Historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

Also, just to be clear, such an original guy is essentially indistinguishable from MJ anyway. Because then the actual guy is nowhere to be found in the Jesus we got. The guy got all his defining attributes removed, and replaced with those of an imaginary figure. He just got posthumously cast into the role of a purely fictive character.

He's just as much "Jesus" as Kenny Baker is R2D2 in Star Wars. You could replace him with another actor or just a remote controlled drone, and you probably wouldn't even notice the difference.

 

[dejudge]

What "historical evidence" do we have that Thales of Miletus existed?

When I say that Jesus was not a "historical" character, I mean that his life took place outside the mainstream of the politics and culture of 1st century Palestine. The powers attributed to him by the Gospels are manifestly legendary and the only more or less contemporary fragment that refers to him is a forgery (Flavius Josephus). That is why it is perfectly logical that he did not leave the historical traces that can be expected from characters such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. It is absurd to deal with Jesus the Galilean like a historical character, as you do and it is also done in the opposite direction.

It is a situation similar to that of Thales. Nor was he a historical character in the same sense. The only difference that Hans has established correctly is that Thales does not seem to be a religious figure (we really know practically nothing about him), while Jesus was and, what is worse, remained so until now.

This introduces an additional reason for suspicion about the religious content of the Gospels. Even about the existence of Jesus. But at this point the suspicion is not definitive.

Of course, the possibility does not imply existence. But the possibility is an argument against a strong mythicism. Therefore, I am skeptical on this point. I have a minimalist position: of Jesus of Galilee one can hardly say anything. This infuriates the mythicists (I don't know why) but doesn't satisfy the believers. They need to know their myth and this is impossible.

You are repeating the same nonsense, the very same fallacy, that evidence for the existence/non-existence of Thales is to be used to determine the existence/non-existence of the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth.

You seem not to even understand that there are writings from antiquity which describe Jesus of Nazareth as a myth like those of the Greeks and Romans.

First Apology attributed Justin.

First Apology XXI

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

On the Flesh of Christ attributed to Tertullian.

On the Flesh of Christ 18

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father...

Epistle to the Magnesians attributed to Ignatius

Epistle to the Magnesians

.....but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man.

We know the character called Jesus of Nazareth was most likely non-historical because there could have been no witnesses to virtually all the events (from conception to the ascension) described in writings of antiquity in which he supposedly participated.

 

[David Mo]

What I am saying that it proves is that even if he existed, the little guy who got killed doesn't really bear any resemblance to the guy in the gospels. He didn't say the same things (as I was saying even HJ scholars say no more than 30% can be plausibly said by the same person), he didn't do the same things, he didn't visit the same places, his life didn't happen in that order, and the circumstances of his death bear no resemblance to Mark's account. Even the people around him were nothing like those in Mark. And as I've said somewhere else, may or may not have even actually been called Jesus. It may be a role name. Essentially, that if he existed, his relationship to the gospel Jesus may be as thin as Lovecraft's mom's to Abdul Al Hazred.

And that's too thin for me to call that guy "the historical Jesus."

But, as I was saying, if someone is ok with saying that Lovecraft's mom IS "the historical Abdul Al Hazred", then I will cheerfully grant that that standard would also allow for a Jesus that's just about that historical. And I'm perfectly ok with such a figure possibly existing.

Hell, even Carrier, Doherty, Price and the gang don't say it's impossible for such a guy to have existed. They think it's less probable than their purely mythical Jesus, but certainly not impossible. Hell, not even particularly improbable. Sure, less probable than their MJ, but certainly not the kind of improbability like being struck by lightning while holding the lottery ticket that won the jackpot.

Edit: what anyone needs though to claim that something merely POSSIBLE did actually exist, is evidence. Because the space of what's possible is necessarily greater than the space of what is real. Because the former necessarily includes the latter. But, again, if they merely want to claim it's possible, they don't need anything else, and won't really find any opposition.

After some days discussing I think we are agree in the essential. Only some fringe of disagreement or maybe just some nuances.

A major difference between Abdul Alhazred and Jesus the Galileen is that we know who invented the former out from nothing. We don't know, in principle, if the evangelists invented the legend of Jesus out from nothing or were basing on a real character. This leaves a loophole for Jesus' real existence. Maybe a small crack, but crack after all.

I don't think the mythicism has any advantage over "realism". The crucifixion gives a little advantage to latter. And mythicism has the risk to fall into a conspiracy theory without much support. These are not strong advantages, of course. Many times it is difficult to me understand why Carrier and other concede authenticity to some NT writings and no others. This is a problem of lack of precise method of discern.

But, as I have said, we agree in the essentials.

 

[David Mo]

You seem not to even understand that there are writings from antiquity which describe Jesus of Nazareth as a myth like those of the Greeks and Romans.

