The Historical Jesus III

[Elagabalus]

...We are not even sure if Paul men "brother" in the biological or spiritual sense...

That is simply false, Maximara. It is only the Mythicists who keep claiming this.

 

[Craig B]

Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the Taiping Rebellion 1850 to 1864, said he was the younger brother of Jesus. Does this mean we have "credible evidence for a historical Jesus" in the 19th century? No so why in the name of logic should it be so for the 1st century?

You're having a laugh, aren't you? Do we have a James appearing hundreds of years after the existence of the Temple and the governorship of Pilate and the preaching of John, saying "I am Jesus' brother"? If we do, it's not the same as the evidence of Paul and Acts.

 

[IanS]

Yeah but you're forgetting the thing that I said which led to this conversation: are you or I qualified to determine what evidence is geuine or credible when it comes to historical research?

Absolutely. Of course any educated person should know very well what is credible evidence vs. what is not.

And it's not credible evidence to cite gospels written anonymously as late religious copies by unknown people who had never known Jesus and who never named any sources as people who had told them any first hand accounts of Jesus, but who repeatedly insisted that he was supernatural and miraculous at every turn. And with no independent contemporary confirmation of any part of it at all.

That is certainly not credible as a source of reliable evidence.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Absolutely. Of course any educated person should know very well what is credible evidence vs. what is not.

And it's not credible evidence to cite gospels written anonymously as late religious copies by unknown people who had never known Jesus and who never named any sources as people who had told them any first hand accounts of Jesus, but who repeatedly insisted that he was supernatural and miraculous at every turn. And with no independent contemporary confirmation of any part of it at all.

That is certainly not credible as a source of reliable evidence.

Doesn't evaluating evidence depend on what you are investigating.

Siting the Bible as evidence that Jesus is a god / demigod is one thing, since the existence of a god or demigod is not documented in any useful first hand source. It is an extraordinary claim that requires a higher standard than more or less likely.

Siting the Bible that a random human is more or less likely to have existed is a horse of a different color. We know normal(ish) humans have existed since the dawn of man, so the claim that a human existed and that a letter writer claims to have worked or talked to the brother of that man is a rather workaday thing.

Letters are commonly used by historians to tease out aspects of history in a second or third hand kind of way. They may not be great sources of accuracy, but being professional, experienced historians, they take that into account.

I may not be expressing myself well, but I hope I got the sense across. I'd wager that assigning a value of accuracy or usefulness to letters can cause a fair amount of dispute among historians, but it seems a valid and rational tool.

I'm not married to this concept, so it would be useful to see what historians themselves say about this.

 

[Craig B]

Doesn't evaluating evidence depend on what you are investigating.

You don't understand what's happening. IanS has picked up on something I find absurd; that is, that the only sources of information about Jesus must be people who claimed to know him personally. Every time I post something, IanS will immediately post some message containing a reference to this. But he will not address my objection to this criterion of validity of testimony.

It's his way of arguing. Being provocative. The other thing he's done that with recently is in reference to my point that I don't read from lists of books and videos that people send me. As as soon on as he read that, he started to bang on about books I should read.

That's how IanS engages in discourse.

As I say, it's best left alone.

 

[Leumas]

It means that consensus of scholars is worthless. Do you understand the examples now? If you want the truth, go to the margins and listen to the small number of dissidents. Even if what they say sounds like woo. I think that's what we're being told.

Every stride and leap in knowledge has been initially against the "consensus".

Scientists ridiculed and marginalized Alfred Wegener for proposing the Continental Drift theory and the "consensus" derided and ignored him for a fool who was not qualified in the field of the "consensus".

From here

Despite much opposition, the view of continental drift gained support and a lively debate started between "drifters" or "mobilists" (proponents of the theory) and "fixists" (opponents).​

Ah, now I remember what it reminds me of: conspiracy theorists and woo-woos, who say exactly the same thing, citing Einstein and Galileo.

Yes, your statements remind me of those of casuists and theists, who when they run out of claptrap and their codswallop has been exposed for the onanism it is and their apologetics have failed to substantiate their drivel, they start resorting to calling people names of all sorts.

