ghost, in gLuke is about 30 years of age c 29 CE.

Actually as above Jesus is about 30 years of age (26-34) somewhere in the period September 18, 28 CE to September 17, 29 CE. Three and a half of those months are in 28 CE NOT 29 CE.

In "Against Heresies" it is implied Jesus was crucified around 20 years AFTER he was about 30 years old or 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius.

In France, at the Church of Lyons, it was preached and taught that Jesus was crucified at an OLD age c 49 CE.

"Against Heresies" has single-handedly destroyed the NT Canon including the Pauline Corpus.

The myth/fiction fables of Jesus and Paul varied with geographic location.

In the 2nd century, if you were in LYONS, it would be taught in the Church that Jesus would still be alive up to at least the 8th year of Claudius.

Interesting you have a reference to this, right?

Paul could NOT have preached Christ Crucified in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE if Jesus was crucified c 44 or 49 CE in the time of Claudius.

Yes, he could as explained MANY times using John Robertson 1900 position with a John Frum modifier:

A long time ago I did a similar mix and max with Carrier's two criteria using a variant of John M. Robertson so show an Ahistorical Jesus and have come up with an even more interesting take on it:

1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.

Paul has his vision which [by tradition] can be as early as 31 and starts getting all the various fragmented Christ cults under the Jesus "brand"

A young man inspired by Paul's teaching takes up the name Jesus and teaches his own brand of Christianity and is either killed or fades into obscurity but his followers keep this version alive. (ala what happened with followers John Frum)

2) The followers of both Paul and the inspired "Jesus" die or fade of into their own obscurity by 70 CE.

3) A third sect still following the Jesus Christ the celestial deity takes Paul's writings and stories of other messiahs (including the inspired Jesus) to form a biography putting their messiah firmly on Earth. One particular version (later called Mark) become the go to version and all others are destroyed through neglect.

As I said before if you actually read what the classic Christ Mythers like Drews, Robertson, and so on were going on about was that was nothing to connect the Gospel Jesus other than name to a hypothetical historical Jesus. In fact, their point was once you stripped away all the material that fitted previous myths and implausible pseudohistory you didn't have anything left to really work with.

Again look at the John Frum cargo cult. History does record a John Frum in roughly the right time period: an illiterate native originally named Manehivi.

If we are to accept the basic premise of the HJ position that such movements must have a founder then Manehivi is the founder of the John Frum cargo cult (ie Manehivi is John Frum). But if that is true look at what the cult did to Manehivi in a space at best 16 years long:

Manehivi goes from black illiterate native to white literate US serviceman.

Manehivi who preached the "gospel" of John Frum is moved from being a flesh and blood man in 1940-41 to being a vision that appears to the village elders vision on February 15, 1931

As early as 1949 there was a story the John Frum movement actually predated Manehivi by some 30 years.

Manehivi gains Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as a brother.

The disconnect between Manehivi and the John Frum the cult describes by 1957 is so complete that they might as well be two different people!

And if that can happen then how useful are the Gospels in telling us anything about the "true" Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

Right and asI said a LONG time ago since these ruling years were inclusive and did NOT begin January 1 things are not as you paint them.

The first year of Tiberius would have been September 18, 14 CE to September 17, 15 CE meaning the 15th year of Tiberius was September 18, 28 CE to September 17, 29 CE.

The "about 30 years old" could mean as young as 26 or as old as 34.

You have serious problems with basic maths.

If Jesus was ABOUT to be 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius then he was 28-29 years old at that time.

Please, maximara. People here can do maths.

20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius is c 49 CE.

Against Heresies" 2.22 is evidence that Jesus and Paul are NOT figures of history or had NO known history up to c 175-180 CE.

In the Pauline Corpus a writer claimed or implied he preached Christ Crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 CE.

Based on the Presbyter and Bishop of the Church of Lyons Jesus would STILL be ALIVE c 37-41 CE.

 

[maximara]

You have serious problems with basic maths.

If Jesus was ABOUT to be 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius then he was 28-29 years old at that time.