(...)

We know the character called Jesus of Nazareth was most likely non-historical because there could have been no witnesses to virtually all the events (from conception to the ascension) described in writings of antiquity in which he supposedly participated.

Your arguments are empty.

Justin, Tertullian and Ignatius didn't believe that Jesus Christ was a myth. They defended Jesus' dual nature and his life on the earth as a real person. Anyway, they were theologians of the second century and they are not major sources for the historical Jesus.

Your argument to discard Jesus is also valid to discard Thales and almost every character in Ancient History: there have been no witnesses to all the events described in writings of antiquity in which Thales supposedly participated.

If you want to say that you don't believe in supernatural events, I don't. But in the gospels are related events that are not supernatural and that without supernatural features can be credible: A man thinks he is a prophet, preaches the End of Times and is crucified by the Romans. Nothing miraculous in this. Why do you refuse to admit this natural story of Jesus?

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, technically mythicism does have the advantage of the criterion of historical necessity in the actual historical method (as opposed to the obsolete one practiced by bible studies), which is basically Occam's Razor for historians. Is there any actual NEED to assume the extra entity that is a historical Jesus -- plus a LOT of extra entities that would form the chain of information between him and Mark -- or can Paul's hallucination explain the same things? Well, I'd say we don't really NEED more than Paul.

That said, I do have my own disagreement with Carrier about how and when euhemerization actually happened to ancient myths. But hey, he has the Ph.D. in classic history, I don't. So nobody has to care about what I think.

Personally I wouldn't necessarily go with saying that one person invented Jesus on purpose. My simpler explanation is that Paul had hallucinations of Jesus, which passed for prophetic in Judaism. (See for example, Deuteronomy 13:1.) That part is common with Doherty and Carrier. What differs though is that I don't think that necessarily someone went and deliberately euhemerized him. Just not everyone was in the clear about whether Jesus is mythical or not, and legends and myths grew around him. People were telling tall tales about Jesus all over the place. (See the many stories that didn't make it into our gospels. E.g., the early ones mentioned by Papias.)

Essentially all I'm proposing is that, well, you know how tall tales and legends can grow up around a guy? I'm saying that that guy doesn't have to be real for that to happen. Just the people circulating the stories have to believe he's real.

It's not even a new idea. There are official saints in catholicism that have whole stories of their lives, and we're pretty sure they never actually existed. But the people circulating and embellishing the stories thought they were real, and that was enough.

Even about bible characters, we have solid examples of that happening. For example, the unnamed soldier who pierced Jesus on the cross in the gospels -- again, something I'm pretty sure never happened because it's a deviation from the standard coup de grace for no reason other than fulfilling an OT "prophecy" -- eventually got a name (Longinus, a derivative of "longche", i.e., "lance", the weapon he used on Jesus, so again, fake), a rank (centurion, who wouldn't do such guard duty because he's the equivalent of a colonel in modern armies), a place of origin (Lanciano, another derivative of lance, so again fake), details like his eye problems, a biography, and eventually a miraculous conversion and martyrdom, and ended up a saint that is still venerated. And it only started happening by the end of the 6'th century. But a whole life of some unnamed character in a book was invented. And he doesn't have to be real. Just the people inventing and circulating stories about him thought he was real, and that was enough for legends to grow.

 

[smartcooky]

Essentially all I'm proposing is that, well, you know how tall tales and legends can grow up around a guy? I'm saying that that guy doesn't have to be real for that to happen. Just the people circulating the stories have to believe he's real.

Robin Hood, William Tell, Arthur Pendragon. Three historical figures who are almost certainly not real, and yet to this day, there are those who still think these were real people.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yep. Along with many others.

 

[dejudge]

Your arguments are empty.

Your statement is hopelessly irrelevant. You still cannot and never will present a single shred of historical evidence for your Jesus.

Justin, Tertullian and Ignatius didn't believe that Jesus Christ was a myth. They defended Jesus' dual nature and his life on the earth as a real person. Anyway, they were theologians of the second century and they are not major sources for the historical Jesus.

You have no historical sources at all for your Jesus.

It is simply absurd to suggest that since second century writers did believe their Jesus (born without sexual intercourse) was not a myth then he did exist.

Based on your absurdity, Romulus and Remus were not myths because Plutarch and people in the Roman Empire believed they existed.

Your argument to discard Jesus is also valid to discard Thales and almost every character in Ancient History: there have been no witnesses to all the events described in writings of antiquity in which Thales supposedly participated.

My argument that the character called Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed is based on writings of antiquity relating to the supposed character.

The stories of Jesus are either implausible, impossible, fiction or associated with forgeries and manipulation.