Empty pathetic sophistry nothing more!

 

[The Greater Fool]

You don't understand what's happening. IanS has picked up on something I find absurd; that is, that the only sources of information about Jesus must be people who claimed to know him personally. Every time I post something, IanS will immediately post some message containing a reference to this. But he will not address my objection to this criterion of validity of testimony.

It's his way of arguing. Being provocative. The other thing he's done that with recently is in reference to my point that I don't read from lists of books and videos that people send me. As as soon on as he read that, he started to bang on about books I should read.

That's how IanS engages in discourse.

As I say, it's best left alone.

IanS and I have discoursed before.

No offense intended, but this sort of backhanded warning never reflects favorably on the author, I recommend against it in the future. Thank you kindly.

 

[IanS]

To be clear: Just a man, rather than a virgin-born Son of the Holy Ghost. That was later.

The evidence is in the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark, which are the earliest Christian writings we have. I hope you will admit that the Gospel of Mark appears to portray Jesus as a man with a mother and brothers and sisters? So at least the Gospel of Mark supports this.

What? A late anonymous Christian copy of something called the gospel of Mark is supposed to be genuine evidence showing that Jesus was believed to be a normal human? I do not think so.

If you mean the so-called “short g-Mark” then afaik that still describes Jesus as constantly miraculous, i.e. supernatural non-human.

Now on to Paul...

Well, I'll show you mine and you show me yours.

(1) Paul calls Jesus "anthropos" (man) twice:

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man [anthropos], Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

1 Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man [came] death, by man [anthropos] [came] also the resurrection of the dead.​

Paul uses "anthropos" many times in his letters, and it ALWAYS means "human person".

But if Paul describes Jesus as a “man”, it is not a ordinary “human” man, is it?

Paul describes this “man” as the supernatural Son of God, whom he knew according to “divine revelation” of the true meaning of messiah prophecies “according to scripture”. This was not an ordinary human preacher that Paul was describing, was it!

Paul is describing an unknown figure who he (Paul) thinks has been revealed to him by God “according to scripture”, as a supernatural messiah who rises from the dead. That is not a description of a normal person!

(2) There are quite a lot of "seed of" statements as well. I'm not aware of any literature that has a non-human being being called a "seed of" a presumably living person. I won't go into them, but how do you read them in light of the contents of Paul?

Well the only “seed” statements I recall being discussed in these threads, are the very frequent claims (Craig has claimed it many times) that Jesus must have been real because he was “the seed of David” ... well king David, supposedly living around 1000BC, is afaik one of several principal figures of ancient OT legend who is now widely regarded by modern biblical scholars as quite likely no more than a fictional figure himself!

And that’s apart from the fact that people in Paul’s time would have no credible way of actually knowing who truly were the ancestral relatives of anyone from over 1000 years in the past.

But even apart from all of that, as stated above, the fact of the matter in Paul’s letters is that Paul had never known anyone called Jesus, but instead believed in him purely through a divine revelation “according to scripture” and where he described that figure as the supernatural Son of Yahweh.

That’s how Paul described this unknown figure of divine revelation. And supernatural figures are certainly not normal humans!

(3) Romans 9:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came...​

Again, the obvious reading is Christ is a descendent of Jews. What is your reading of the above?

If you mean "son of God", then note that Paul says that any human can be a son of God in Rom 8:

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God​

Well this is precisely the same thing again - but if by quoting the phrase from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came... you are trying to say that Paul believed this unknown never seen messiah to be an ordinary man, then (a) that is certainly untrue, because Paul clearly claimed him to supernatural, and (b) saying that “he came according to the flesh”, sounds more like Paul thought he had been at one time in the past witnessed in mortal human-like form, but that he was of course not a normal human because Paul certainly described him as a supernatural "dying & rising "god"", known "according to scripture". In which respect ...