We have to be careful here about translations verses the actual Greek.

According GreekBible Luke 3:23 is as follows:

ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΣ ΗΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΑΡΧΟΜΕΝΟΣ ΩΣΕΙ ΕΤΩΝ ΤΡΙΑΚΟΝΤΑ ΩΝ ΥΙΟΣ ΩΣ ΕΝΟΜΙΖΕΤΟ ΙΩΣΗΦ ΤΟΥ ΗΛΙ

The hilighted "ΩΣΕΙ" is defined as "1) as it were, (had been), as though, as, like as, like 2) about, nearly 2a) before numerals 2b) before a measure of time"

It can mean 'nearly' but it can also mean 'about' as in approximately.

It is akin to the English word "Read", without context you can't tell if the word is present-future tense rhyming with 'mead' or past tense rhyming with 'red'.

The problem here is the KJV is one of the few bibles that translates "ΩΣΕΙ" as meaning something akin to 'nearly'; nearly every other bible translates the word as 'about' ie approximately

Strong's Concordance on this word (5616. hósei) shows that with a number it means about ie approximately

The examples on the above page shows that ΩΣΕΙ's translated meaning varies but in the examples given that involve numbers only when dealing with Jesus' age is is sometimes translated as 'nearly' while everywhere else it is translated as 'about' ie approximately.

Note that in Demonstrations Irenaeus expressly states "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified" Which is historical nonsense but for two of those people the date range HAS TO BE 42-44 CE

Please, maximara. People here can do maths.

20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius is c 49 CE.

Irenaeus does have a problem with his math as putting in that he expressly puts Jesus crucifixion in the time of Claudius Caesar whihc is no earlier then 41 CE which was well AFTER Paul supposedly saw the risen Jesus.

The Herod Irenaeus talks about canNOT be Herod Agrippa II because he didn't get any part of Galilee until 55 CE a year AFTER Claudius died.

This reminds me of Joseph Wheless who misread this passage in Against Heresies:

He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.

By claiming the 'he' referenced is Jesus. But he doesn't explain why the 'he' here cannot refer to John. I should note Ralph Ellis in his King Jesus: King of Judaea and Prince of Rome on page 183 as to why you would read this passage this way but it but we are seeing this in English not the language it was originally written in.

I again point to the transliteration German to English sentence 'I throw myself down the stairs a bucket.'

Go back up to the Greek above and note the 'ΕΤΩΝ ΤΡΙΑΚΟΝΤΑ'; transliterated that is 'years thirty' NOT 'thirty years' so we can see that to some degree Greek has this backward structure we see in modern German. So is this nearly actually there or are some of the translators getting cute and forcing the word into a translation that it really doesn't have?

Against Heresies" 2.22 is evidence that Jesus and Paul are NOT figures of history or had NO known history up to c 175-180 CE.

In the Pauline Corpus a writer claimed or implied he preached Christ Crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 CE.

Based on the Presbyter and Bishop of the Church of Lyons Jesus would STILL be ALIVE c 37-41 CE.

I AGAIN point to the variant of John Roberson's 1900 idea that some person inspired by Paul took up the name Jesus and tried to do his own thing with Christianity and failed (either by being killed for his troubles or simply failing to get anywhere with his movement outside of a few fanatical followers) In fact, this is not too different from GA Wells 1996 on position of mythical Paul Jesus + human Jesus who was NOT crucified = Gospel Jesus.

To quote from a favorite movie of mine: "There are many ways to order that data"

 

[dejudge]

We have to be careful here about translations verses the actual Greek.

According GreekBible Luke 3:23 is as follows:

ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΣ ΗΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΑΡΧΟΜΕΝΟΣ ΩΣΕΙ ΕΤΩΝ ΤΡΙΑΚΟΝΤΑ ΩΝ ΥΙΟΣ ΩΣ ΕΝΟΜΙΖΕΤΟ ΙΩΣΗΦ ΤΟΥ ΗΛΙ

The hilighted "ΩΣΕΙ" is defined as "1) as it were, (had been), as though, as, like as, like 2) about, nearly 2a) before numerals 2b) before a measure of time"

It can mean 'nearly' but it can also mean 'about' as in approximately.