In addition, the supposed Pauline letters clearly show that the Christian faith did not require an historical character.

In the Epistles it is claimed that there would be no Christian faith, no salvation, without the resurrection of Jesus.

The resurrection is a non-historical event.

1 Corinthians 15:17

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

The Christian religion is directly based on a fiction character (a resurrected being) who could never have been historically corroborated.

Your position on the existence/non-existence of Thales is irrelevant.

....If you want to say that you don't believe in supernatural events, I don't. But in the gospels are related events that are not supernatural and that without supernatural features can be credible: A man thinks he is a prophet, preaches the End of Times and is crucified by the Romans. Nothing miraculous in this. Why do you refuse to admit this natural story of Jesus?

You made up your natural story of your Jesus which cannot be historically corroborated.

You seem to have no idea that your natural story is an invention derived from your imagination because you realise the stories of Jesus are not historically credible.

You must know that even stories that appear natural can be complete fiction.

Examine Against Celsus attributed to Origen.

Against Celsus 1.32

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

Please, I am sorry!! I cannot accept your invented natural story of your Jesus. As expected you have no credible evidence to support it.

All you have done is to invent your own natural Jesus without historical corroboration.

 

[David Mo]

Well, technically mythicism does have the advantage of the criterion of historical necessity in the actual historical method (as opposed to the obsolete one practiced by bible studies), which is basically Occam's Razor for historians. Is there any actual NEED to assume the extra entity that is a historical Jesus -- plus a LOT of extra entities that would form the chain of information between him and Mark -- or can Paul's hallucination explain the same things? Well, I'd say we don't really NEED more than Paul.

That said, I do have my own disagreement with Carrier about how and when euhemerization actually happened to ancient myths. But hey, he has the Ph.D. in classic history, I don't. So nobody has to care about what I think.

Personally I wouldn't necessarily go with saying that one person invented Jesus on purpose. My simpler explanation is that Paul had hallucinations of Jesus, which passed for prophetic in Judaism. (See for example, Deuteronomy 13:1.) That part is common with Doherty and Carrier. What differs though is that I don't think that necessarily someone went and deliberately euhemerized him. Just not everyone was in the clear about whether Jesus is mythical or not, and legends and myths grew around him. People were telling tall tales about Jesus all over the place. (See the many stories that didn't make it into our gospels. E.g., the early ones mentioned by Papias.)

Essentially all I'm proposing is that, well, you know how tall tales and legends can grow up around a guy? I'm saying that that guy doesn't have to be real for that to happen. Just the people circulating the stories have to believe he's real.

It's not even a new idea. There are official saints in catholicism that have whole stories of their lives, and we're pretty sure they never actually existed. But the people circulating and embellishing the stories thought they were real, and that was enough.

Even about bible characters, we have solid examples of that happening. For example, the unnamed soldier who pierced Jesus on the cross in the gospels -- again, something I'm pretty sure never happened because it's a deviation from the standard coup de grace for no reason other than fulfilling an OT "prophecy" -- eventually got a name (Longinus, a derivative of "longche", i.e., "lance", the weapon he used on Jesus, so again, fake), a rank (centurion, who wouldn't do such guard duty because he's the equivalent of a colonel in modern armies), a place of origin (Lanciano, another derivative of lance, so again fake), details like his eye problems, a biography, and eventually a miraculous conversion and martyrdom, and ended up a saint that is still venerated. And it only started happening by the end of the 6'th century. But a whole life of some unnamed character in a book was invented. And he doesn't have to be real. Just the people inventing and circulating stories about him thought he was real, and that was enough for legends to grow.

What historians "basically" use the "method" of Occam's Razor? I don't know any.

Among other things because Occam's Razor does not designate one single thing and because it has been interpreted in different ways. Among other things because it is not a scientific method of contrasting theories but a heuristic norm of hypothesis construction.

As you interpret it, it is like the principle of parsimony (not needlessly multiplying entities). But it is also used as a principle of simplicity (the hypothesis that introduces less axioms is preferable).

In the first case it is inapplicable to the opposition between mitistas and realists. Both introduce the same number of entities: a Jewish prophet and an inventor of myths as respective origins of the legend.

As for the second, the theory you propose (Paul was the inventor) is more complex than the realistic (a real prophet) because it forces you to introduce a lot of implausible assumptions: Paul had to invent an execution, a family of Christ, some witnesses of his death (Cephas and the other disciples) and assume that the recipients of his letters were foolish enough to believe everything he invented about the Jerusalem church. Wow. A little overdone.

No, if Occam's razor gives any advantage, it's not to your theory.

 

[David Mo]

Robin Hood, William Tell, Arthur Pendragon. Three historical figures who are almost certainly not real, and yet to this day, there are those who still think these were real people.

