Historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

You said the Gospels had been written in stone for the 150 years leading into the Council of Nicea. This clearly wasn't true except in the RCC.

And who else do you think was doing the Nicaea council in the first place? As I said before, the whole thing was no more than the RCC essentially proclaiming, "we were right all along, everyone else sucks"

 

[acbytesla]

And who else do you think was doing the Nicaea council in the first place? As I said before, the whole thing was no more than the RCC essentially proclaiming, "we were right all along, everyone else sucks"

Fair enough.

 

[acbytesla]

Having been a reader of Michael Baigent's books, I already understood this to be true long before anyone ever heard of Dan Brown.

And the main point I was trying to make still has some truth to it, and that was, the First Council at Nicea, resulted in the Nicene Creed, which was intended to completely eliminate any theological diversity in Christianity.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.​

The first of the highlighted passages above is clearly a declaration of the divinity of Jesus Christ, from birth, and not from the resurrection, and the second higlighted passage is a clear and obvious warning to those who don't follow the first highlighted passage.

While they did not make any rulings about what books would be canonized to become the Bible, they certainly formalised the removal of any books that contradicted the idea that Jesus was always divine, from his birth, as well as those problematic Gnostic ideas that eternal salvation could be achieved without the church.

I like how Hans assumes that anyone who doesn't think like he does got their education by reading Dan Brown novels.

 

[HansMustermann]

The first of the highlighted passages above is clearly a declaration of the divinity of Jesus Christ, from birth, and not from the resurrection, and the second higlighted passage is a clear and obvious warning to those who don't follow the first highlighted passage.

While they did not make any rulings about what books would be canonized to become the Bible, they certainly formalised the removal of any books that contradicted the idea that Jesus was always divine, from his birth, as well as those problematic Gnostic ideas that eternal salvation could be achieved without the church.

And I'm saying that your second paragraph doesn't follow from your first one. In fact, it's putting it as the tail wagging the dog.

The Catholic church -- which even your highlights in your quote emphasize -- had ALREADY decided which gospels they follow since the time of Irenaeus, and most epistles were also decided already. They didn't sit after Nicaea and look at which books agree with the creed and which did not. They had in fact already decided that a long time ago.

Gnosticism was also long out, as far as Catholics were concerned. In fact, it had been rejected by the Catholics since Marcion's time. Again, they didn't decide that at Nicaea.

At Nicaea and then Constantinople in fact they just tightened the restrictions more, on those who were already following our set of 4 gospels, and thought themselves to be Catholics. Because everyone else didn't get invited and didn't really care about what creeds are needed to be a part of the Catholic church.

The Catholic bishops present all already thought they're good Catholics, and go strictly by the 4 books that Irenaeus had made canon, and none of them would have touched Gnosticism with a ten foot pole. The question at that point was just how you're allowed to interpret those, not to select which gospels are OK.

And yes, so maybe acbytesla won't get triggered this time, there were other churches with other views. But those were not the gang that was invited at Nicaea, nor really gave a flip about the fact that the Catholics had picked a creed. Those guys were already considered heretics by the RCC, and the feeling was mutual, so essentially nothing changed there. The Catholics didn't need Nicaea to tell them that the Gnostics are heretics, and neither did the Gnostics need to hear about Nicaea to think it's the Catholics who are heretics.

 

[smartcooky]

And I'm saying that your second paragraph doesn't follow from your first one. In fact, it's putting it as the tail wagging the dog.

I disagree. I think they follow perfectly.

The Catholic church -- which even your highlights in your quote emphasize -- had ALREADY decided which gospels they follow since the time of Irenaeus, and most epistles were also decided already. They didn't sit after Nicaea and look at which books agree with the creed and which did not. They had in fact already decided that a long time ago.

Gnosticism was also long out, as far as Catholics were concerned. In fact, it had been rejected by the Catholics since Marcion's time. Again, they didn't decide that at Nicaea.

At Nicaea and then Constantinople in fact they just tightened the restrictions more, on those who were already following our set of 4 gospels, and thought themselves to be Catholics. Because everyone else didn't get invited and didn't really care about what creeds are needed to be a part of the Catholic church.

