The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

They preached all that? Do you have copies of their sermons?

We have manuscripts under the name of Paul which teach Jesus Christ was from heaven, God's Own Son, Equal to God, God Creator, who was raised from the dead.

Do you want to see ALL of them?


Please read Papyri 46 and the Codices especially the VATICANUS Codex of ROME.

If Christus in the Roman writing of Tacitus is Jesus Christus in the Codex Vaticanus of Rome then Chritus was a myth/fiction character of the same substance as a Ghost.

1 Corinthians 15:45 ---And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

If Christus in the Roman writing of Tacitus is Jesus Christus of the Roman Church then Christus was a Ghost/God/man.

 

[Crossbow]

http://churchofchristarticles.com/b...ction_type_map=["og.likes"]&action_ref_map=[]

Atheists don't necessarily say a Rabbi Named Jesus never existed what we say is that he wasn't supernaturalo. He never fed a multitude of people with a handful of bread and a few fishes and he never turned ordinary water into wine etc.

Sorry, but that is not quite correct.

I would say that most atheists doubt that Jesus existed. After all, there is very little evidence outside of the Gospels that say Jesus did indeed exist, but there are some atheists who say that Jesus did in fact exist.

In any event, all atheists do agree that Jesus (or anyone else, for that matter) did not have any sort of supernatural powers.

Also, as has been mentioned, there is already another thread about the existence of Jesus which goes into a great amount of detail.

 

[Craig B]

We have manuscripts under the name of Paul which teach Jesus Christ was from heaven, God's Own Son, Equal to God, God Creator, who was raised from the dead.

Do you want to see ALL of them?

Were these manuscripts written by Peter and Paul, telling us that the writers were Bishops of Rome, and as such, did they contain the details that

"In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker."?

Please read Papyri 46 and the Codices especially the VATICANUS Codex of ROME.

If Christus in the Roman writing of Tacitus is Jesus Christus in the Codex Vaticanus of Rome then Chritus was a myth/fiction character of the same substance as a Ghost.

So Peter and Paul WERE Bishops of Rome, and wrote the VATICANUS Codex of ROME?

 

[dejudge]

Were these manuscripts written by Peter and Paul, telling us that the writers were Bishops of Rome, and as such, did they contain the details that

"In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker."?

You actively use the writings under the name of Paul to argue that Jesus Christus had a brother called James.

You claim that there are authentic letters of Paul in the Canon composed c 50-60 CE.

Jesus Christus is the Lord from heaven, God's Own Son and made a Spirit in the Pauline Corpus.

If Christus in the Roman writing called Annals is Jesus Christus in the Pauline Corpus then Christus was a myth/fiction character like Romulus in Tacitus Annals 15.

So Peter and Paul WERE Bishops of Rome, and wrote the VATICANUS Codex of ROME?

Are you now attempting to argue that there are no authentic Pauline letters in the Vaticanus Codex of Rome??

What a chameleon!!!!

Tacitus wrote the 11th century Medicean manuscript with Annals??

 

[Craig B]

Are you now attempting to argue that there are no authentic Pauline letters in the Vaticanus Codex of Rome??

No, I am seeking a response to these questions:

1. Were manuscripts written by Peter and Paul telling us that the writers were Bishops of Rome?

2. As such, did they contain the details that "In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker."?

3. Did Peter and Paul write the VATICANUS Codex of ROME?

 

[dejudge]

No, I am seeking a response to these questions:

1. Were manuscripts written by Peter and Paul telling us that the writers were Bishops of Rome?

2. As such, did they contain the details that "In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker."?

3. Did Peter and Paul write the VATICANUS Codex of ROME?

You have answered your own questions.

You have already and actively argue that Paul wrote letters to Churches including the Rome c50-60 CE.

You presently argue that Paul was in Rome and refer to Paul's letter to the Romans as authentic.

We have manuscripts under the name of Paul.

Those manuscripts under the name of Paul document that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, Equal to God, the Lord from heaven, God Creator and made some kind of Ghost.

See Papyri 46, the Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus.

If Christus in the Roman writing called Annals is Jesus Christus of the Pauline Corpus then Christus is a myth/fiction character like Romulus in Tacitus Annals 15.

Jesus Christus was a myth/fiction character in the ROMAN EMPIRE like Romulus.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

So, what is it? Are the epistles forgeries that were backdated to create a fake history for Christianity, or are they authentic and point to a mythical Christ?
You've argued both, but those two statements are mutually exclusive.

 

[Craig B]

We have manuscripts under the name of Paul.

Those manuscripts under the name of Paul document that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, Equal to God, the Lord from heaven, GodCreator and made some kind of Ghost.

Oh, dejudge! Who's being a "chameleon" now, and changing colour. Once we saw you strutting about in dazzling hues and proclaiming

"In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker."

