The Historical Jesus III

[IanS]

No, IanS, that's not what I'm saying. I specifically used Flavius Josephus, whose existence is not in dispute, so as to not give that impression. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough.

I lol'd when I saw you using parachuted into because many moons ago while responding to you about your unique approach to historical figures I was going to go with a Star Trek analogy. That is all your historical personages don't seem to interact with any anybody else as if they have suddenly beamed down to Jerusalem or Rome. Everyone knows who they are but that is about it. They have no history and nothing can be inferred from their past existence living in a specific locale.
Anyway, I found it funny because parachuted into or beamed down kind of mean the same thing in this context. YMMV

Who are "ALL" these other historical figures about whom I am supposed to have said they are "parachuted into existence" and "do not interact with anybody else"??

Who else have I said that about?

 

[Craig B]

Well two passages by Paul do seem to deny a virgin birth (seed of David, born of woman NOT virgin) so that is not exactly true. Those passages along with Against Heresies do kick the whole demi-god thing out the window.

I agree with you about those passages of Paul, and I thought I was saying the same thing.

A Consensus that someone is a God, born of a virgin is worthless. It may be dismissed. Moreover Mark and John and Paul and the other Epistle writers don't share that consensus. They say nothing about the magic birth or even deny it.

So Paul's works deny the Virgin birth, as you have written.

 

[Mcreal]

Acharya S is a charlatan or lunatic peddler of outlandish woo and drivel.

Your ad hominem attack is entirely inappropriate.

Address the content I posted, not the author !!!

What you have done here is abominable: address the issue.

 

[IanS]

Its impossible that you would argue in favour of a consensus that Jesus was a God. These Christians were obviously deluded. A Consensus that someone is a God, born of a virgin is worthless. It may be dismissed. Moreover Mark and John and Paul and the other Epistle writers don't share that consensus. They say nothing about the magic birth or even deny it.

Since you are arguing with dejudge about the word "consensus", I'll tell you something about what you say is a valid "consensus" between bible scholars saying Jesus did exist - those bible scholars apparently almost all say that he "definitely" did exist as a matter of literal "certainty", and they claim that is shown by actual evidence in the gospels and letters of the bible ...

... for example in his 2013 book, Bart Ehrman when saying Jesus "certainly existed", says "practically every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees (with him)".

So what you have there is a "consensus" of "practically every properly trained scholar on the planet" claiming that that the biblical writing is sufficient to prove that Jesus was a certainty ... what do you think a "consensus" as deluded as that is worth?

And by the way, those are the people, the “consensus”, who you are relying on for your own Jesus belief - you and all the HJ people here are making a pro-HJ argument that is essentially just an “appeal to authority” in those self-same biblical scholars who apparently are so deluded and so stupid as to think (as a "consensus") that the bible provides literal absolute proof ("certainty" means "proof") that Jesus was a real person.

 

[Craig B]

Your ad hominem attack is entirely inappropriate.

Address the content I posted, not the author !!!

What you have done here is abominable: address the issue.

If you cite masses of stuff from what appears to be a charlatan, the quality of that source is the number one issue. Your author is a nut. Here's her account of her understanding of "credentials".

Over the years that I have been online, many people have wondered about my credentials, particularly since I write about controversial and contentious subjects that tend to create widespread debates. Let us first understand that the "credential argument" frequently constitutes an ad hominem attack, especially in the case of individuals who disagree with mainstream perspectives ... For example, the mysterious ancient Cretan language called "Linear B" boggled the minds of the world's best and most credentialed authorities and experts for decades. Linear B was finally decoded by an amateur linguist named Michael Ventris.

At least Ventris had credentials enough to know that Linear B isn't a language, but a script. He discovered that the language being transcribed was Greek; not very mysterious, and he could translate it.

With enough time and effort, we could certainly compile a long list of discoveries and insights by people who did not possess the "proper" credentials. What were the credentials of those who have influenced and created human culture for the past many thousands of years? Did they attend Harvard or Yale? How on Earth did human civilization progress without all these people with acceptable credentials? In a word, intelligence. People have simply used their brains to figure things out, not needing to study for decades or to obtain the obligatory sheepskin first.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/credentials.html

But in another part of her ludicrous self-puffing website she sings a different tune about "credentials"!

