Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

I understand that chronologically as the events in the stories unfold the Epistles come later. However, it is my understanding that the earliest known writings about Jesus were some of the books/letters/epistles attributed to St. Paul.

There is no historical evidence, zero historical corroborative evidence, to support that Saul/Paul was a figure of history and that Epistles under the name of Paul was written before the 2nd century.

The supposed character called Paul and Epistles were manufactured no earlier than the mid 2nd century or later.

 

[acbytesla]

There is no historical evidence, zero historical corroborative evidence, to support that Saul/Paul was a figure of history and that Epistles under the name of Paul was written before the 2nd century.

The supposed character called Paul and Epistles were manufactured no earlier than the mid 2nd century or later.

So your argument is Wikipedia is wrong when it dates the Epistles a hundred years before that?

OK then.

 

[dejudge]

So your argument is Wikipedia is wrong when it dates the Epistles a hundred years before that?

OK then.

The earliest existing manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles P46 are dated by paleography circa 175-225 CE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

 

[Thor 2]

J Warner Wallace, a homicide detective specializing in cold-case investigation, makes a powerful case for not only the historical existence of Christ but His divinity in his books "Forensic Faith" and "Cold-Case Christianity" in which he applies the scientific methods of his profession to the available evidence.

I googled that book and had a sneak preview. I copied a little for the edification of some of those hard nosed atheists lurking on this forum. J Warner Wallace in his introduction writes:

"Supernatural forces are excluded by definition. Most scientists begin with this presupposition and fail to considering any answer that is not strictly physical, material, or natural. Even when a particular phenomenon cannot be explained by any natural, material process or forces, the vast majority of scientists will refuse to consider a supernatural explanation."

Wow! So there you have it. Scientists should be prepared to say "God done it" sometimes if they are fair minded. I noticed that Wallace progressed to writing children's stories.

 

[acbytesla]

The earliest existing manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles P46 are dated by paleography circa 175-225 CE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

I'm not a biblical scholar. I'm not sure how to discern the contradiction of the Wikipedia link you just posted and the one I cited. On one hand, I'd like to know which is more accurate and on the other not caring as I have believed for a long time that any information witten about Jesus is highly suspect.

 

[acbytesla]

I googled that book and had a sneak preview. I copied a little for the edification of some of those hard nosed atheists lurking on this forum. J Warner Wallace in his introduction writes:

"Supernatural forces are excluded by definition. Most scientists begin with this presupposition and fail to considering any answer that is not strictly physical, material, or natural. Even when a particular phenomenon cannot be explained by any natural, material process or forces, the vast majority of scientists will refuse to consider a supernatural explanation."

Wow! So there you have it. Scientists should be prepared to say "God done it" sometimes if they are fair minded. I noticed that Wallace progressed to writing children's stories.

Scientific methods my ass.

 

[pgwenthold]

Sure he does.

What evidence? There is no body. No eyewitnesses to interview. No DNA. Not even a single contemporary writer who claims to be a witness of the crucifixion or any of the events written in stories 3 to 6 decades later.

What possible scientific method does he use ?

.

Likely it's a case of, "If we accept the bible is true, then we conclude Jesus is rral"

 

[HansMustermann]

It's like a joke I heard - Pick a Jesus, pick any Jesus.

That's not even a joke. That's literally how the bible studies field works.

When one of the main figures in the field of Biblical studies effectively says that the field is such a train wreck in terms of proper use of the historical method that it needs to be nuked from orbit and restarted you know that that field has major problems.

Well, if you mean Ehrman -- though, again, it's not just him saying it: it's mainstream scholarship -- then technically that's not what he's saying. You know, intensional context and all that.

They think they're applying a perfectly good historical method. It just happens to be the 19'th century version, which by now is seriously outdated by the standards of any actual historians. In fact, it's more than one revision behind, and failing in more criteria than even just that one. But that doesn't prevent almost any bible studies guy from saying that he's basically a historian.

He knew at a fundamental level the same thing Richard Price stated:
"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs."

Heck, there are some people who claim Jesus was actually teaching a form of Buddhism which shows just how much a Tabla Rosa the "historical Jesus" is.

That's not even the most off-centre version you can reconstruct. E.g., I've done myself such original reconstructions as Jesus Of Arimathea on this board, where he's a rich Greek-speaking merchant's son. Not only that makes sense of why would the body be given to Joseph Of Arimathea (which would be illegal as heck under Roman law if he weren't family), but also it makes sense of such stuff as why John's Jesus makes puns that only make sense in Greek but not in either Aramaic or Hebrew, or at least prima facie why he seems to make the "Son Of Man" claim which didn't even make any sense in Aramaic or Hebrew and only existed outside that area, and a few more things. Is it any less supportable than any other? Not really.