But now you HAVE gone paler, and you no longer TELL us that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome WHO preached - and documented - in Rome - that Jesus was a transfiguring water WALKER made of the same substance AS a ghost. Your striking colours have FADED away.

 

[Rincewind]

Any Jesus in particular?

There's a whole lot of them in Mexico...

 

[Joey McGee]

The historical consensus is that there was such a person, and I think most careful observers think that besides the historical references the story seems to indicate that they made up myths to fit the life of a real person, like the census that never happened, to get Jesus to Bethleham in order to fit the prophecies.

It's sounds better when Hitchens explains it, around 3:00

 

[dejudge]

Oh, dejudge! Who's being a "chameleon" now, and changing colour. Once we saw you strutting about in dazzling hues and proclaiming

"In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker."

But now you HAVE gone paler, and you no longer TELL us that Peter and Paul were bishops of Rome WHO preached - and documented - in Rome - that Jesus was a transfiguring water WALKER made of the same substance AS a ghost. Your striking colours have FADED away.

You can't remember you are arguing that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE???

You can't remember that Paul was in Rome in the reign of Nero based on Acts of the Apostles??

We have manuscripts under the name of Paul.

Those manuscripts under the name of Paul document that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, Equal to God, the Lord from heaven, God Creator and made some kind of Ghost.

1. Romans 8:3--- For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

2. Romans 8.31--- What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

3. 1 Corinthians 15:45---- And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

4. 1 Corinthians 15. 47---- The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

5. Philipians 2.---- 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

6. Colossians 1:16---- For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

If Christus in the Roman writing called Annals is Jesus Christus in the Pauline Corpus then Christus was a myth/fiction character like Romulus in Tacitus Annals 15.

 

[Craig B]

You can't remember you are arguing that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE???

You can't remember that Paul was in Rome in the reign of Nero based on Acts of the Apostles??

We have manuscripts under the name of Paul.

Those manuscripts under the name of Paul document that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, Equal to God, the Lord from heaven, God Creator and made some kind of Ghost.

1. Romans 8:3--- For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

2. Romans 8.31--- What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

3. 1 Corinthians 15:45---- And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

4. 1 Corinthians 15. 47---- The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

5. Philipians 2.---- 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

6. Colossians 1:16---- For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

If Christus in the Roman writing called Annals is Jesus Christus in the Pauline Corpus then Christus was a myth/fiction character like Romulus in Tacitus Annals 15.

Oh, dejudge, none of these things in your post (which it is pointless arguing about) means the same as this.

In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

 

[maximara]

So, what is it? Are the epistles forgeries that were backdated to create a fake history for Christianity, or are they authentic and point to a mythical Christ?
You've argued both, but those two statements are mutually exclusive.

Actually the two statements are NOT mutually exclusive but to explain how requires a little history lesson.

Originally the Pauline Epistles were said to number 13: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon.

Later scholarship shows that at best only 7 of these epistles were written by one author (Paul for lack of a better name) and the others were forged in his name: Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon.

These seven epistles (each actually two or more letters edited together) point to a mythical Christ as Paul (for lack of a better name) give no real details and only talks of Christ as this being he sees in visions.

The remaining six epistles are the ones where you get some of that "backdated to create a fake history for Christianity".

Now dejudge holds to the Radical Dutch school that all the Pauline Epistles (even the seven by one author) are forgeries credited to a man who didn't exist.

Even among Christ Mythers the idea Paul didn't exist is not really that common and looked as being more then a little off the wall bonkers.

There is nothing really supernatural in the seven epistles regarding Paul himself and any historical hiccups regarding Paul in them can be written off as horn tooting, bad memory or editorial meddling.

Paul rambles on about a Jesus he only sees in visions so even if there had been a actual flesh and blood Jesus what he says about this visionary Jesus is USELESS in determining anything about the real man.

As I have said before claiming Paul didn't exist is unnecessary as Paul doesn't really bring anything to the historical table and saying he didn't exist just adda another layer to complicates matters. It better fits Occam's Razor to accept there was a man calling himself Paul who in the 50s-60s wrote a lot of letters to various communities he either knew of or had visited that were later edited into seven epistles.

As I said Paul could be trying to convert the remnants of other messiahs to the Jesus "brand" or communicating with sects he had helped found some time earlier.

 

[dejudge]

You can't remember you are arguing that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE???

You can't remember that Paul was in Rome in the reign of Nero based on Acts of the Apostles??

We have manuscripts under the name of Paul.

Those manuscripts under the name of Paul document that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, Equal to God, the Lord from heaven, God Creator and made some kind of Ghost.

