The Historical Jesus III

[IanS]

Jesus' alleged "claim to be God" is certainly legend - if in point of fact he is ever said to have made such a claim. The only place where one could argue such a thing is in the gospel of John, and nobody attaches much weight to that as a source of factual information.

It may well be that few people attach much weight to the gospel of John now in the 21st century. But do you know what weight Christian believers accorded to g-John or any of the gospels or epistles in the 3rd and 4th centuries?

You are judging this entire subject with the benefit of hindsight which was not available to any of these people at the time when the gospels and letters were written. You are deciding now in 2015 which parts of those gospels and letters are no longer acceptable for you to believe, but whilst picking out some remaining parts which you still do want to believe ... and all from writing that was once believed in total ALL to be actually true.

The only reason you do not now believe all the miracles as people at the time undoubtedly all did, is purely and entirely because modern science has persuaded you that you cannot credibly still claim that all that vast mass of miraculous writing about Jesus was ever actually true - if you had been living even as recently as about 1800 you would almost certainly have been swearing that the miracles were supported by overwhelming evidence and were all certainly true, just as almost everyone did up until about 1800.

The main difference in these threads between the sceptics and the non-sceptics, is that non-sceptics such as yourself are still prepared to take upon trust the very little that still remains as at least not absolutely certain fiction. Whilst the sceptics would say that so little remains as anything substantive about Jesus in those gospels and letters, from writers who's credibility as accurate reliable recorders of fact is down to zero, that there is no credible basis left in that biblical writing upon which to believe that the writing itself shows that Jesus was more likely to be real than not real.

IOW - you are still relying upon the grossly unreliable and completely discredited biblical writing for your belief in Jesus. But any truly objective impartial educated person, which probably excludes most bible scholars and theologians, could never claim that such proven unreliable writing was still a source of any credible fact about Jesus as a figure completely unknown to any of those writers (and where it's now known they were certainly using the OT as a source for their Jesus stories, just as Paul had in fact sworn that he actually did).

 

[Leumas]

So some cherry picked bits of the buybull fairy tales must be true because of some special pleading for some other bits of the buybull fables make it appear that it is so and thus it is only reasonable that it most likely is so.

Illogical fallacies + Circular reasoning much?
...

No.

Yes... all you have is nothing but illogical fallacies upon illogical fallacies upon fabricated straw men upon artful dissimulations upon circular reasoning upon wishful thinking upon special pleading upon cherry picking upon ad hominems upon red herrings upon straw men upon straw men upon straw men.... and... did I mention straw men and circular reasoning and special pleading already?

You're not into this textual analysis thing, are you?
....

See... there you go again with the straw men fabrication!

So you are not going to answer the questions are you?

Why such evasion of answering very simple questions?

Why such aversion to any real conversation instead of just fabricating straw men?

Can you please answer the questions posed in this post?

I will answer your question.... yes I am for ANY analysis of any kind and for reason and logic and studying of any kind.

However, all kinds of analysis not just the textual ones have proven what IanS summarized quite eloquently in the two posts quoted below.

So all you are doing now is the equivalent of textually analyzing the 1001 and Arabian Nights to posit that Aladdin was a real human who got rich because he found a royal burial chamber and not because of a Genie in a lamp and that Sinbad was really an observant Zoroastrian preacher who loved to go fishing a lot and not at all a sailor who encountered magic creatures.

Indeed, the biblical writing is filled from cover to cover with miracle claims that at the time (early centuries AD) were universally believed as quite certain to be true. And it has taken almost 2000 years to be proven all completely untrue fiction. That's only relatively quite recently, eg only since about 1850 AD, that most educated people began to realise how science was showing that almost all of that biblical writing about Jesus, i.e. all the miracles and divine insights of Jesus, which are actually the entire basis of what is described for Jesus as the messiah of peoples 1st century belief, cannot actually be true.

How reliable do you claim that such biblical writers actually are, when they are finally after about 1700 years exposed as writers of constant superstitious fiction? The gospels, which are almost the only source of any actual information about the earthly activities of Jesus, are of course also known only as much later writing from anonymous Christian religious scribes who were far too late ever to have known Jesus. How reliable do you think that is?

And there really isn't anything else outside of those gospels and letters as a primary source of any mention of Jesus at all. As far as anyone can honestly tell - all later non-biblical writers were far too late to have ever known Jesus, never claimed any such thing as ever knowing Jesus, and where their only other known earlier source from which any such non-biblical writers could have obtained any mention at all of Jesus, was that same earliest biblical writing and biblical preaching itself ... all of which comes, as I say, from anonymous religious Christians who had not only never known any such person as Jesus, but where none of them ever even tried to claim (not even untruthfully claim) that they had ever met Jesus or that anyone else had ever reliably written to claim they had met Jesus.
How reliable do you think that is as evidence of an impossible messiah that not a single one of those people had ever known except as a figure of extreme religious fanatical faith?