 

[acbytesla]

Likely it's a case of, "If we accept the bible is true, then we conclude Jesus is rral"

 

[HansMustermann]

@smartcooky
That's more inaccuracy, to be honest. See, ALL early Xians tried to only baptise on the death bed. It doesn't mean that's when they converted. And that includes Constantine.

In OUR times, yeah, getting baptized is the beginning. If you sin after that, well, just see a priest and get more forgiveness.

For them it was a one-off get all your sins forgiven card. Key words: one-off. If you sinned after that, it meant you hadn't REALLY accepted Jesus and you're going straight to hell. No more forgiveness, no second chances.

So they took this to the logical conclusion: if you only get one shot at having all your sins forgiven, then just get baptized on your deathbed. And Constantine just fits that pattern, nothing more.


As for Nicaea, I think the wrong assumption that some people make is assuming it worked by modern (or even ancient) rule-of-law logic. You know, where you first need to debate what is legal and what isn't, and then legislate based on that. E.g., you first need to define what jaywalking is, before you judge whether someone is guilty of that.

So you'd ASSUME that they couldn't possibly be against heresy before having a conference to discuss and debate and decide and come up with a definition of exactly what counts as orthodoxy and what counts as heresy. And then judge the actual cases based on that definition. You'd think it would work that way, wouldn't you?

But these were some of the most deranged Jesus fanboys, even by fanboy standard. They worked by Fan Dumb logic, with just a pinch of Insane Troll Logic thrown in for good measure.

The fact is, even after Nicaea, they wouldn't actually have a legal definition of heresy until the year 380. That's more than half a century after Nicaea. In fact, it didn't even happen under Constantine. It wouldn't even be until ANOTHER emperor that it occurred to someone to even have a clear and workable definition. In the meantime they persecuted heretics ANYWAY, not even pausing to notice that they lack even a definition for it.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not a biblical scholar. I'm not sure how to discern the contradiction of the Wikipedia link you just posted and the one I cited. On one hand, I'd like to know which is more accurate and on the other not caring as I have believed for a long time that any information witten about Jesus is highly suspect.

You don't have to be a biblical scholar to find out that there is no corroborative historical evidence anywhere to show that any so-called Pauline Epistle was written between 50-60 CE.

The character called Saul/Paul is not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the works of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

People who argue Pauline Epistles were composed between 50-60 CE generally use Acts of the Apostles a known work of fiction in which Saul/Paul's conversion was fabricated .

It must also be noted that even the author of Acts made no claim at all that Saul/Paul wrote any Epistles to any Church anywhere and there is not a reference to a single verse from any Epistle in Acts.

Christian writers in the 2nd century like Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Aristides, Athenagoras, Tatian and Municius Felix had no idea that there was a character called Saul/Paul and wrote nothing at all about him or used his Epistles.

 

[smartcooky]

OK, Hans, so answer this for me.

Was the First Council of Nicaea convened, either primarily or in part, to settle the question of Jesus' divinity?

(and its a "yes" or "no" answer - no elaboration or explanations please)

 

[acbytesla]

You don't have to be a biblical scholar to find out that there is no corroborative historical evidence anywhere to show that any so-called Pauline Epistle was written between 50-60 CE.

The character called Saul/Paul is not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the works of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

People who argue Pauline Epistles were composed between 50-60 CE generally use Acts of the Apostles a known work of fiction in which Saul/Paul's conversion was fabricated .

It must also be noted that even the author of Acts made no claim at all that Saul/Paul wrote any Epistles to any Church anywhere and there is not a reference to a single verse from any Epistle in Acts.

Christian writers in the 2nd century like Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Aristides, Athenagoras, Tatian and Municius Felix had no idea that there was a character called Saul/Paul and wrote nothing at all about him or used his Epistles.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. The Wikipedia article dated ACTS to be around 90AD. I'd like to see a timeline that lists probable dates for each of the books of the New Testament and cites for each. My understanding is that scholars suggest that Mark was the probably the first Gospel with the other two Synoptic Gospels following it. And John being the last.

Is that your understanding?

 

[dejudge]

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is always necessary to argue non-existence.

It would be virtually impossible to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure if there was evidence of his existence.

Historical evidence is necessary to argue for an HJ.

The Wikipedia article dated ACTS to be around 90AD. I'd like to see a timeline that lists probable dates for each of the books of the New Testament and cites for each. My understanding is that scholars suggest that Mark was the probably the first Gospel with the other two Synoptic Gospels following it. And John being the last.