The Catholic bishops present all already thought they're good Catholics, and go strictly by the 4 books that Irenaeus had made canon, and none of them would have touched Gnosticism with a ten foot pole. The question at that point was just how you're allowed to interpret those, not to select which gospels are OK.

And yes, so maybe acbytesla won't get triggered this time, there were other churches with other views. But those were not the gang that was invited at Nicaea, nor really gave a flip about the fact that the Catholics had picked a creed. Those guys were already considered heretics by the RCC, and the feeling was mutual, so essentially nothing changed there. The Catholics didn't need Nicaea to tell them that the Gnostics are heretics, and neither did the Gnostics need to hear about Nicaea to think it's the Catholics who are heretics.

Then you are reading the Nicene Creed differently from how I am reading it.

I read its last sentence as a "follow this, or else" that EFFECTIVELY says anyone who teaches, or allows themselves to be taught, or follows the idea that Jesus was at any time not divine is committing heresy, an accusation that carried very serious consequences at that time - as in death. The Dominican Priest Giordano Bruno was executed in 1600 for, among other things, his denial of the divinity of Jesus, and his view that Jesus got what he deserved when he was crucified!

That last sentence in the Creed was a clear threat to anyone and everyone, whether they were represented at Nicea or not!. Remember, you didn't need to be a Catholic to be murdered by the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the Crusades, and the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

 

[acbytesla]

I disagree. I think they follow perfectly.

Then you are reading the Nicene Creed differently from how I am reading it.

I read its last sentence as a "follow this, or else" that EFFECTIVELY says anyone who teaches, or allows themselves to be taught, or follows the idea that Jesus was at any time not divine is committing heresy, an accusation that carried very serious consequences at that time - as in death. The Dominican Priest Giordano Bruno was executed in 1600 for, among other things, his denial of the divinity of Jesus, and his view that Jesus got what he deserved when he was crucified!

That last sentence in the Creed was a clear threat to anyone and everyone, whether they were represented at Nicea or not!. Remember, you didn't need to be a Catholic to be murdered by the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the Crusades, and the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

I'm with you Smartcooky. This was an announcement of the power of Rome. Constantine had aligned himself with the RCC and anyone not toeing the line was a heretic

 

[dejudge]

Even that question has a Highlander (there can only be one) aspect to it.

As I said before the idea that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character (ie formed our of various would be messiahs) is the most Occam's Razor version of the Christ Myth theory.

Your claim is baseless. There is no historical evidence anywhere at all to support your assertion.

The very Gospel authors stated the actions of their Jesus characters were derived from the words of supposed prophets in Hewbrew Scripture.

Matthew 1:22

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet...

Mark 15:28

And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Luke 4:21

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

John 12:38

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

The John Frum Connection

John Frum existence or non-existence is of no value as evidence of an HJ.

 

[acbytesla]

Your claim is baseless. There is no historical evidence anywhere at all to support your assertion.

The very Gospel authors stated the actions of their Jesus characters were derived from the words of supposed prophets in Hewbrew Scripture.

Matthew 1:22

Mark 15:28

Luke 4:21

John 12:38

John Frum existence or non-existence is of no value as evidence of an HJ.

Wow! You really miss the point don't you?

The John Frumm example was clearly made to point out how quickly a story changes as the years passed.

That New Testament writers also referred to Old Testament writers says nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the accuracy of their stories.

 

[Tassman]

I disagree. I think they follow perfectly.



Then you are reading the Nicene Creed differently from how I am reading it.

I read its last sentence as a "follow this, or else" that EFFECTIVELY says anyone who teaches, or allows themselves to be taught, or follows the idea that Jesus was at any time not divine is committing heresy, an accusation that carried very serious consequences at that time - as in death. The Dominican Priest Giordano Bruno was executed in 1600 for, among other things, his denial of the divinity of Jesus, and his view that Jesus got what he deserved when he was crucified!

That last sentence in the Creed was a clear threat to anyone and everyone, whether they were represented at Nicea or not!. Remember, you didn't need to be a Catholic to be murdered by the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the Crusades, and the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

Yes, I agree. I think the whole Creed was intended as a “clear threat”. The Nicene Creed came about as the culmination of an intensively divisive argument over the divinity of Jesus Christ. This was the last thing that Constantine wanted, given that he viewed Christianity as a means to unify the empire. A vicious battle ensued between factions led by Arius, who taught that Jesus, though holy, is less than God and Athanasius, who saw any diminution of Jesus' godhead as the work of the devil. A solution was essential and the Nicene Creed was it – believe it or else.