Acharya S, whose real name is D.M. Murdock, was classically educated at some of the finest schools, receiving a degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College, the 17th oldest college in the United States. At F&M, listed in the "highly selective" category in guides to top colleges and universities, Ms. Murdock studied under Dr. Robert Barnett, Dr. Joel Farber and Dr. Ann Steiner, among others.

Murdock is also a member of one of the world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece:

The 17th oldest college, eh? "Athens, Greece?" Wow! Just in case we think it's Athens, Georgia.

 

[Craig B]

So what you have there is a "consensus" of "practically every properly trained scholar on the planet" claiming that that the biblical writing is sufficient to prove that Jesus was a certainty ... what do you think a "consensus" as deluded as that is worth?

You can't be reading what is being discussed. A consensus about the reliability of sources may or may not be mistaken, but it is "worth" a great deal more than a consensus of religious believers that the object of their worship was born of a virgin impregnated by the Holy Ghost. Did you really mean what you have written?

 

[maximara]

Acharya S is a charlatan or lunatic peddler of outlandish woo and drivel. Even the mythicists tend to treat her with extreme reserve. Her description of her qualifications in her website has all the hallmarks of charlatanry. Read this from wiki.

As I said wiki is only as good as its sources and they range from good to total crap.

Since she is supposedly quoting another source here the issue is the quote correct and how good is Supernatural Religion?

The quote is correct...but this is where things fall apart.

The work was NOT from 1905 but rather 1874. More over it was in its sixth printing "Carefully revised" by 1875

Also Supernatural Religion's actual author is unknown. It is assumed to be Walter Richard Cassels but it is just that...an assumption.

The work did generate responses by such people as Bishop Joseph Lightfoot which were added in some later additions. Replies to the responses also appear in some later additions. But at the end of the day we have no real idea who wrote Supernatural Religion.

E.B. Nicholson's 1879 The Gospel according to the Hebrews, its fragments tr. and annotated, with a critical analysis of the evidence relating to it tries to challenge the issue but totally misses the point.

 

[Craig B]

As I said wiki is only as good as its sources and they range from good to total crap.

Since she is supposedly quoting another source here the issue is the quote correct and how good is Supernatural Religion?

The quote is correct...but this is where things fall apart.

The work was NOT from 1905 but rather 1874. More over it was in its sixth printing "Carefully revised" by 1875

Also Supernatural Religion's actual author is unknown. It is assumed to be Walter Richard Cassels but it is just that...an assumption.

The work did generate responses by such people as Bishop Joseph Lightfoot which were added in some later additions. Replies to the responses also appear in some later additions. But at the end of the day we have no real idea who wrote Supernatural Religion.

E.B. Nicholson's 1879 The Gospel according to the Hebrews, its fragments tr. and annotated, with a critical analysis of the evidence relating to it tries to challenge the issue but totally misses the point.

Thank you for that useful comment. I only cite wiki because it represents more modern understanding of the issue. Here is how Acharya S seeks to establish the "credentials" of her archaic and mysterious source. This is laughable.

An excellent study on the subject of when verbatim quotes from various Christian texts begin to appear in the historical record may be found in the thick tome by Walter Richard Cassels called Supernatural Religion (1905), which includes an 85-page, detailed study of Justin’s work vis-à-vis the canonical gospels, with the original Greek and Latin, along with copious notes and citations.

http://freethoughtnation.com/does-justin-martyr-quote-the-gospels/

 

[David Mo]

Oh, my god; the eternal return again!

Dejudge’s argumentative line is baroque and irrelevant in a 99%.

We all know that the gospel narrative is a legendary one. There is a character named “Jesus” that is able to do miracles of all kind. This is pure legend. We agree. But there are at least two ways to understand the nature of this “Jesus” in the gospels. One: he was a divine entity that had token the appearance of a man and lived as a man on the Earth (Pauline point of view). Other: he was a man that was selected by Yahweh to become a divine assistant (markian outlook). Diverse variants of those main trends can be found in the gospels. Sometimes Jesus is almost as the Father; sometimes he is a humble man doing the will of the Father.