You forget what you posted.

Examine your OWN post #1359.

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism);....

Based on your OWN post the Jesus character, the son of the Ghost, had NOT yet COMPLETED his 30th year so your claim that the son of the Ghost could be up to 34 years old is void of basic understanding of maths or English.

Jesus, the son of the Ghost in "Against Heresies" was no older than 29 years of age.

A person begins to be 30 years of age AFTER completing their 29th year.

...I AGAIN point to the variant of John Roberson's 1900 idea that some person inspired by Paul took up the name Jesus and tried to do his own thing with Christianity and failed (either by being killed for his troubles or simply failing to get anywhere with his movement outside of a few fanatical followers) In fact, this is not too different from GA Wells 1996 on position of mythical Paul Jesus + human Jesus who was NOT crucified = Gospel Jesus.

To quote from a favorite movie of mine: "There are many ways to order that data"

Point to the evidence from antiquity not flawed unevidenced opinion.

We already known that the Pauline Corpus is WITHOUT corroboration in the NT Canon and that it is a major source of fiction/mythology.

 

[Stone]

Observing the denialist patterns here among the mythers calls to mind what another poster here, a Nick Terry, has written about various types of denials of historical reality by rabid partisans in general or creeps like Holocaust deniers, etc., in particular.

Nick Terry, who described himself as having some expertise on the history of denial, was asked by someone --

"Perhaps you could explain the foundation of Holocaust denial. The Holocaust is not only thoroughly documented, but countless actual participants -- both victims and perpetrators -- recounted their direct experiences and observations after the war. Even at the Nuremberg trials, the defendants claimed they were only following orders, not that the events didn't occur. I can understand that there might be some room for historians to legitimately debate particular details, like exactly how many victims or who did what where, but what argument could there possibly be that the Holocaust didn't happen?"

-- to which Nick Terry responded --

"Because ideology is all it takes to cause a severe denial of reality, whether historical or present-day reality doesn't matter. If something threatens a worldview, this is often enough to cause ideologues and partisans to deny reality. Just look at parts of the Republican Party with their indulgence of Birtherism, or reluctance to accept global warming as a possibility.

Nazism, neo-Nazism, associated far-right ideologies, antisemitism, certain forms of anti-Zionism are all sufficient explanations for why a very small number have tried to deny the Holocaust. " (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10776478&postcount=34)

Interesting, no? Plainly, when at least two entirely independent non-apologetic sources like Antiquities 20 and Annals 15, the former of which is actually a contemporary confirmation of a blood relative by a compatriot, no less, each confirm historicity for a mere human like Jesus the simple rabbi from the sticks, that makes both fundies' and mythers' heads explode. No sympathy here: psychotic partisanship evidently drives both groups to neurotic denials of historical reality.



Stone

 

[maximara]

Observing the denialist patterns here among the mythers calls to mind what another poster here, a Nick Terry, has written about various types of denials of historical reality by rabid partisans in general or creeps like Holocaust deniers, etc., in particular.

Nick Terry, who described himself as having some expertise on the history of denial, was asked by someone --

"Perhaps you could explain the foundation of Holocaust denial. The Holocaust is not only thoroughly documented, but countless actual participants -- both victims and perpetrators -- recounted their direct experiences and observations after the war. Even at the Nuremberg trials, the defendants claimed they were only following orders, not that the events didn't occur. I can understand that there might be some room for historians to legitimately debate particular details, like exactly how many victims or who did what where, but what argument could there possibly be that the Holocaust didn't happen?"

-- to which Nick Terry responded --

"Because ideology is all it takes to cause a severe denial of reality, whether historical or present-day reality doesn't matter. If something threatens a worldview, this is often enough to cause ideologues and partisans to deny reality. Just look at parts of the Republican Party with their indulgence of Birtherism, or reluctance to accept global warming as a possibility.