Where do you think these people who had never known anyone called Jesus, actually got their Jesus stories from? Randel Helms ("Gospel Fictions") shows that they were certainly using the OT as a source for creating Jesus stories from what had been written centuries before as messiah prophecy. And of course in Paul’s letters, where the writer “Paul” (whoever he, or they, were), not only never met anyone called Jesus (even though he was supposed to be a contemporary who for years had been spending all his time physically persecuting people who apparently believe in Jesus as the messiah), repeatedly stresses and insists that all of his information and knowledge about Jesus came to him “according to scripture” (as well as from divine revelation, of course) ... so Paul’s letters even spell it out in words of one syllable to say he was most definitely taking his Jesus beliefs from what he thought was being revealed to him as the true meaning of ancient messiah prophecies written in coded scriptures ...

.... how reliable do you think that fanatical belief in the prophecies of ancient divinely revealed scripture is as “evidence” of a Jesus figure entirely unknown to Paul except through that fanatical faith belief?

It’s not a question of sceptics wishing to believe or not believe in the existence of Jesus. It’s a question of evidence. And in stark contrast to what the church leaders and biblical scholars have insisted for generations, the actual fact of this matter is that the claimed evidence of anyone ever knowing a human Jesus is in fact non-existent ... there actually is no evidence of him at all as a real person that anyone hade ever met except in the sense of meeting him through divine superstitious highly ignorant 1st century faith beliefs.

...
IOW - you are still relying upon the grossly unreliable and completely discredited biblical writing for your belief in Jesus. But any truly objective impartial educated person, which probably excludes most bible scholars and theologians, could never claim that such proven unreliable writing was still a source of any credible fact about Jesus as a figure completely unknown to any of those writers (and where it's now known they were certainly using the OT as a source for their Jesus stories, just as Paul had in fact sworn that he actually did).

 

[dejudge]

1. Atheists have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

2. Jews have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

3. Christians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

4. Historians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

5. Agnostics have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.


It is an established falsehood, propaganda and Chinese Whispers that there is a consensus that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.

 

[The Greater Fool]

1. Atheists have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

2. Jews have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

3. Christians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

4. Historians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

5. Agnostics have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.


It is an established falsehood, propaganda and Chinese Whispers that there is a consensus that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.

Would the reason be that no one proposes that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father?

OH, I think I get it. From a secular standpoint, which history certainly should be, then a historical Jesus figure would have to be a standard issue human?

Carry on.

 

[Joey McGee]

All of the historical Jesus supporters are Jesus freaks, and the only evidence for his existence is the bible. There I saved you 1200 words, Ian. This is obviously ********, as we've been over and over again, but I really can't be bothered to spend any more time reading such verbose nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

1. Atheists have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

2. Jews have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

3. Christians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

4. Historians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

5. Agnostics have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.


It is an established falsehood, propaganda and Chinese Whispers that there is a consensus that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.

Would the reason be that no one proposes that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father?

OH, I think I get it. From a secular standpoint, which history certainly should be, then a historical Jesus figure would have to be a standard issue human?

Carry on.

The FARCE has been exposed.


You don't understand that the HJ argument is that Jesus Christ existed as a human being with a human father.

People have been spouting propaganda, falsehood and Chinese Whispers that there is a consensus.

The majority of people believe Jesus existed as God Creator, born of a Ghost, the Son of God and a Transfiguring water walker.

 

[dejudge]

All of the historical Jesus supporters are Jesus freaks, and the only evidence for his existence is the bible. There I saved you 1200 words, Ian. This is obviously ********, as we've been over and over again, but I really can't be bothered to spend any more time reading such verbose nonsense.

The Christian Bible has NEVER EVER supported an historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father].

The Christian Bible supports a Ghost/God/man Jesus without a human father.

In fact, the NT Canon was used to ARGUE AGAINST an HJ.

For hundreds of years, since at least the 2nd century, Christians of antiquity have used their Canon to argue that an HJ is a blatant Falsehood.

You have been spouting Fiction and Chinese Whispers all the time about a consensus.

There has NEVER EVER been a consensus that Jesus Christ was a mere man with a human father in the HISTORY of mankind.

 

[The Greater Fool]

The FARCE has been exposed.


You don't understand that the HJ argument is that Jesus Christ existed as a human being with a human father.