This is obvious and I don’t understand why Dejudge doesn’t agree. He speaks, speaks and speaks and their litanies become a damned imbroglio. Divinized man or humanized divinity are almost indistinguishable things and secondary matters.

The simple question is: Is there any reason to think that such “Jesus” was a real man divinized by their gullible disciples? Period.

 

[maximara]

Thank you for that useful comment. I only cite wiki because it represents more modern understanding of the issue.

Here that may be the case but there are other places (mainly religious articles) where it uses the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907-1912) as a reference....making the information provided ridiculously out of date.

Here is how Acharya S seeks to establish the "credentials" of her archaic and mysterious source. This is laughable. http://freethoughtnation.com/does-justin-martyr-quote-the-gospels/

No need to repeat it as Mcreal already provided it.

Acharya S provides interesting data but you should always go back to the source she cites rather then using her directly.

Heck, trying to track one of her quotes is how I found Mitchell, James Barr (1880) Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence which lead to the somewhat more useful Pleket, H.W.; Stroud, R.S.. "Egypt. Funerary epithets in Egypt.(26-1702)." Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Current editors: A. T. R.S. R.A. Chaniotis Corsten Stroud Tybout. Brill Online, 2013.

Acharya S is useful as long as you use the caveat of 'go back to the source referenced' and do NOT reference her directly

Supernatural Religion is one of those sources. It provides some interesting ideas but you have keep in mind that interpretive historical anthropology which is needed to actually evaluate these ideas simply did not exist in the 19th century. It certainly is NOT a source I would use on its own (not knowing who the author really was is the main reason) though the comments would help indicate if the points it kicked out were even remotely valid.

On the issue of the Gospels, Paul talks of a gospel but it seems to be an oral work not a written one so is the one reference here to written works or some form of oral tradition?

 

[Mcreal]

I think these points are relevant to the development of christianity and the vagueness of early church Fathers" -

The Gospels and the Gospel

In all of Justin’s extant writings, the word “gospels” appears only once, in his First Apology, while the word “gospel” is used twice in his book Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Concerning the references to “the Gospel” in Trypho, which some have taken for knowledge of the canonical gospels, the Church father evidently is referring to another text altogether.

Walter Richard Cassels states, in Supernatural Religion, (which includes an 85-page, detailed study of Justin’s work vis-à-vis the canonical gospels, with the original Greek and Latin, along with copious notes and citations), -

The title, 'Memoirs of the Apostles', by no means indicates a plurality of Gospels. A single passage has been pointed out in which the Memoirs are said to have been called εὐαγγέλια in the plural: “For the Apostles in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,” etc. The last expression, ἁ καλειται εὐαγγέλια [“which are called Gospels”], as many scholars have declared, is probably an interpolation. It is, in all likelihood, a gloss on the margin of some old MS. [manuscript] which copyists afterwards inserted in the text. If Justin really stated that the Memoirs were called Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should never [elsewhere] call them so himself. In no other place in his writings does he apply the plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho [in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho] referring to the “so-called Gospel,” which he states that he has carefully read, and which, of course, can only be Justin’s “Memoirs”; and, again, in another part of the same dialogue, Justin quotes passages which are written “in the Gospel” (εν τω ευαγγελίω γέγραπται). The term “Gospel” is nowhere else used by Justin in reference to a written record. In no case, however, considering the numerous Gospels then in circulation, and the fact that many of these, different from the canonical Gospels, are known to have been exclusively used by distinguished contemporaries of Justin, and by various communities of Christians in that day, could such an expression be taken as a special indication of the canonical Gospels.​

“The one instance of ‘gospels’ in Justin appears to be a scribal marginal gloss and explanatory note that was interpolated into the text.”​

... the one instance of “gospels” in Justin appears to be a scribal marginal gloss and explanatory note that was interpolated into the text. Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain why Justin only uses this word once in all of his writings. Hence, the term’s appearance in his book is not an identification by Justin himself of the Memoirs with the gospels. The other “gospel” usages in Justin concern a single text commonly understood in his circle as “the Gospel,” possibly the text Justin calls the 'Memoirs of the Apostles'.