Nazism, neo-Nazism, associated far-right ideologies, antisemitism, certain forms of anti-Zionism are all sufficient explanations for why a very small number have tried to deny the Holocaust. " (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10776478&postcount=34)

Interesting, no? Plainly, when at least two entirely independent non-apologetic sources like Antiquities 20 and Annals 15, the former of which is actually a contemporary confirmation of a blood relative by a compatriot, no less, each confirm historicity for a mere human like Jesus the simple rabbi from the sticks, that makes both fundies' and mythers' heads explode. No sympathy here: psychotic partisanship evidently drives both groups to neurotic denials of historical reality.



Stone

And we get yet ANOTHER comparison of the evidence of Jesus with that of the Holocaust which IMHO has to the MOST immoral intellectually BANKRUPT comparison the Historical Jesus crowd has come up with.

The Holocaust is one of the BEST documented of modern events: 3,000 tons of truly contemporary (i.e. between 1938-1945) records presented at the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trials. The 1958 finding aids (eventually the index to the Holocaust evidence) was 62 volumes--just 4 books shy of the number of books (66) traditionally in the entire Bible! Then between 1958 and 2000 they added another 30 volumes, bringing the total to 92.

Anyone that compare the evidence of Jesus to the Holocaust either doesn't understand the scope or subconsciously know the evidence for Jesus is poor and pulls this emotional idiocy out of their butt cheeks to try and salvage the mess.

"Denials of historical reality"? Yes the Historical Jesus crowd has plenty of those.

Remsburg, who believed there was just enough evidence to show Jesus existed as a human being threw out BOTH Antiquities 20 and Annals 15.

Get your head around that: A PRO historical Jesus personage dismissed Antiquities 20 and Annals 15 as evidence.

On Antiquities 20:

"This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, "who was called Christ," which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have quoted reject it. It was originally probably a marginal note. Some Christian reader of Josephus believing that the James mentioned was the brother of Jesus made a note of his belief in the manuscript before him, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with the text, a very common practice in that age when purity of text was a matter of secondary importance.

The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ's existence, do not cite it, while Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it did not exist until the middle of the third century or later.

[...]

To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.

Whiston himself, the translator of Josephus referring to the event narrated by the Jewish historian, admits that James, the brother of Jesus Christ, "did not die till long afterward."



Annals 15 gets blasted to smithereens:

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

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NOTHING has really changed about these statement since they were made back in 1909.

THERE are just a few of the Denials of historical reality that the historical Jesus crowd does year after year; decade after decade.

 

[Craig B]

You're quoting Remsberg as a believer in the reality of HJ?

 

[Mcreal]

... Plainly, when at least two entirely independent non-apologetic sources like Antiquities 20 and Annals 15, the former of which is actually a contemporary confirmation of a blood relative by a compatriot, no less, each confirm historicity for a mere human like Jesus the simple rabbi from the sticks, that makes both fundies' and mythers' heads explode. No sympathy here: psychotic partisanship evidently drives both groups to neurotic denials of historical reality.

The use of loaded language shows a lack of nuance.

eg.

"independent, non-apologetic sources" - lol. The likelihood of apologetic interpolation is high.

"contemporary confirmation" - unlikely to be 'contemporary'; and certainly not a 'confirmation'

"blood relative" - yet James is likely to be "a brother in Christ" ie. brethren

"compatriot" - unlikely

"confirm historicity" - Nah.

"mere human" - unproven

"simple rabbi" - No. 'King of the Jews'. John 18:36, 37. Mark 15.

"historical reality" lol. Confirmation bias.​

... various types of denials of historical reality by rabid partisans in general or creeps like Holocaust deniers, etc., in particular.



Stone

What is really eye-rolling is trying to equate those questioning the historicity of Jesus with holocaust deniers. Gaslighting like that is the domain of a certain sort of person.

 

[Mcreal]

Antiquities 20 and Annals 15 are such tenuous foundations for belief in a historical Jesus.

Reliance on them shows how fickle the propositions for a historical Jesus are.