People have been spouting propaganda, falsehood and Chinese Whispers that there is a consensus.

The majority of people believe Jesus existed as God Creator, born of a Ghost, the Son of God and a Transfiguring water walker.

You do realize that repeating the same hyperbole isn't really communication, right?

I've asked you questions in good faith, which is obviously a waste of my time.

The majority believe Jesus was a human, who was also god. Why the "human father" canard?

 

[dejudge]

You do realize that repeating the same hyperbole isn't really communication, right?

I've asked you questions in good faith, which is obviously a waste of my time.

The majority believe Jesus was a human, who was also god. Why the "human father" canard?

What complete illogical absurdities and fiction you post!!!

You seem to have NO idea that people here can READ what is written about Jesus of Nazareth.

There was a CONSENSUS in the Roman Empire that Jesus was from HEAVEN, God of God and born of a Ghost since the 4th century.

At the Council of Nicea and 381 Council of Constantinople it was CONCEDED that Jesus Christ was FROM heaven, True God of True God and Born of a Ghost.

Examine an excerpt of the CONSENSUS.


The 381 Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.

He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.

There was NEVER EVER any CONSENSUS that Jesus was a mere man with a human father in the history of mankind.

The CONSENSUS in the Roman Empire since the 4th century among Christian cults was that Jesus was FROM heaven, God of God and born of a Ghost.

 

[Belz...]

Again, GDon spouts his absurdities.

What absurdities you post.

Again, you post absurdities and irrelevant propaganda.

What absurdities you post!!!

You do realize that repeating the same hyperbole isn't really communication, right?

What complete illogical absurdities and fiction you post!!!

 

[Craig B]

1. Atheists have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.


It is an established falsehood, propaganda and Chinese Whispers that there is a consensus that Jesus existed as a mere man with a human father.

The first part is rubbish.

I see you're back to a naughty schoolboy trick. You have been upbraided for writing NEVER EVER, and I personally have asked you about "propaganda" and "Chinese whispers". Do I get the courtesy of an explanation? No you simply increase your repetition output of the challenged terms.

What fun! Eh? Tee hee hee!

 

[The Greater Fool]

There was NEVER EVER any CONSENSUS that Jesus was a mere man with a human father in the history of mankind.
[/u][/b]

Again, you made a claim about what Christians believe, not what historians believe.

Christians believe Jesus was a human, with Mary as mother, God (holy ghost) as father. Of course they don't believe he had a human father, but Jesus was himself human, so the 'human father' nonsense is... well... nonsense.

The human Jesus is believed to also be a god or creator god (depending on denomination). Either way, after Jesus's death and resurrection he became a spiritual being.

We don't need to create falsehoods about what Christians believe, as you seem to be doing. What Christians really believe is wacky enough.

I am not that interested in a Historical Jesus, so I can't make arguments pro or con. But, I should think if scholars are looking for a HJ, they are not looking for a god or demigod, but a standard issue human.

Thanks ever so.

Carry on.

 

[IanS]

All of the historical Jesus supporters are Jesus freaks, and the only evidence for his existence is the bible. There I saved you 1200 words, Ian. This is obviously ********, as we've been over and over again, but I really can't be bothered to spend any more time reading such verbose nonsense.

What is a "Jesus freak"? I don't believe I have ever used that expression, or anything like it, anywhere, ever!

If you are trying to say that I am accusing everyone who thinks Jesus was a real person, of being a closet Christian, then I am certainly not. I have never said or implied any such thing.

As a matter of fact I think it's perfectly understandable why you or anyone else here would think Jesus was probably a real person. And that is because you are getting your information entirely from bible scholars, theologians &/or Christian writers. And you think that bible scholars in particular are neutral academic "historians" who surely must know what they are talking about when almost every last one of them says that Jesus was certainly a real person.

But there is a huge and completely insurmountable problem with what those bible scholars say about their belief in Jesus as a real person. And that problem was inadvertently made clear when Bart Ehrman published his 2013 book "Did Jesus Exist". and that huge and quite fatal problem is that whilst in writing that book Ehrman set out confidently claiming to produce the evidence that was so overwhelmingly convincing to all bible scholars, in fact if you read his book there is actually no evidence at all there of a human Jesus ever known to a single person that ever wrote about Jesus as figure believed from the unspecified past. Nor any independent evidence at all of any other kind except for that same biblical writing of religious belief in a miraculous figure that none of the writers ever knew!