http://freethoughtnation.com/does-justin-martyr-quote-the-gospels/

If Justin actually had the canonical gospels before him when writing his texts, he could only be considered sloppy in his citations, which is the accusation made to explain why his “Memoirs” differs so much from the gospels. The reality is that [this] Church father is surprisingly consistent and conscientious in his quotation elsewhere. For example, as I state in SOG, Martyr quotes from the Old Testament 314 instances, 197 of which he names the particular book or author, equaling an impressive two-thirds of the total amount. Several of the other 117 instances may not have needed citation, “considering the nature of the passage.” Despite his remarkably fastidious record, when Justin is supposedly quoting the New Testament, he mentions none of the four gospels. Instead, he distinctly states that the quotes are from the “Memoirs” ...

The facts are that the terms “gospels” and “gospel” in Justin do not indicate his knowledge of our canonical gospels; that the quotes from the Memoirs of the Apostles are not the same as those in the canonical gospels; and that the term “Memoirs” appears to refer to a single text, like “Acts of the Apostles,” rather than serving as a reference to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whom Justin does not mention or even seem to know. In the final analysis, it is evident that Justin Martyr does not quote the canonical gospels and that, despite the wishful thinking, these texts do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the end of the second century.

 

[IanS]

You can't be reading what is being discussed. A consensus about the reliability of sources may or may not be mistaken, but it is "worth" a great deal more than a consensus of religious believers that the object of their worship was born of a virgin impregnated by the Holy Ghost. Did you really mean what you have written?

Yes. I meant what was written. Try reading it again, then you might understand what it says without me having to explain it to you dozens of times.

The “consensus” that you actually have, as spelt out by Bart Ehrman, is a “consensus” consisting of “almost every properly trained scholar on the planet”, who all claim that the bible is their evidence which proves that Jesus was a “definite” “certainty” ... how valid do you think an utterly deluded “consensus” like that is!

 

[Craig B]

Yes. I meant what was written. Try reading it again, then you might understand what it says without me having to explain it to you dozens of times.

I understand it already. You tend to enunciate things with great authority many times. I understand them. Your problem really is that I don't agree with them. That problem will in no way be solved by your stating "Try reading it again, then you might understand what it says without me having to explain it to you dozens of times." Such an approach tends neither to impart understanding, if that is what is wanting; nor to elicit agreement - the thing lacking in this particular case.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge’s argumentative line is baroque and irrelevant in a 99%.

We all know that the gospel narrative is a legendary one.
There is a character named “Jesus” that is able to do miracles of all kind. This is pure legend. We agree.

But there are at least two ways to understand the nature of this “Jesus” in the gospels. One: he was a divine entity that had token the appearance of a man and lived as a man on the Earth (Pauline point of view).

Other: he was a man that was selected by Yahweh to become a divine assistant (markian outlook). Diverse variants of those main trends can be found in the gospels. Sometimes Jesus is almost as the Father; sometimes he is a humble man doing the will of the Father.

This is obvious and I don’t understand why Dejudge doesn’t agree.


He speaks, speaks and speaks and their litanies become a damned imbroglio. Divinized man or humanized divinity are almost indistinguishable things and secondary matters.

The simple question is: Is there any reason to think that such “Jesus” was a real man divinized by their gullible disciples? Period.

Your post is of no value since you are simply repeating a question for which you have no answer.

You seem to have no idea what an argument is.


I ARGUE that there is NO evidence from antiquity to support the argument that Jesus was a real man.

You seem to think that I cannot argue that Jesus was a figure of fiction/myth based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity because you are incapable of answering your own question.

There is no person, Scholar or not, Christian or not, Atheist or not, who can present any historical data for the character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth/fiction character.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS A PRODUCT of Faith.

Christians of antiquity admitted THEIR Jesus was God of God, the Lord from heaven and born of a Ghost.

Please, explain where you would find historical data for Jesus of Nazareth?

In the same books which state he was a Ghost???

 

[dejudge]

And in addition, Jesus becomes God Creator in the LATER versions of the Gospels which is the complete opposite to euhumerization.

Eh? That's what I've been saying here for years, and you've been arguing that he was God from the beginning!

No!!! No!! No!! You have NOT been saying that Jesus was a TRANSFIGURING Water Walker IN THE EARLIER Gospels before he became GOD Creator.