 

[GDon]

The Holocaust is one of the BEST documented of modern events: 3,000 tons of truly contemporary (i.e. between 1938-1945) records presented at the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trials. The 1958 finding aids (eventually the index to the Holocaust evidence) was 62 volumes--just 4 books shy of the number of books (66) traditionally in the entire Bible! Then between 1958 and 2000 they added another 30 volumes, bringing the total to 92.

Anyone that compare the evidence of Jesus to the Holocaust either doesn't understand the scope or subconsciously know the evidence for Jesus is poor and pulls this emotional idiocy out of their butt cheeks to try and salvage the mess.

Again you misunderstand the point: as you write above, the Holocaust is one of the best documented of modern events. But in a world where there are people who deny the Holocaust happened despite it being one of the best documented of modern events, who would be surprised that there are people who deny that there was a historical Jesus?

That's the point that Ehrman made. Trying to make it sound like there was an attempt at moral equivalency between the two positions is misrepresentation.

 

[dejudge]

Again you misunderstand the point: as you write above, the Holocaust is one of the best documented of modern events. But in a world where there are people who deny the Holocaust happened despite it being one of the best documented of modern events, who would be surprised that there are people who deny that there was a historical Jesus?

GDon, What absurdity you post!!! If the Holocaust is one of the best documented modern event then an historical Jesus is the very worst,.

Jesus is documented as a Transfiguring Water walker, the son of a Ghost, God Creator, the Lord from heaven, True God of True God.

Not a single contemporary writer documented a character called Jesus of Nazareth as a man with a human father.

Jesus, Satan, the Holy Ghost and the angel Gabriel are myth/fiction characters in the NT.

 

[maximara]

You're quoting Remsberg as a believer in the reality of HJ?

Remsberg expressly states this:

While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable.

This makes it clear to anyone what "the former" means: Jesus was a historical myth involving a real person. I have no idea how anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language that actually READS Remsburg thinks he was in the 'Jesus didn't exist as a human being' crowd.

 

[maximara]

Again you misunderstand the point: as you write above, the Holocaust is one of the best documented of modern events. But in a world where there are people who deny the Holocaust happened despite it being one of the best documented of modern events, who would be surprised that there are people who deny that there was a historical Jesus?

And you misunderstand the counterpoint. There are people who believe in ghosts, homeopathy (where the more water you add to something the stronger it gets ), that the Fed is part of a banking conspiracy to control the world that goes back centuries, there is some mysterious force in the Bermuda Triangle, that Earth is stopping place for every little gray alien pervert that has a thing for anal probing, and the insanity Jack Chick and his friends crank out (like the Roman Catholic created Nazi Germany and Communist Russia after having President Lincoln assassinated...and that is the SANER stuff )

In a world where there are people who believe in such stuff that has no substantive evidence who would be surprised that there are people who believe there was a historical Jesus?

See how easy it is to build an argument for the other side? And you can't even say it is a strawman because the "evidence" for Jesus is so weak.

That's the point that Ehrman made. Trying to make it sound like there was an attempt at moral equivalency between the two positions is misrepresentation.

But as Refuting Missionaries by Hayyim ben Yehoshua pointed out in the late 1990s there IS a implied moral equivalency between the two positions:

"It should be pointed out that most of the people who deny the Holocaust have turned out to be antisemitic hate-mongers with fraudulent credentials."

More over you have this:

"On the other hand, millions of honest people in Asia, who make up the majority of the world's population, have failed to be convinced by the Christian story of Jesus since there is no compelling evidence for its authenticity."

and this:

"In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed."


"To sum up, there is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide. It is this fact which puts Jesus on a different level to established historical personalities. If the missionaries use the "Holocaust reply," you should point out that the Holocaust is well-documented and that there are numerous eyewitness reports."

As I have said before and will keep saying comparison of the evidence for Jesus with that of the Holocaust is IMHO has to the MOST immoral intellectually BANKRUPT comparison the Historical Jesus crowd in its evident desperation to indicate their evidence is "good" has come up with.

As I pointed out before Sun Tzu who actions were recorded by the Grand Historian who used earlier official records that haven't survived and stated "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank" is doubted by some scholars to even existed.