... have you read what I described before from Carrier's 2015 book where he says that “Jesus” is actually named and described described in the book of Zechariah supposedly written circa. 520 BC (i.e. over 500 years before Paul)? From rough memory, but we can easily check it - Carrier says those passages in the book of Zechariah, describe a figure actually named there as “Jesus”, who is a celestial being and described as the Son of God, sent in some sort of act to save the people of the Jewish nation, but where in the process of doing that he is killed in some sort of tussle possibly with “the devil”, but then rises again to return to heaven ... Carrier interprets that in the same way that Doherty had previously done, saying that it is a description of a legendary OT scriptural prophecy just like the picture that was painted by Paul 500 years later, and where of course Paul actually says that his belief in Jesus was “according to scripture” ....

... now, as I said before, I am not in a position to check the earliest most original versions of the book of Zechariah, and to translate those in a genuinely objective way, such as to confirm or deny what Carrier gave as his interpretation of those passages. However, as we know, that description is contained in a book which has apparently been endorsed by what passes as “peer review” in this subject (it would not be what is known as “peer review” in research science). So it does have some proper academic agreed authority in what it says.

But if that is what Paul meant by repeatedly insisting that his beliefs about Jesus were known to him “according to scripture”, then it would appear to be a likely source of where Paul got the idea that the name of the messiah prophesised “according to scripture” was the name “Jesus” (i.e. Joshua, or in Greek Iesous), and where the description given by Paul appears to be virtually identical to that given 500 years earlier in the book of Zechariah.

But that description, either in Zechariah or in Paul, is not of a normal human person ever known to anyone. It’s a description of a heavenly spiritual supernatural being.

This sounds to me as if it’s an example of a phrase that we commonly hear from early religious writing which says something like “and the Word was made Flesh”, apparently meaning that God or his heavenly messenger, is made to assume a human-like fleshy form in order to interact with people on the earth, but of course the figure only “assumes" that fleshy form ... the figure is not actually a normal human, but is instead truly a celestial being who really resides with God in the heavens.

But how much, if any, of all that is true - the basic fact is that Paul (or actually we mean the unknown Christian writer who produced the letters some time around 200 AD as P46), had certainly never encountered any human being called Jesus. And he was certainly describing his belief in that figure as supernatural dying-&-rising “god” predicted by divine prophecy in ancient scripture ... he was not describing a normal human person.

So, over to you. How do you read the above? And can you show me where in the letters of Paul he describes Jesus as "a supernatural spiritual scion of Yahweh in the heavens"?

OK, well I don’t know about saying how I “read” the above (i.e. your quotes from Paul’s letters), because none of us here have ever read any letters written by Paul in the 1st century. What you, I, and everyone else here have actually read, are only modern accounts of what are supposed to be agreed (but often disputed) translations made from much later Christian religious copies, written by entirely anonymous people, who in all of the letters and gospels (inc. the so-called “short” g-Mark), described only their belief in an unknown un-evidenced figure of Jesus who was in all those accounts described as overtly and multiply supernatural, and certainly not a normal human preacher known on the streets of Jerusalem in 30 AD.​

 

[Leumas]

Well I’m not surprised you have not read it. Because I asked you a couple of years back whether you had had read certain books, to which you said that you had, but then when I asked you to tell me what was said on specific pages of those books, you corrected yourself and said that in fact you had not read any of those particular sceptical books.

Lies upon dissimulations upon disingenuous straw manning upon incessant haranguing upon foul language and calling people conspiracy theorists is the only argument left for the historicists.

If you, or any HJ posters in these threads, want to know why academic sceptic authors, like Avalos, are so critical of the profession of biblical studies, then instead of burying your head in the sand and persisting with your mistaken beliefs about these individuals as “expert historians”, you really do need to read why academics such as Avalos and many others in recent years are now so critical of biblical studies.

If instead, all you ever do is read the bible, read books by traditional biblical scholars like Ehrman, Crossan, Sanders and the rest, then you will never begin to understand why there is a very serious problem with the credibility, and even the actual veracity or truthfulness, of what has passed as expert knowledge of Jesus and the bible for so long ....