In the EARLIER gMark, Jesus was a TRANSFIGURING water walking Son of a God before he TRANSFORMED in God Creator, the Logos in gJohn and the Pauline Corpus.

Changing the earlier gMark's water walking Transfigurer into a God Creator by the authors of gJohn and the Pauline Corpus is completely contrary to euhumerisation.

 

[IanS]

I understand it already. You tend to enunciate things with great authority many times. I understand them. Your problem really is that I don't agree with them. That problem will in no way be solved by your stating "Try reading it again, then you might understand what it says without me having to explain it to you dozens of times." Such an approach tends neither to impart understanding, if that is what is wanting; nor to elicit agreement - the thing lacking in this particular case.

You don’t agree with it? Are you denying that Bart Ehrman said in print for all the world to see that "practically every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees (with him)" when he say's that Jesus "definitely existed" and that he "certainly existed" ... you are disputing that? I have quoted it to you at least 20 times here before with the page numbers and full details of particular 2013 book in question ... you are disputing that?

I am asking you (rhetorically) what a "consensus" amongst scholars as deluded as that, could possibly be worth!

And I am further pointing out that Ehrman and those he refers to as "practically every properly trained scholar on the planet", are precisely and exactly the people who you and the rest of the HJ side have so often cited here as academic "expert historians" who you and all other HJ posters here have constantly appealed to as the authorities throughout all these HJ threads for your belief that such scholars are THE experts to be trusted for belief in Jesus as real person in the 1st century.

 

[Craig B]

I am asking you (rhetorically) what a "consensus" amongst scholars as deluded as that, could possibly be worth!

And I'm telling you (literally) that it's worth infinitely more than a "consensus" of Church Fathers that Jesus was born of a Virgin impregnated by the Holy Ghost.

 

[IanS]

And I'm telling you (literally) that it's worth infinitely more than a "consensus" of Church Fathers that Jesus was born of a Virgin impregnated by the Holy Ghost.

I am not interested in what you think about any so-called "consensus" amongst anyone called "church fathers". I am not asking you about that all.

I am asking you what a "consensus" between biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman and “practically every properly trained scholar on the planet” can be worth when they claim that the bible is evidence actually proof of the “certainty” of Jesus existence?

How credible is an expert “consensus” like that?

Because those are the people who you are actually reliant upon for your own HJ belief.

 

[Belz...]

I am asking you what a "consensus" between biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman and “practically every properly trained scholar on the planet” can be worth when they claim that the bible is evidence actually proof of the “certainty” of Jesus existence?

How credible is an expert “consensus” like that?

Like physicists. They keep talking about "dark matter" and such nonsense. "Dark" matter? That sounds like magic. How credible is their expert consensus?

Pretty good, actually, since they are the experts and I am not. Unless we start doubting relevant expert opinion on the basis that we disagree. Now, I know what you're going to say: the nature of the evidence is different, and all. But I'm discussing, as you were, expertise: does the fact that _you_ find the evidence unconvincing somehow disqualify the experts?

Instead, you should show that they are not experts.

 

[Craig B]

I am not interested in what you think about any so-called "consensus" amongst anyone called "church fathers". I am not asking you about that all.

I am asking you what a "consensus" between biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman and “practically every properly trained scholar on the planet” can be worth when they claim that the bible is evidence actually proof of the “certainty” of Jesus existence?

How credible is an expert “consensus” like that?

Because those are the people who you are actually reliant upon for your own HJ belief.

No, you are misrepresenting your own views, perhaps for "rhetorical" reasons. I stated that "(a) Consensus that someone is a God, born of a virgin is worthless. It may be dismissed." You respond with: "Since you are arguing with dejudge about the word "consensus", I'll tell you something about what you say is a valid "consensus" between bible scholars saying Jesus did exist - those bible scholars apparently almost all say that he "definitely" did exist as a matter of literal "certainty", and they claim that is shown by actual evidence in the gospels and letters of the bible ... "

Now, that means that the two kinds of consensus are of comparable validity - or there is no point in your writing it. And that is preposterous. The "certainty" if such it be, that Jesus existed as a natural human being, is infinitely more rational than the consensus of Church fathers that he was a virgin born God.