It is perfect reasonable to say a man whose supposedly personal writings you can hold in your hands whose actions were recorded by a professional historical who was using official records may not have existed but Jesus who evidence is very questionable is accepted? Oh I get it, Sun Tzu isn't white while Jesus in most of his portrayals is. Is that what the historical Jesus crowd want to give the impression they're doing? Because that IS what they are doing when they pull out this Holocaust comparison drivel.

Also let's not forget that mythers have a real world examples of how Jesus could be a myth: the Malaysian cargo cults and John Frum in particular.

 

[GDon]

There are people who believe in ghosts, homeopathy...

In a world where there are people who believe in such stuff that has no substantive evidence who would be surprised that there are people who believe there was a historical Jesus?

See how easy it is to build an argument for the other side? And you can't even say it is a strawman because the "evidence" for Jesus is so weak.

And I agree! It is that easy. So what does that tell you? I mean, haven't you actually demonstrated my point? What if I said "I don't believe in ghosts!" Would that disprove your analogy?

 

[maximara]

Not a single contemporary writer documented a character called Jesus of Nazareth as a man with a human father.

Unless you buy into Carrier's cosmic sperm bank Paul would be that "contemporary writer" but only if you connect his Jesus in his seven edited epistles with the one in the later Gospels.

But GA Wells had this:

"[In Did Jesus Exist] I agued that Paul sincerely believed that the evidence (not restricted to the Wisdom Literature) pointed to a historical Jesus who had lived well before his own day; and I leave open the question as to whether such a person had in fact existed and lived the obscure live that Paul supposed of him. (There is no means of deciding this issue.)" - G A Wells The Jesus Legend Open Court Publishing Company 1996 p. 19


John Robertson in 1900 had similar ideas:


"(John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus perhaps more than one having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.

1 The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.

2 An historical Jesus may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death " ; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts.

3 Or a Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation may have been slain as a human sacrifice at some time of social tumult ; and his story may have got mixed up with the myth.

4 The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a human being]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" - Robertson, Archibald (1946) Jesus: Myth or History?

 

[Craig B]

Remsberg expressly states this:

While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable.

This makes it clear to anyone what "the former" means: Jesus was a historical myth involving a real person. I have no idea how anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language that actually READS Remsburg thinks he was in the 'Jesus didn't exist as a human being' crowd.

I am familiar with these words of Remsberg; but they are not well sustained by the general trend of his argument, so that he is used - and legitimately so, I think - by deniers of the historicity of Jesus in any real sense.

This is the sort of thing I mean.

There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion―nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived: <snip list> According to Remsburg,

“Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the disciples or apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information of the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers.

Reason would dictate that if all the miracles which Jesus supposedly performed or surrounded him: <snip miracles> that at least one of these world headline news events would have at least a small mention by at least one of the foregoing historian and writers. But, NO, they are totally silent!

Only Christian writers wrote about this. Do you think they were biased? Were the stories true or did these writers just continue the myth? Were they trying to promote a new religion, based upon Paul using the Jesus’ myth? And so the fiction continues to this day.

Etc etc. This is from the pen of a Remsbergian, presumably one with a "basic understanding of the English language"; but it could have been written by dejudge.

RationalWiki cites Remsberg to this effect.

Remsburg stated that "(i)t is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?"

The weight of Remsberg's arguments would suggest the latter; and that is what is being argued by the author whom I have quoted in extenso above. That author makes no distinction between evidence for the historicity of a person, or for the historicity of a man-God. Neither is to be found; and he bluntly declares

Again, I restate the obvious, yet in this mass of literature, “aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”Nor, do any of these authors make note of the disciples or apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information on the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers.

This alone should make anyone think twice before swallowing―hook, line and sinker―the Christian dead man-god myth ― or, for that matter, any Abrahamic Derivative Religion (ADR), for they are all F3 ― False, Fictitious and Foolish.