.... IOW, if you are going to argue that sceptics are wrong to distrust biblical scholars, then you really do need to read what sceptical academics say, and not what we all know has been said for generations by the Christian Church.

... must read books that argue "for" or "against"? What a totally weird idea.

Apparently reading books from all sides of a discussion is a weird idea!

Some people do not think it important to read books or listen to stuff that goes against their points of view.... and if they hear of a book that might threaten to decrease their ignorance they skim through a critical review about it so as to justify carrying on with their self-satisfied ignorance.

When one is so impartial and subjective as to not even be able to look at any argument opposing one's views we get the sort of historicists' codswallop that abound in this thread in dissimulation of an argument.

And when that is exposed for the onanism it is, they resort to calling people conspiracy theorists among other sophistic claptrap.

They blather and blabber "consensus...consensus...consensus" and when one shows them that there is no such thing and that even if for argument's sake one grants them the lie as truth it is still a worthless one made by biased invested pretenders and even if one were to ignore the utter illogical fallacies of appeal to a biased invested authority and appeal to majority there are in history numerous cases of "consensus" being utterly mistaken ignorance, they move on to the next stage of sophistry and start calling people who point out the facts to them conspiracy theorist so as to keep on alleviating their throbbing chronic cognitive dissonance.

Ah, now I remember what it reminds me of: conspiracy theorists and woo-woos, who say exactly the same thing, citing Einstein and Galileo.

But here I am just pointing out to you that a senior professor of biblical studies has written a book describing what he has seen first hand as the religious bias and the continuation of ancient allegiances to Christianity still continuing today in that profession, and explaining why he thinks the profession itself is not credible in what most of it's scholars still claim as evidence for truths in the bible. You can get the book free of charge on inter-library loans in the UK, of course.

• The End of Biblical Studies

And here is a video of a lecture about it (and part 2).

 

[Leumas]

Do you have a video or images to illustrate a straw man standing on a slippery slope ending in a poisoned well? I'd like to see that.

Yes... here is one stupendously wicked illustration of the most cunning use of sophistic artifices right below
|||
VV

Belz, you wondered Do you follow now? If you're touting a fringe woo theory, or are a victim of one, something like this is what you've got to say:

All correct changes of theory started off against the consensus. (Which is an obvious tautology, by the way, as well as being self-evidently true.) Fine. But then the woo merchants try to imply that the contrary is also true - that all statements made against the consensus are correct. Or at the very least, that statements are more likely to be correct if they are against current scholarly consensus.

There is a huge advantage in this if you want to make money by selling nonsensical books. You make the readers feel like geniuses by flattering them that the know it all wise guys of the Academy don't know zilch, but if you read this book by Acharya S (or whoever) you'll be better informed than the consensus of scholars, without the necessity of all that boring study process.

I really do feel that some posters here have fallen victim to this kind of intellectual scam.

 

[dejudge]

Sure he did. In his book Ehrman mentions the following:
1. There are numerous independent accounts of Jesus' life in the sources lying behind the Gospels
2. There are extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James.

You have already admitted the stories of Jesus are not credible.

1. Jesus in the Pauline Corpus was from heaven--NOT from earth.

2. Jesus in the Pauline Corpus was not a man.

3. The Pauline Corpus does not state any where that James the apostle was the brother of Jesus.


In addition, it is completely false that there are extensive writings from a 1st century writer.

The author of the Pauline Corpus did not state anywhere that he was writing in the 1st century.

You seem to think that because you post the known un-evidenced claims of Ehrman that you bear no responsibility for repeating known fallacies.

Ehrman is neither an historian or a paleographer but merely believes the Bible is a very good book.

The manuscripts and Codices with writings attributed to Paul are already dated to the 2nd century or later.

Papyri 46 is dated to 175-225 CE.

It is fascinating that you as a Christian constantly repeat propaganda on this thread.

You seem to have forgotten that it was your 'brothers' in Christ who documented that THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost, God of God and a Transfiguring Water Walking God Creator.

It is so amazing that Christians today are now willing to admit the Bible stories of their Jesus are not credible and are now attempting to invent their own history in the 21st century WITHOUT corroborative evidence.