 

[Darat]

You said the Gospels had been written in stone for the 150 years leading into the Council of Nicea. This clearly wasn't true except in the RCC.

No he didn’t.

 

[Darat]

And who else do you think was doing the Nicaea council in the first place? As I said before, the whole thing was no more than the RCC essentially proclaiming, "we were right all along, everyone else sucks"

I think you are speaking past each other. You are saying which works ended up doctrine for the protoRCC were already established by the time of the council, abctesla is saying that there were many different works still in circulation at that point. You are both correct.

 

[HansMustermann]

I disagree. I think they follow perfectly.



Then you are reading the Nicene Creed differently from how I am reading it.

I read its last sentence as a "follow this, or else" that EFFECTIVELY says anyone who teaches, or allows themselves to be taught, or follows the idea that Jesus was at any time not divine is committing heresy, an accusation that carried very serious consequences at that time - as in death. The Dominican Priest Giordano Bruno was executed in 1600 for, among other things, his denial of the divinity of Jesus, and his view that Jesus got what he deserved when he was crucified!

That last sentence in the Creed was a clear threat to anyone and everyone, whether they were represented at Nicea or not!. Remember, you didn't need to be a Catholic to be murdered by the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the Crusades, and the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

Except that's not how it worked.

Yes, it was "be a Catholic or else" since right away. Forget the crusades, they actually started killing heretics and whatnot as early as the 4'th century. Any kind of heretic assembly was criminalized right away by Constantine even BEFORE Nicaea (albeit at this point "only" confiscating all your property), heresy per se was criminalized in 380, and the first actual execution for heresy was in 386 AD.

But that Creed or Nicaea as a whole played no role whatsoever in that. Or not for anyone who wasn't already a Catholic.

You couldn't make up, say, a gnostic gospel that acknowledges the divinity of Jesus and have them go, "well, that's compatible with the creed, so that's ok then." Either you were a Catholic, or you were a heretic, and that was that, no matter how compatible your book is with the creed otherwise.

Again, since Irenaeus they had defined not only that you have to follow exactly that set of 4 gospels, but that there can't possibly be a fifth. Ever. No matter how compatible with the creed or even with the gospels as a whole, it would STILL be a heresy just because it's not one of those 4. I mean, nowadays if for example we actually found the Q manuscript, we'd go, "hey, look, an earlier source about Jesus". They'd go "OMG, HERESY!!!" because it's a fifth, and there can only be four.

But anyway, the main problem is that, see above, Constantine actually gave laws against heretics some 5 YEARS BEFORE Nicaea. They didn't need the council of Nicaea to define what a heretic is, nor to go "join us OR ELSE." They just needed power, but were otherwise already that nasty a bunch of deranged Jesus fanboys.

 

[HansMustermann]

I think you are speaking past each other. You are saying which works ended up doctrine for the protoRCC were already established by the time of the council, abctesla is saying that there were many different works still in circulation at that point. You are both correct.

Well, considering that I've already said repeatedly that yes, there were other churches, I don't know how I could make that any more clear.

 

[dejudge]

Wow! You really miss the point don't you?

The John Frumm example was clearly made to point out how quickly a story changes as the years passed.

Again, quickly changing stories about John Frum have absolutely nothing to do with the historicity or not of the character called Jesus of Nazareth.

It is simply ridiculous to argue a supposed character in the NT may have existed because there are changing stories over a thousand years later.

Changing stories of Romulus and Remus, the myth founders of Rome did not make them figures of history.

That New Testament writers also referred to Old Testament writers says nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the accuracy of their stories.

You seem to have no idea what evidence is. The New Testament contain stories about a character called Jesus of Nazareth which can be examined for credibility.

Virtually all stories in the NT about the character have been found to be complete fiction or implausible. It is found that any mention of the character called Jesus in non-apologetic writings of the 1st and 2nd century have been determined to be forgeries.

ALL of his supposed disciples and Paul are completely without historical corroboration. Not one contemporary non-apologetic writer wrote about them.