Yeah. So what?

 

[David Mo]

You have no historical sources at all for your Jesus.

So what?

It is simply absurd to suggest that since second century writers did believe their Jesus (born without sexual intercourse) was not a myth then he did exist.

Of course.

Based on your absurdity, Romulus and Remus were not myths because Plutarch and people in the Roman Empire believed they existed.

Of course, except I have not said so.

My argument that the character called Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed is based on writings of antiquity relating to the supposed character.

The stories of Jesus are either implausible, impossible, fiction or associated with forgeries and manipulation.

Also the Song of Roland and that doesn't mean that Charlemagne didn't exist.

In addition, the supposed Pauline letters clearly show that the Christian faith did not require an historical character.

In the Epistles it is claimed that there would be no Christian faith, no salvation, without the resurrection of Jesus.

The resurrection is a non-historical event.

What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Paul believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Then he believed that there was a person who had previously died.
What you mean is that you don't believe in the possibility of someone being resurrected. Neither do I. But I don't know how the epistles show what you and I believe. You're making a mess.

Your position on the existence/non-existence of Thales is irrelevant.

Typical exit of the one who doesn't know what to say. You're stuck with Thales.

You seem to have no idea that your natural story is an invention derived from your imagination because you realise the stories of Jesus are not historically credible.

You think it's not credible that a Jewish prophet was crucified by the Romans? Why?

You must know that even stories that appear natural can be complete fiction.

Just because it can be fiction doesn't mean it is.

Examine Against Celsus attributed to Origen.

Against Celsus 1.32

Please, I am sorry!! I cannot accept your invented natural story of your Jesus. As expected you have no credible evidence to support it.

Do you now quote the authority of Origen against those who do not believe in the miracles of Jesus? Have you become a Christian? You seem a little dizzy, actually.

 

[HansMustermann]

What historians "basically" use the "method" of Occam's Razor? I don't know any.

Among other things because Occam's Razor does not designate one single thing and because it has been interpreted in different ways. Among other things because it is not a scientific method of contrasting theories but a heuristic norm of hypothesis construction.

As you interpret it, it is like the principle of parsimony (not needlessly multiplying entities). But it is also used as a principle of simplicity (the hypothesis that introduces less axioms is preferable).

In the first case it is inapplicable to the opposition between mitistas and realists. Both introduce the same number of entities: a Jewish prophet and an inventor of myths as respective origins of the legend.

As for the second, the theory you propose (Paul was the inventor) is more complex than the realistic (a real prophet) because it forces you to introduce a lot of implausible assumptions: Paul had to invent an execution, a family of Christ, some witnesses of his death (Cephas and the other disciples) and assume that the recipients of his letters were foolish enough to believe everything he invented about the Jerusalem church. Wow. A little overdone.

No, if Occam's razor gives any advantage, it's not to your theory.

So basically your argument is based on not understanding the criterion of historical necessity, and pulling your own irrelevant nonsense out of the ass instead? Yeah, funny the kind of things you can rationalize when you have zero clue what you're talking about.

The criterion of historical necessity deals with something being necessary to happen, in order for history to have gone that way. Not just for it to be a possibility, but NECESSARY.

E.g., Alexander's conquest of Asia passes that criterion because NECESSARILY someone had to actually march an army there, occupy all those cities, and defeat the Persian army so it can't take them back. All the flipping to Helenic rulership and the subsequent Diadochi wars can't possibly have happened on just a rumour or a lie. You wouldn't find Ptolemy ruling Egypt afterwards if someone just heard a rumour there's a fictive guy called Alexander coming to Egypt with a fictive army. It HAD to be an actual army and it HAD to actually be there.

E.g., Caesar's crossing the Rubicon passes that criterion because, among other things, the Roman civil war couldn't have possibly gone the way it did, unless someone actually occupied Rome. SOME army had to actually come into Rome at that time and secure it, and there was no other place from which it could have come. It's not enough for someone to have invented such an army, or just believed there's an army or whatever. The original abandoning of Rome COULD have happened on a rumour or lie, but the scouts and the remaining republic fans in Rome would see if there wasn't actually one entering the city.

THAT is the criterion of historical necessity. Your pulling your own alternate dumbassery out of the ass is just flat out irrelevant.

But generally, what you do there is stupid even for any other application of Occam. When it becomes just a way to rationalize dumb gullibility to the effect of "someone wouldn't have imagined it", that's not even Occam, it's just a nonsense ad-hoc rationalization of gullibility. Because the real Occam is used to distinguish between stuff that obviously people could invent. Otherwise they wouldn't even be there as an alternative to exclude.