 

[dejudge]

How many times must we go over the same debunked baseless HJ argument?

The very people in antiquity who worshiped Jesus had denied that James the Apostle was the brother of Jesus.

Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19

Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does.

But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him “the Lord's brother,” although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed.

James was the son of Cleophas and Jesus was the Son of God, God of God, the Lord from heaven according to Christians of antiquity .


The HJ argument is just a waste of time.

The same debunked arguments are repeated day after day.

 

[The Greater Fool]

If Jesus were a fraud (or deluded, or both) would we be forced to accept the his fraud (or delusion, or both) as truth in order to determine if he was real, or more likely real than not? Do the written references of those that knew him, or knew of him, or knew a relative of his, or heard reports of him, become useless because they believed the fraud (or dulusions, or both)?

I don't think anyone here disputes that the Jesus of the Bible did not exist. This is not the question at hand. The question is: Is there a historic person that could form the basis for the myth?

It's rather like the myth of King Arthur. It is known it is a myth, because there was no King Arthur, no Camelot, No Merlin, no magic, and on and on. But is there a historic figure (or multiple) that were the seed for the myth. Saying "No, because there is no Merlin and no Magic" rather misses the point.

 

[Craig B]

IanS and I have discoursed before.

No offense intended, but this sort of backhanded warning never reflects favorably on the author, I recommend against it in the future. Thank you kindly.

It's not a warning, backhanded or forehanded. It's a description of how things are proceeding in IanS's discourse with me in particular.

 

[Leumas]

It's not a warning, backhanded or forehanded. It's a description of how things are proceeding in IanS's discourse with me in particular.

In your "reality" only!

In the real reality of facts and reason and logic and rational erudite reading of things on all sides of an issue you are utterly wrong!

If only you understood the value of reading things that do not support your biases and wishful thinking then maybe you would have realized that.

Educated people read books for and against a certain topic.

...must read books that argue "for" or "against"? What a totally weird idea.

It would behoove you to start reading books that disagree with your cherry picked snippets from fairy tales that your wishful thinking would love for them to have been true and worthy of all the special pleading which then you use to circularly argue for your fabricated rationalized "facts" as proof for your cherry picked bits.... and round and round you go with nary a pause to look outside the circle of appeal to biased invested authority and appeal to majority encircled by straw men all around to obscure any possibility of seeing anything that might aggravate a throbbing cognitive dissonance.

 

[dejudge]

To be clear: Just a man, rather than a virgin-born Son of the Holy Ghost. That was later.

The evidence is in the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark, which are the earliest Christian writings we have. I hope you will admit that the Gospel of Mark appears to portray Jesus as a man with a mother and brothers and sisters?

Your post is so pathetic!! A Christian is attempting to mis-lead Atheists about the contents of the Pauline Corpus and gMark.

This is not Sunday School.

You probably think people here have never read the writings of antiquity.

How much longer can this continue with GDon's propaganda and fiction??

You forget that Satan in gMark is not born of a Ghost.

You forget that Satan in the Pauline Corpus is not born of a Ghost.

The author of gMark specifically depicts Jesus as the Son of a God and some kind of a Ghost or non-human entiry when he stated that Jesus WALKED on Water and instantly TRANSFIGURED in the presence of his disciples.


The Pauline Corpus specifically states that Paul was NOT the Apostle of a man but of Jesus who was from heaven--not earth-- and was God's Own Son.

It is unacceptable that an admitted Christian would come om this thread and openly make statements which are establiahed fallacies.

gMark and the Pauline Corpus are compatible with the teachings of the Roman Church of antiquity.

When will the nonsense stop??

gMark and the Pauline Corpus were used to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a mere man with a human father] by the very Church who Canonised them.

The very quest for an historical Jesus was initiated because it was realized that Jesus of the NT was a figure of Faith.

 

[dejudge]

I don't think anyone here disputes that the Jesus of the Bible did not exist.

What?? You cannot be serious. Your post reflects the absurdity of the HJ argument.