1. Romans 8:3--- For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

2. Romans 8.31--- What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

3. 1 Corinthians 15:45---- And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

4. 1 Corinthians 15. 47---- The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

5. Philipians 2.---- 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

6. Colossians 1:16---- For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

If Christus in the Roman writing called Annals is Jesus Christus in the Pauline Corpus then Christus was a myth/fiction character like Romulus in Tacitus Annals 15.

Oh, dejudge, none of these things in your post (which it is pointless arguing about) means the same as this.

Oh, Craig B, it is pointless to show me what is written in an 11th century manuscript.

Oh Craig B it is pointless to tell me Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE.

Jesus Christus was God of God and born of a Ghost according to the Church of the Roman Government.

Jesus Christus was of the same substance as a Ghost according to the Church of Rome.

Jesus Christus of the Roman Church is a myth/fiction character like Romulus of Rome.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Actually the two statements are NOT mutually exclusive but to explain how requires a little history lesson.

Originally the Pauline Epistles were said to number 13: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon.

Later scholarship shows that at best only 7 of these epistles were written by one author (Paul for lack of a better name) and the others were forged in his name: Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon.

These seven epistles (each actually two or more letters edited together) point to a mythical Christ as Paul (for lack of a better name) give no real details and only talks of Christ as this being he sees in visions.

The remaining six epistles are the ones where you get some of that "backdated to create a fake history for Christianity".

Now dejudge holds to the Radical Dutch school that all the Pauline Epistles (even the seven by one author) are forgeries credited to a man who didn't exist.

Even among Christ Mythers the idea Paul didn't exist is not really that common and looked as being more then a little off the wall bonkers.

There is nothing really supernatural in the seven epistles regarding Paul himself and any historical hiccups regarding Paul in them can be written off as horn tooting, bad memory or editorial meddling.

Paul rambles on about a Jesus he only sees in visions so even if there had been a actual flesh and blood Jesus what he says about this visionary Jesus is USELESS in determining anything about the real man.

As I have said before claiming Paul didn't exist is unnecessary as Paul doesn't really bring anything to the historical table and saying he didn't exist just adda another layer to complicates matters. It better fits Occam's Razor to accept there was a man calling himself Paul who in the 50s-60s wrote a lot of letters to various communities he either knew of or had visited that were later edited into seven epistles.

As I said Paul could be trying to convert the remnants of other messiahs to the Jesus "brand" or communicating with sects he had helped found some time earlier.

Thanks for the history lesson, very well done.

I tend view Paul (or whoever the actor playing Paul is) as a narcissistic sociopath ala Jim Jones or Charles Manson.

Y'all have gone far deeper into all of this than ever dreamt of by me, and I appreciate the knowledge dump.

 

[dejudge]

The historical consensus is that there was such a person, and I think most careful observers think that besides the historical references the story seems to indicate that they made up myths to fit the life of a real person, like the census that never happened, to get Jesus to Bethleham in order to fit the prophecies.

It's sounds better when Hitchens explains it, around 3:00

What propaganda and Chinese whispers you post!!!

There could be no consensus when Scholars are actively engaged in arguments for and against an HJ.

The Quest for an HJ has ended in failure multiple times due lack of evidence.

Most people who believe Jesus existed are Christians and Christian Scholars and admit their Jesus existed as a Son of God and born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

There are Billions of Christians who worship Jesus as God Creator.


Very few people believe Jesus was just a mere man who did nothing or hardly anything as described in the NT.

The actual consensus among Scholars is that there is little or no evidence to support the HJ argument.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://churchofchristarticles.com/b...ction_type_map=["og.likes"]&action_ref_map=[]

Atheists don't necessarily say a Rabbi Named Jesus never existed what we say is that he wasn't supernaturalo. He never fed a multitude of people with a handful of bread and a few fishes and he never turned ordinary water into wine etc.

Well, some of us say there's good evidence he never existed. But as noted above, we have a thread on that.

 

[Vortigern99]

I too say Jesus wasn't supernaturalo. I think you'll find wide agreement on that fact, here and elsewhere. Just ask any self-identifying Christian: "Was Jesus supernaturalo?" and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The historical consensus is that there was such a person, ...

Really? You speak for the historian community? Has a poll been taken? Hitchens is the world recognized authority?

There is no such consensus, there are arguments on both sides. And there's very little to form a consensus on, that the myth is based on a real person.

 

[Craig B]

... Even among Christ Mythers the idea Paul didn't exist is not really that common and looked as being more then a little off the wall bonkers.
...
As I have said before claiming Paul didn't exist is unnecessary as Paul doesn't really bring anything to the historical table and saying he didn't exist just adda another layer to complicates matters.

That's a revealing argument. Why believe in the historicity of Paul? Well, among other things it's not necessary to mythicism that Paul be declared fictitious. What if it was necessary? One wonders.