Additionally, even applying your own nonsense interpretation is still stupidly flawed. Because even if you count "someone thought X" as an entity, you fail to count the dozens or possibly even hundreds of people telling each other about Jesus, to form a chain of information between Jesus and the people writing down the stories about him. For even Paul to have any reliable information about Jesus, and doubly so if you want to take ANYTHING from the gospel writers for your HJ, some guy had to tell some other guy, who told yet another guy, who told Paul, since he had no personal knowledge of not only Jesus at that point, but hadn't been to Jerusalem yet or met anyone supposedly associated with Jesus. All those people and actions in between are extra entities/actions/axioms/whatever you have to postulate without any evidence, to make that work. Because without that chain of information, "Paul invented it" is just the null hypothesis, not an extra.

 

[dejudge]

...... the supposed Pauline letters clearly show that the Christian faith did not require an historical character.

In the Epistles it is claimed that there would be no Christian faith, no salvation, without the resurrection of Jesus.

The resurrection is a non-historical event.

What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Paul believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Then he believed that there was a person who had previously died.
What you mean is that you don't believe in the possibility of someone being resurrected. Neither do I. But I don't know how the epistles show what you and I believe. You're making a mess.

Your claim about the character called Paul mis-represents the written statement in a so-called Epistle to the Corinthians.

The writer under the name of Paul stated that he himself SAW Jesus after the resurrection.


1 Corinthians 15

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

1 Corinthians 15 have exposed your fallacies.

The supposed Pauline writer openly lied about seeing the resurrected Jesus.

The Christian faith and salvation did not require an historical Jesus. It was based on the fiction of a non-historical resurrection.

Examine Against Celsus attributed to Origen.

Against Celsus 1.32

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

Do you now quote the authority of Origen against those who do not believe in the miracles of Jesus? Have you become a Christian? You seem a little dizzy, actually.

I made reference to Against Celsus to show that it was known that there would be people who would mis-represent the claims by Christians or invent their own Jesus story because they did not accept the miraculous stories of Jesus.

Although you appear not to believe the miracles of the supposed Jesus you have mis-represented the fact that a Pauline writer stated he and over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, maybe Paul or maybe someone who told him about it, but SOMEONE had to lie. For that information to be actually true, ALL the following have to be true:
1. Someone did see the risen Jesus.
2. Someone told Paul that they saw the risen Jesus.
3. Paul is reporting it truthfully.

Since each of those is one bit of information (0=false, 1=true), there are 8 combinations and only 1 would make it a testimony worth anything. I mean even true-false-true would make Paul coincidentally right, but still basically a liar. And since any true-anything-anything combination involves a miracle, the remaining 4 combinations still involve a lie somewhere down the chain.

So, yeah, any reconstruction from there involves believing that one can know that source X lies, but still believe that they can totally pick the parts they didn't lie about, without any evidence or really anything more than wishful thinking.

 

[HansMustermann]

I would somewhat challenge that simple understanding though, on the basis that down the page in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 Paul dismisses as foolish the idea that anyone would be resurrected in their own body. It's not even a fringe view. Ehrman for example says the exact same too: "Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a "spiritual body."" That's a direct quote of Paul's words, btw: "spiritual body."

So Paul isn't actually saying that Peter, James and the 500 actually "saw" a zombie Jesus in his old body. Somehow they "saw" Jesus just like Paul did, as a risen ghost.

In fact, Paul's seeing Jesus is described in 2 Corinthians 12, from the top of the page. He describes "a man", which is hinted and understood as being Paul, being taken to paradise, where he talks to Jesus. I.e., he doesn't even see the "spiritual body" Jesus on Earth, but in a whole other realm.

It is a fair guess that the other 500+ people "saw" Jesus in that realm too.

Actually an even better translation is not as much that they "saw" it, but that he "appeared" or was "revealed" to them, or was somehow "discerned" by them. The subject of that sentence is Jesus, not those guys. The verb "horao" is also used quite EXTENSIVELY as basically "seeing with the mind", so to speak, rather than with the eyes.

This is actually rather crucial to the MJ theory. Paul doesn't actually say anyone actually ever saw Jesus's earthly body, before or after. He only says that Jesus was somehow revealed to them after his resurrection, which, as we established, was as a spirit. Indeed Paul spends half a page debunking as absurd the idea that Jesus could have risen in his old material body, so, you know, that's not what those guys could have seen. As such, it's not really crucial that those guys ever saw Jesus in a material body. That's not how they recognized him.

Edit: In fact, other than some mass hallucination (e.g., caused by Ergot), it's rather unlikely that ghostly Jesus would be revealed to 500 different people at the same time as an actual vision. Their somehow just "discerning" that, yeah, the scripture says he already rose is a rather more plausible version.