That is most definitely not evidence of Jesus. That is only evidence of peoples 1st century un-evidenced religious belief in a figure that they all thought was prophesised as a matter of certainty by divine words coded ("hidden so long", Paul's says) in OT scripture (and probably also in the writing of other early material that preachers like Paul regarded as "scripture", e.g. the writing known as "The Ascent of Isaiah"). Its' evidence only of belief, it's not evidence of Jesus himself as a person ever known to any of them.

Jesus might have been a real person. It's not impossible. After all there were apparently lots of Jewish street preachers in Judea in the 1st century. And "Jesus", or in fact it would have actually been the name "Joshua" or Johusua", rendered as "Iesous" in the Greek written copies of the letters and gospels of the bible, was a name or "word" known from at least 500 years before in the OT Book of Zechariah. But the problem is that there is actually no evidence of this person as a living human ever known to anyone. None at all. Precisely, zero.

And whilst there is no law against believing in such figures without good evidence, that is usually called "faith" ... and as science has proved, faith of that sort is terribly unreliable.

Incidentally - IIRC, in his 2015 book, Carrier says (with references) that in the Book of Zechariah, which is said to have been written circa. 520 BC, it actually names a figure called "Joshua", i.e. "Jesus", who is said there to be a celestial figure and a scion of Yahweh, who is in some way sent to save the Jewish nation, but who is apparently killed and then resurrected again. I.e., virtually exactly what Paul was preaching over 500 years later, and which he said he had discovered "according to scripture".

You would have to check the book of Zechariah to see if you agreed with Carrier's interpretation of what is after all a translated version of what was said to have been written in that book of OT scripture, and I think some of what Carrier says about it may depend on what you think certain translated words really mean. But you certainly can find the passage that Carrier is talking about, and it certainly can be interpreted to be probably saying something like that which Carrier describes.

 

[dejudge]

The first part is rubbish.

I see you're back to a naughty schoolboy trick. You have been upbraided for writing NEVER EVER, and I personally have asked you about "propaganda" and "Chinese whispers". Do I get the courtesy of an explanation? No you simply increase your repetition output of the challenged terms.

What fun! Eh? Tee hee hee!

This is found in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus Presbyter and Bishop of the Church of Lyons.

Irenaeus argued AGAINST an historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father]

In the Church of Lyons, it was a known established heretical lie that Jesus Christ was a mere human with a human father.

1. Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith, and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.]

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation....

There was NEVER EVER a CONSENSUS that Jesus Christ was a mere man with a human father in the history of mankind.

It is the complete opposite.

There was a CONSENSUS among Christian cults in the Roman Empire since the 4th century at the Council of Nicea.

Examine an excerpt from the CONSENSUS at the Council of Nicea.

The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed.
The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice.


We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father.

By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man.

He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven.

The fallacy has been exposed.

There was NEVER EVER any CONSENSUS in the history of mankind that Jesus Christ was a mere man with a human father.

 

[Craig B]

So you are not going to answer the questions are you?

You mean this stuff?

Consider this scenario
I go to buy a used car that I saw advertised in the local newspaper and I examine it and find that it is not in the condition it was claimed to be in.
Moreover, the guy trying to sell it to me does not have an original title deed but only a copy of it and a badly made one at that.
Additionally, when I ask him for an I.D. he gives me one with a name that does not match what is clearly his ethnicity from looking at him.
Furthermore, when I ask him to come with me to the DMV to register the sale he comes up with some excuse.

Am I right in suspecting something skewwhiff?
Should I go ahead and just trust and buy the car and pay for it?
Am I right to CHANGE MY MIND and walk away?
Who is the INSANE one
the one who has faith that the seller is on the up and up because MOST people who sell their cars are honest people?
or
the one who drops the whole thing and walks away even if he does not have a 100% proof that it is not a fraud?

No I'm not going to answer these "questions".

 

[maximara]

Again, you made a claim about what Christians believe, not what historians believe.

Dejudge does that a LOT but to be fair as pointed out over 100 years ago the historical Jesus concept has a range going from this relatively obscure nobody who lucked on being the subject of some guy named Paul to the Gospels in every detail are history.

I am not that interested in a Historical Jesus, so I can't make arguments pro or con. But, I should think if scholars are looking for a HJ, they are not looking for a god or demigod, but a standard issue human.

True but this goes back to the point Remsburg made about historical myth: The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false.

Remsburg's point was NOT that there wasn't a human Jesus but that if there was the Gospels tell us NOTHING about that man.

In essence, Remsburg's position was the story of Jesus in the Gospels had no more historical reality than the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreadful Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

As Robert Price puts it "For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus."