Letters between Paul and Seneca were determined to be forgeries.

All mention of people called Christians in Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have also been regarded as manipulated.

All the authors of the NT are either unknown or without historical corroboration and are associated with forgeries or false attribution.

There is simply no historical evidence, none whatsoever, anywhere to support an HJ argument.

 

[acbytesla]

Again, quickly changing stories about John Frum have absolutely nothing to do with the historicity or not of the character called Jesus of Nazareth.

It is simply ridiculous to argue a supposed character in the NT may have existed because there are changing stories over a thousand years later.

Changing stories of Romulus and Remus, the myth founders of Rome did not make them figures of history.


You seem to have no idea what evidence is. The New Testament contain stories about a character called Jesus of Nazareth which can be examined for credibility.

Virtually all stories in the NT about the character have been found to be complete fiction or implausible. It is found that any mention of the character called Jesus in non-apologetic writings of the 1st and 2nd century have been determined to be forgeries.

ALL of his supposed disciples and Paul are completely without historical corroboration. Not one contemporary non-apologetic writer wrote about them.

Letters between Paul and Seneca were determined to be forgeries.

All mention of people called Christians in Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have also been regarded as manipulated.

All the authors of the NT are either unknown or without historical corroboration and are associated with forgeries or false attribution.

There is simply no historical evidence, none whatsoever, anywhere to support an HJ argument.

Wow! The Frumm story doesn't demonstrate that the historicity of Jesus is true, it demonstrates how unlikely it is to be true. That maybe at best a portion is true, but it has been enhanced and grotesquely changed. It's a real life example of the telephone game among people who didn't know they were playing.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You said the Gospels had been written in stone for the 150 years leading into the Council of Nicea. This clearly wasn't true except in the RCC

.

No he didn’t.

The Gospels and main epistles were already pretty much set in stone for more than 150 years at that point. (Again, contrary to what Dan Brown would have you believe.)

Hmmmm...sure looks like it to me.

 

[dejudge]

Wow! The Frumm story doesn't demonstrate that the historicity of Jesus is true, it demonstrates how unlikely it is to be true. That maybe at best a portion is true, but it has been enhanced and grotesquely changed. It's a real life example of the telephone game among people who didn't know they were playing.

The John Frumm changing stories do not demonstrate that any part of any story about any person may be true when you can't even verify which part of any story about John Frum is true.

HJ arguments are always flawed because no historical evidence will ever be presented.

 

[acbytesla]

The John Frumm changing stories do not demonstrate that any part of any story about any person may be true when you can't even verify which part of any story about John Frum is true.

HJ arguments are always flawed because no historical evidence will ever be presented.

I agree. The argument that stories written a minimum of 30 years after a supposed incident being true are marginal at best. I'm personally convinced that the entire story was made up by Saul and enhanced and exaggerated after he began telling the story.

 

[dejudge]

I agree. The argument that stories written a minimum of 30 years after a supposed incident being true are marginal at best. I'm personally convinced that the entire story was made up by Saul and enhanced and exaggerated after he began telling the story.

Which Saul? A character called Saul in Acts claimed he was blinded by a bright light and heard the voice of Jesus.

The author of Acts appears to have manufactured the conversion story of Saul since it is all total nonsense.

In any event, there is no historical corroboration for NT Saul in any non-apologetic writing.

 

[abaddon]

Why does this topic get atheists so bent out of shape?

A. There might have been a singular jesus.
B. There might have been a gaggle of jewish apocalytic preachers of whom jesus is a composite.
C. It might be made up from whole cloth.

I am entirely comfortable with any of those options, BECAUSE NONE OF THEM MATTER ANYWAY.

Personally, I go with B since we know for a fact that there were scads of jewish apocalyptic preachers wandering the Levant at the time. Seems entirely plausible that composite jesus might have happened.

But I am not wedded to the notion, nor do I spend every waking moment pointlessly wrangling with fellow atheists about it.

BECAUSE I DONT CARE.

It isn't important.

Suppose that tomorrow, hard evidence was uncovered for a HJ, and further, an actual contemporaneous eye witness account were discovered. Would that make a believer out of me?

Of course not. All that would mean is that some bloke existed and some other bloke wrote a book about him. Hardly miraculous.