So here's a possible timeline: Peter somehow "discerns" that the messiah already rose. Possibly in a vision, possibly in a dream, or just has a flash of enlightenment while poring over the scriptures. He TELLS the 12, who also "discern" that, yeah, you know, Peter is right. Their messiah already came and already was resurrected. Then 500 followers of this cult agree to it. James arrives a bit later and is convinced too. Meanwhile way later, Paul has the same revelation in a vision, and proceeds to preach it all over the place. And when he finally meets Peter and James, of course they don't have anything to add to his version, because both reconstructed the same thing from the same scriptures. In fact, Paul's version may even be more detailed than theirs.

 

[dejudge]

I would somewhat challenge that simple understanding though, on the basis that down the page in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 Paul dismisses as foolish the idea that anyone would be resurrected in their own body. It's not even a fringe view. Ehrman for example says the exact same too: "Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a "spiritual body."" That's a direct quote of Paul's words, btw: "spiritual body."

So Paul isn't actually saying that Peter, James and the 500 actually "saw" a zombie Jesus in his old body. Somehow they "saw" Jesus just like Paul did, as a risen ghost.


In fact, Paul's seeing Jesus is described in 2 Corinthians 12, from the top of the page. He describes "a man", which is hinted and understood as being Paul, being taken to paradise, where he talks to Jesus. I.e., he doesn't even see the "spiritual body" Jesus on Earth, but in a whole other realm.

It is a fair guess that the other 500+ people "saw" Jesus in that realm too.

Actually an even better translation is not as much that they "saw" it, but that he "appeared" or was "revealed" to them, or was somehow "discerned" by them. The subject of that sentence is Jesus, not those guys. The verb "horao" is also used quite EXTENSIVELY as basically "seeing with the mind", so to speak, rather than with the eyes.

This is actually rather crucial to the MJ theory. Paul doesn't actually say anyone actually ever saw Jesus's earthly body, before or after. He only says that Jesus was somehow revealed to them after his resurrection, which, as we established, was as a spirit. Indeed Paul spends half a page debunking as absurd the idea that Jesus could have risen in his old material body, so, you know, that's not what those guys could have seen. As such, it's not really crucial that those guys ever saw Jesus in a material body. That's not how they recognized him.

Edit: In fact, other than some mass hallucination (e.g., caused by Ergot), it's rather unlikely that ghostly Jesus would be revealed to 500 different people at the same time as an actual vision. Their somehow just "discerning" that, yeah, the scripture says he already rose is a rather more plausible version.

Please, tell me how a spiritual body would appear after it resurrected?

Please, tell me how a dead, buried for three days, would appear, after a resurrection.

All you have done is to show that the claims by the so-called Pauline about seeing a resurrected Jesus are hopelessly false.


The so-called Pauline Epistles confirm that the writers under the name of Paul were both liars and deceivers when they attempted to historicise the resurrection of Jesus.

So here's a possible timeline: Peter somehow "discerns" that the messiah already rose. Possibly in a vision, possibly in a dream, or just has a flash of enlightenment while poring over the scriptures. He TELLS the 12, who also "discern" that, yeah, you know, Peter is right. Their messiah already came and already was resurrected. Then 500 followers of this cult agree to it. James arrives a bit later and is convinced too. Meanwhile way later, Paul has the same revelation in a vision, and proceeds to preach it all over the place. And when he finally meets Peter and James, of course they don't have anything to add to his version, because both reconstructed the same thing from the same scriptures. In fact, Paul's version may even be more detailed than theirs.

So you want me to believe your uncorroborated story that you invented from your imagination?

You must know that it is stated in the NT that Peter and other disciples met the resurrected Jesus multiple times and that it is stated that the resurrected body of Jesus was physically examined.


Luke 24

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

John 20

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

The NT including the supposed Pauline Epistles teaches that Jesus physically resurrected on the third day after he was dead and buried.

Jesus of the NT is a figure of fiction.

 

[David Mo]

So basically your argument is based on not understanding the criterion of historical necessity, and pulling your own irrelevant nonsense out of the ass instead? Yeah, funny the kind of things you can rationalize when you have zero clue what you're talking about.

The criterion of historical necessity deals with something being necessary to happen, in order for history to have gone that way. Not just for it to be a possibility, but NECESSARY.

E.g., Alexander's conquest of Asia passes that criterion because NECESSARILY someone had to actually march an army there, occupy all those cities, and defeat the Persian army so it can't take them back. All the flipping to Helenic rulership and the subsequent Diadochi wars can't possibly have happened on just a rumour or a lie. You wouldn't find Ptolemy ruling Egypt afterwards if someone just heard a rumour there's a fictive guy called Alexander coming to Egypt with a fictive army. It HAD to be an actual army and it HAD to actually be there.