The Hebrew bible, like the Christian New Testament, is fictitious; from a 6-day creation of the universe; a cunning, walking, talking snake; big fish tales; world flood and an "Invisible Man in the Sky" ― it is all fiction, a bold sham perpetrated on mankind.

This false sham, this fiction, is the only source of evidence for ANY Jesus, plausible or otherwise, except passages in Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius, which are said here to be forged or disputed. So according to this view, NO Jesus is sustainable.

Thus, Remsberg's conclusion that Jesus was a historical person is poorly sustained by the content of his own writing. That is why he is not the best representative of the HJ argument.

 

[maximara]

And I agree! It is that easy. So what does that tell you? I mean, haven't you actually demonstrated my point?

No because the Holocaust evidence can only be made weak by indulging in conspiracy theory level nonsense. The evidence for Jesus doesn't require that.

We have Paul who is giving what amounts to spectral evidence (that didn't work too well in 1692 Salem did it?) Then we have several author forging stuff as "Paul" (forged evidence is so useful. uh NO IT ISN'T )

Then we have the Gospels written sometime between 70 and 130 with everyone who could have actually been with Jesus either was dead or sold into slavery and have so much historical INaccuracy that they read more like bad historical fiction then anything like historical works.

Origen shows the Jamesian Reference in Josephus to have issues as TWICE Origen stated that Josephus directly connected this event to "the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple" but NO such connection exists in ANY copy of Josephus we have.

The "Testimonium Flavianum" is such a provenancal train wreck that it is on par with using The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world.

This is all ignoring the statement that "in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus" ie NEITHER of these passages existed in that copy.

With Tacitus we are asked that no Christian noticed this passage for 13 centuries. Sigh, that is right down there with Yahtzee's comment about the "people who lived next to Auschwitz and thought all the smoke was coming from an unusually screamy pie factory." Riiight. Do I have a deal for you! It involves a bridge in New York...Why yes it does go to Brooklyn, why do you ask?

The remainder of the evidence regarding a flash and blood Jesus basically goes down hill from here.

Let's not forget that the Christians allowed lots of possible supporting evidence to be destroyed. For those who don't see the problem with that I have a nice fox to guard your hen house right here.

 

[Craig B]

As if to prove my point you have now written this.

In a world where there are people who believe in such stuff that has no substantive evidence who would be surprised that there are people who believe there was a historical Jesus?

See how easy it is to build an argument for the other side? And you can't even say it is a strawman because the "evidence" for Jesus is so weak.

...

But as Refuting Missionaries by Hayyim ben Yehoshua pointed out in the late 1990s there IS a implied moral equivalency between the two positions:

"It should be pointed out that most of the people who deny the Holocaust have turned out to be antisemitic hate-mongers with fraudulent credentials."

...

As I have said before and will keep saying comparison of the evidence for Jesus with that of the Holocaust is IMHO has to the MOST immoral intellectually BANKRUPT comparison the Historical Jesus crowd in its evident desperation to indicate their evidence is "good" has come up with.

As I pointed out before Sun Tzu who actions were recorded by the Grand Historian who used earlier official records that haven't survived and stated "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank" is doubted by some scholars to even existed.

It is perfect reasonable to say a man whose supposedly personal writings you can hold in your hands whose actions were recorded by a professional historical who was using official records may not have existed but Jesus who evidence is very questionable is accepted? Oh I get it, Sun Tzu isn't white while Jesus in most of his portrayals is. Is that what the historical Jesus crowd want to give the impression they're doing? Because that IS what they are doing when they pull out this Holocaust comparison drivel.

Also let's not forget that mythers have a real world examples of how Jesus could be a myth: the Malaysian cargo cults and John Frum in particular.

These are arguments dismissive, in the most contemptuous terms, of the historicity, not merely of a miraculous "man-God" but of any possible real Jesus. Exactly like the examples I gave in my post on Remsberg and his followers.

ETA Your post #1379 makes the same point even more vociferously. Your argument against the authenticity of the Tacitus notice is an argument against a possible human Jesus, for the Tacitus passage ascribes no miracles to the founder of the religion to which he refers.