You must HAVE forgotten that everyone here who claim Jesus existed make reference to him in the Bible.

Craig B openly uses the 'biography' of Bible Jesus found in gMark, gMatthew, the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.

The MULTILATED 'biography' of Bible Jesus is the fundamental 'biography' of HJ.

 

[The Greater Fool]

What?? You cannot be serious. Your post reflects the absurdity of the HJ argument.

You must HAVE forgotten that everyone here who claim Jesus existed make reference to him in the Bible.

Craig B openly uses the 'biography' of Bible Jesus found in gMark, gMatthew, the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.

The MULTILATED 'biography' of Bible Jesus is the fundamental 'biography' of HJ.

You are debating the actual existence of a Mythical Jesus. No one here believes the Mythical Jesus exists.

The Historical Jesus discussion, at least the discussion I see being attempted, is about a human that may have been the seed for the myth.

As the rest of the post you replied to indicates, simply because the biblical writers bought into, even helped create, the Jesus Myth, doesn't mean we need to buy their story about a demigod to see that a person may have been the source.

Your claim is that to discuss a HJ, we must accept the myth. This is why you are arguing with no one but your echo.

For your edification, here is the rest of the post:

If Jesus were a fraud (or deluded, or both) would we be forced to accept the his fraud (or delusion, or both) as truth in order to determine if he was real, or more likely real than not? Do the written references of those that knew him, or knew of him, or knew a relative of his, or heard reports of him, become useless because they believed the fraud (or dulusions, or both)?

I don't think anyone here disputes that the Jesus of the Bible did not exist. This is not the question at hand. The question is: Is there a historic person that could form the basis for the myth?

It's rather like the myth of King Arthur. It is known it is a myth, because there was no King Arthur, no Camelot, No Merlin, no magic, and on and on. But is there a historic figure (or multiple) that were the seed for the myth. Saying "No, because there is no Merlin and no Magic" rather misses the point.

ETA: I may have over reached on "No one here believes in Mythic Jesus." There may be a random Christian posting. But, of the people that say Mythic Jesus doesn't exist, debunking Mythic Jesus is not a response.

 

[Elagabalus]

In your "reality" only!

In the real reality of facts and reason and logic and rational erudite reading of things on all sides of an issue you are utterly wrong!

If only you understood the value of reading things that do not support your biases and wishful thinking then maybe you would have realized that.






It would behoove you to start reading books that disagree with your cherry picked snippets from fairy tales that your wishful thinking would love for them to have been true and worthy of all the special pleading which then you use to circularly argue for your fabricated rationalized "facts" as proof for your cherry picked bits.... and round and round you go with nary a pause to look outside the circle of appeal to biased invested authority and appeal to majority and encircled by straw men all around to obscure any possibility of seeing anything that might aggravate the throbbing cognitive dissonance.

You haven't stated one fact the entire time you have been posting in this thread, Leumas. You've only made bald assertions and tried to pass them off as facts. What manner of casual caustic chicanery is this?

Now, care to take a stab at Antiquities 20. 9. 1. Why should we eliminate that mention of Jesus described therein?

 

[dejudge]

You are debating the actual existence of a Mythical Jesus. No one here believes the Mythical Jesus exists.

We are debating the existence of a character called Jesus of Nazareth found in the Christian Bible.

We are debating whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of Faith or a figure of history.

The Historical Jesus discussion, at least the discussion I see being attempted, is about a human that may have been the seed for the myth.

You obviously have problems seeing.

You should have seen people here using the Ghost stories of Jesus in the Christian Bible in order to salvage evidence for their HJ.

If people here were discussing an historical Jesus then why they are using myth fables of character who was born of a Ghost and was from heaven as a primary historical source?

It is obvious that there was no historical Jesus so myth fables of Bible Jesus were multilated as a substitue for lack of historical data.

Every single story of Jesus in the Christian Bible is fiction yet it is the Christian Bible which is the primary source for HJ.

HJ must be a modern fiction character derived from the mutilated myth/fiction fables called the New Testament.