E.g., Caesar's crossing the Rubicon passes that criterion because, among other things, the Roman civil war couldn't have possibly gone the way it did, unless someone actually occupied Rome. SOME army had to actually come into Rome at that time and secure it, and there was no other place from which it could have come. It's not enough for someone to have invented such an army, or just believed there's an army or whatever. The original abandoning of Rome COULD have happened on a rumour or lie, but the scouts and the remaining republic fans in Rome would see if there wasn't actually one entering the city.

THAT is the criterion of historical necessity. Your pulling your own alternate dumbassery out of the ass is just flat out irrelevant.

But generally, what you do there is stupid even for any other application of Occam. When it becomes just a way to rationalize dumb gullibility to the effect of "someone wouldn't have imagined it", that's not even Occam, it's just a nonsense ad-hoc rationalization of gullibility. Because the real Occam is used to distinguish between stuff that obviously people could invent. Otherwise they wouldn't even be there as an alternative to exclude.

Additionally, even applying your own nonsense interpretation is still stupidly flawed. Because even if you count "someone thought X" as an entity, you fail to count the dozens or possibly even hundreds of people telling each other about Jesus, to form a chain of information between Jesus and the people writing down the stories about him. For even Paul to have any reliable information about Jesus, and doubly so if you want to take ANYTHING from the gospel writers for your HJ, some guy had to tell some other guy, who told yet another guy, who told Paul, since he had no personal knowledge of not only Jesus at that point, but hadn't been to Jerusalem yet or met anyone supposedly associated with Jesus. All those people and actions in between are extra entities/actions/axioms/whatever you have to postulate without any evidence, to make that work. Because without that chain of information, "Paul invented it" is just the null hypothesis, not an extra.

You have invented that "historians basically apply Occam's Razor method" and now the "historical criterion of necessity". If you said your sources perhaps we could know what you are talking about because the examples you cite have nothing to do with Occam's razor. Although in the two examples the word "necessity" appears, it is not in the same sense. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the usual version of Occam's principle: "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity".
The examples you quote are simply causal explanations of particular events. The data we have narrating the invasion of Persia by Alexander and the Roman civil war are conclusive in stating that Alexander's army occupied Persia and that Caesar probably passed the Rubicon. And I say probably because in history there is nothing that is necessary. Unless you accept Hegelianism or Marxism, the concept of necessity does not exist in the historical explanation. What's more, Marx reduces it to the effects of the economy, not to particular events. What you call "necessity" is that data can be explained much more likely in one way or another. And that's even arguable about the Rubicon's passage.

Perhaps all of this could be made clearer if you explain to us where you got that ghostly "criterion of historical necessity". I haven't found anything like it on Google. Maybe I've looked for it wrong and you can help me. Or maybe you are a fantasist. We'll see.

I apologize for this long introduction. It really has nothing to do with what we're discussing because we're not talking about historical characters that we know from a multitude of cross-referenced data, but about a character that is not historical, but the protagonist of legendary stories.

It is funny that you now accuse me of bringing Occam's razor here when it was you who, to my surprise, introduced it into the debate on the grounds that it was a "historical method" demonstrating the superiority of mythicism. I would ask you to fix your position because this looks like a barcarola. No wonder you end up dizzy.

If you want a simple explanation, which is neither more nor less simple than to suppose one or more inventors of a character, you cannot turn to Paul, because he speaks of people who allegedly knew Jesus directly before his death. If we accept the authenticity of these quotes we must assume that Paul was not the inventor of the legend of Jesus the Galilean. The simplest thing is that when he converted to Christianity there were already some stories circulating about Jesus based on people who knew him, like his brother James. Whether they were true or not we cannot know, because what we have about the life and miracles of Jesus are later writings that do not allow us to get a precise idea of what people like Cephas or Santiago believed.

 

[David Mo]

Your claim about the character called Paul mis-represents the written statement in a so-called Epistle to the Corinthians.

The writer under the name of Paul stated that he himself SAW Jesus after the resurrection.


1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 15 have exposed your fallacies.

The supposed Pauline writer openly lied about seeing the resurrected Jesus.

The Christian faith and salvation did not require an historical Jesus. It was based on the fiction of a non-historical resurrection.






I made reference to Against Celsus to show that it was known that there would be people who would mis-represent the claims by Christians or invent their own Jesus story because they did not accept the miraculous stories of Jesus.

Although you appear not to believe the miracles of the supposed Jesus you have mis-represented the fact that a Pauline writer stated he and over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus.

I don't know what the hell you have in your head, but if Paul claims that Jesus rose from the dead after being buried, it is to be assumed that he believed that Jesus had a body to bury. In other words, at least in part, he was a person of flesh and blood. This belief is maintained in other passages of the epistles that attribute to him a birth "according to the flesh," a human lineage and family, a presence as a human being among the disciples, and a death on the cross. All this are human events that had nothing of strange in themselves.
You may believe that he is lying or not, but this is what he preached.