Since it can be demonstrated that the Christ Myth is MORE then the idea 'Jesus never existed as a human being' because other things have been called Christ Myth (see below) then how can the Christ Myth be refuted?

The term "Jesus myth theory" or "Christ Myth theory" has been used to describe the following ideas (going from totally imaginary to partly historical):

The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism.

Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.

Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community.

Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.

The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.

Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.
The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price and Eddy-Boyd.

Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify as "mythical" here.

(The Christ myth is) "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition. "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"
"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."
References:

Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199
Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25
Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58
Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17
Price, Robert M. (2000) Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85
Mead, G. R. S. The Talmum 100 Years B.C. Story of Jesus", "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?", 1903.
Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65
Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review
Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24
Robertson, Archibald (1946) Jesus: Myth Or History
Doherty, Earl ( 2009)Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason,, pp. vii-viii
Ehrman, Bart (2012) Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, p. 12
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley
Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40

 

[The Greater Fool]

Dejudge does that a LOT but to be fair as pointed out over 100 years ago the historical Jesus concept has a range going from this relatively obscure nobody who lucked on being the subject of some guy named Paul to the Gospels in every detail are history.




True but this goes back to the point Remsburg made about historical myth: The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false.

Remsburg's point was NOT that there wasn't a human Jesus but that if there was the Gospels tell use NOTHING about that man.

In essence, Remsburg's position was the story of Jesus in the Gospels had no more historical reality than the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreadful Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

As Robert Price puts it "For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus."

Since it can be demonstrated that the Christ Myth is MORE then the idea 'Jesus never existed as a human being' because other things have been called Christ Myth (see below) then how can the Christ Myth be refuted?

The term "Jesus myth theory" or "Christ Myth theory" has been used to describe the following ideas (going from totally imaginary to partly historical):

The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism.

Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.

Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community.

Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.

The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.

Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.
The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price and Eddy-Boyd.

Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify as "mythical" here.

(The Christ myth is) "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition. "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"
"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."
References:

Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199
Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25
Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58
Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17
Price, Robert M. (2000) Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85
Mead, G. R. S. The Talmum 100 Years B.C. Story of Jesus", "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?", 1903.
Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65
Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review
Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24
Robertson, Archibald (1946) Jesus: Myth Or History
Doherty, Earl ( 2009)Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason,, pp. vii-viii
Ehrman, Bart (2012) Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, p. 12
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley
Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40

I gotta say I sorta just scanned, but didn't see much to disagree with.

Isn't it the age old issue: How much of the Jesus myth can you discard and still call what you find Jesus?

I'd say too much. Once you remove god or demi-god, what you find is not the Jesus of myth.

But, as I say, I'm no scholar.

 

[dejudge]

Again, you made a claim about what Christians believe, not what historians believe.

The Greater Fool, I have stated multiple times that HISTORIANS have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ was a mere man with a human father.

Historians have NEVER had any historical data for Jesus as a mere man with a human father.


1. There is NO archaeological data for Jesus as a mere man with a human father.

2. There are NO artifacts from antiquity of Jesus as a mere man with a human father.

3. There are NO contemporary manuscripts of antiquity about Jesus as a mere man with a human father.

4. There is no documented Council where Historians conceded that Jesus Christ was a mere man with a human father.

5. There is an ON-GOING 300 year QUEST for an HJ which has ended in FAILURE multiple times due to lack of evidence.

There is simply NO historical data for a CONSENSUS.

Historians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus was a mere man with a human father in the history of mankind.

Examine excerpts of my previous posts.

1. Atheists have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

2. Jews have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

3. Christians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

4. Historians have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

5. Agnostics have NEVER EVER conceded that Jesus Christ existed as a mere man with a human father.

 

[Belz...]

The first part is rubbish.

I see you're back to a naughty schoolboy trick. You have been upbraided for writing NEVER EVER, and I personally have asked you about "propaganda" and "Chinese whispers". Do I get the courtesy of an explanation? No you simply increase your repetition output of the challenged terms.

What fun! Eh? Tee hee hee!

What utter fallacious falsehoods you post!!!




Oh, sorry. I'm just rolling with it.

 

[Belz...]

I am not that interested in a Historical Jesus, so I can't make arguments pro or con. But, I should think if scholars are looking for a HJ, they are not looking for a god or demigod, but a standard issue human.

Dejudge's argument is really super simple: if the story speaks of Jesus as having a ghost as a father, then that's that. He can't have a ghost as a father, therefore he didn't exist. Dejudge takes the bible literally, which is hilarious given his accusations toward other posters. It doesn't seem to occur to him that Jesus might have had a human father despite the stories. Why? Well, Christians don't believe that, do they? QED.

The failure of logic there is astounding.