I don't believe in Christ's miracles nor any other. I have said it twenty times. I will only believe in miracles if you quote me correctly once. That would be an indisputable miracle.

 

[David Mo]

I would somewhat challenge that simple understanding though, on the basis that down the page in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 Paul dismisses as foolish the idea that anyone would be resurrected in their own body. It's not even a fringe view. Ehrman for example says the exact same too: "Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a "spiritual body."" That's a direct quote of Paul's words, btw: "spiritual body."

So Paul isn't actually saying that Peter, James and the 500 actually "saw" a zombie Jesus in his old body. Somehow they "saw" Jesus just like Paul did, as a risen ghost.

In fact, Paul's seeing Jesus is described in 2 Corinthians 12, from the top of the page. He describes "a man", which is hinted and understood as being Paul, being taken to paradise, where he talks to Jesus. I.e., he doesn't even see the "spiritual body" Jesus on Earth, but in a whole other realm.

It is a fair guess that the other 500+ people "saw" Jesus in that realm too.

Actually an even better translation is not as much that they "saw" it, but that he "appeared" or was "revealed" to them, or was somehow "discerned" by them. The subject of that sentence is Jesus, not those guys. The verb "horao" is also used quite EXTENSIVELY as basically "seeing with the mind", so to speak, rather than with the eyes.

This is actually rather crucial to the MJ theory. Paul doesn't actually say anyone actually ever saw Jesus's earthly body, before or after. He only says that Jesus was somehow revealed to them after his resurrection, which, as we established, was as a spirit. Indeed Paul spends half a page debunking as absurd the idea that Jesus could have risen in his old material body, so, you know, that's not what those guys could have seen. As such, it's not really crucial that those guys ever saw Jesus in a material body. That's not how they recognized him.

Edit: In fact, other than some mass hallucination (e.g., caused by Ergot), it's rather unlikely that ghostly Jesus would be revealed to 500 different people at the same time as an actual vision. Their somehow just "discerning" that, yeah, the scripture says he already rose is a rather more plausible version.

So here's a possible timeline: Peter somehow "discerns" that the messiah already rose. Possibly in a vision, possibly in a dream, or just has a flash of enlightenment while poring over the scriptures. He TELLS the 12, who also "discern" that, yeah, you know, Peter is right. Their messiah already came and already was resurrected. Then 500 followers of this cult agree to it. James arrives a bit later and is convinced too. Meanwhile way later, Paul has the same revelation in a vision, and proceeds to preach it all over the place. And when he finally meets Peter and James, of course they don't have anything to add to his version, because both reconstructed the same thing from the same scriptures. In fact, Paul's version may even be more detailed than theirs.

The problem for mythicism is not the apparitions of the risen Christ. These could be hallucinations or they could not have existed. To "see" Christ was a certificate of "apostolate" and it is not strange that the supporters of one or the other apostle (sometimes at odds with each other) attributed visions to them. But Paul believed that apart from the divine character of Jesus or his "spiritual body" (what a mixture!) he had a human presence before his resurrection: a birth, a linage, a family, many disciples, a death and a burial. This is what he tells in the epistles, at least. Nothing to justify mythicism.

The case is not the borrowing of legendary deeds from scriptures. This is evident. Alternative is whether this borrowing was used to justify the evident Jesus' failure or to invent the apparent Jesus' failure. Latter sounds illogical.

 

[dejudge]

I don't know what the hell you have in your head, but if Paul claims that Jesus rose from the dead after being buried, it is to be assumed that he believed that Jesus had a body to bury. In other words, at least in part, he was a person of flesh and blood. This belief is maintained in other passages of the epistles that attribute to him a birth "according to the flesh," a human lineage and family, a presence as a human being among the disciples, and a death on the cross. All this are human events that had nothing of strange in themselves.
You may believe that he is lying or not, but this is what he preached.

The Pauline writer lied when it is stated that he was seen of Jesus after he was dead, buried and resurrected.

You very well know that it is stated that Jesus was God's son made of a woman and he was from heaven.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:47

The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial.

The Pauline Jesus, the Lord from heaven who resurrected is a fiction/myth character - it never ever existed.

I don't believe in Christ's miracles nor any other. I have said it twenty times. I will only believe in miracles if you quote me correctly once. That would be an indisputable miracle.

So because you don't believe the Jesus stories with miracles you have invented your own story without miracles and without historical corroboration.

You seem to have no idea that the miracles in the Jesus stories must have been believed to be plausible by people of antiquity who accepted mythology/fiction as history.