Is that your understanding?

The Wikipedia article you provided is riddled with baseless claims, dates and propaganda to support the HJ argument.

There is simply no existing manuscripts of Acts dated to 90AD. The earliest manuscripts of Acts are dated by paleography to around the mid 3rd century and later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45


Based on my research the version of the Jesus story in gMark predates all other versions in NT including all the Epistles and the Revelation of John is earlier than Acts of the Apostles and so-called Pauline Epistles.

It would appear Acts of the Apostles and all the NT Epistles were unknown up to at least after the last quarter of the 2nd century.

In effect, Saul/Paul and the Epistles played no role at all in the start of the Jesus cult.

Saul/Paul is a total fiction character fabricated as a witness to the non-historical resurrection.

 

[acbytesla]

Absence of evidence is always necessary to argue non-existence.

It would be virtually impossible to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure if there was evidence of his existence.

Historical evidence is necessary to argue for an HJ.




The Wikipedia article you provided is riddled with baseless claims, dates and propaganda to support the HJ argument.

There is simply no existing manuscripts of Acts dated to 90AD. The earliest manuscripts of Acts are dated by paleography to around the mid 3rd century and later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45


Based on my research the version of the Jesus story in gMark predates all other versions in NT including all the Epistles and the Revelation of John is earlier than Acts of the Apostles and so-called Pauline Epistles.

It would appear Acts of the Apostles and all the NT Epistles were unknown up to at least after the last quarter of the 2nd century.

In effect, Saul/Paul and the Epistles played no role at all in the start of the Jesus cult.

Saul/Paul is a total fiction character fabricated as a witness to the non-historical resurrection.

Except it is my understanding that Marcion of Sinope in and around 150CE had created a biblical canon which included Luke and half of the Epistles. And others in this thread have said that by 150AD, Marcion was considered a heretic. How do we square this?

 

[dejudge]

Except it is my understanding that Marcion of Sinope in and around 150CE had created a biblical canon which included Luke and half of the Epistles. And others in this thread have said that by 150AD, Marcion was considered a heretic. How do we square this?

Except that a contemporary of Marcion wrote nothing about such a Canon. If Marcion was a heretic then he would not have gLuke and Epistles which completely contradict his teaching.

If Marcion taught that Jesus was without birth and came down from heaven directly into Capernaum then he could not have used gLuke which specifically states that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a virgin in Bethlehem.

Luke 2:15

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

Tertullian's Against Marcion 4.7

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum, of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own.

If Marcion taught his followers that Jesus was not God's son then he could not have used the Epistles to support his teachings .

Justin's First Apology

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

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

It is just baseless nonsense that Marcion had gLuke and Epistles when those very writings were used to argue against the teachings of Marcion in multiple apologetic writings.

See "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian,
See Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.
See "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian
See "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

Marcion's son of God was a Phantom without birth and without flesh.

On the Flesh of Christ

Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity; because, of course, he was afraid that His nativity and His flesh bore mutual testimony to each other's reality, since there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh without nativity.

 

[HansMustermann]

OK, Hans, so answer this for me.

Was the First Council of Nicaea convened, either primarily or in part, to settle the question of Jesus' divinity?

(and its a "yes" or "no" answer - no elaboration or explanations please)

Well, WHICH question of Jesus's divivinity? Because frankly, there's more than one. And if you can think that that's when they decided against Gnosticism, I'm pretty sure you don't understand which question about Jesus's divinity they asked.

 

[smartcooky]

Technically yes, but not in the way you seem think.

So I'll take that as a "yes".

Every source I read confirms this was one of the reasons, with wording such as...

"The Council of Nicaea was the first council in the history of the Christian church that was intended to address the entire body of believers. It was convened by the emperor Constantine to resolve the controversy of Arianism, a doctrine that held that Christ was not divine but was a created being."

britannica.com

Three more questions:

"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."​

1. Is the above passage an accurate transcription of the Nicean Creed?

2. Does it declare Jesus to be divine?

3. Is the highlighted passage a threat to anyone who would say that Jesus is not divine?

Remember, these require only "yes" or "no" as an answer.
No prevaricating, no verbosity, no "its not that simple" and no "Hansplaining", just "yes or "no".

 

[HansMustermann]

So basically you need to resort to dumb dishonest arguing. Gotcha.

 

[Tassman]

Interestingly, his travelling companions are claimed to have seen nothing at all beyond Saul falling down on the road.

This is surely an indication it was all in Saul's head.

OR a manifestation of temporal lobe epilepsy. In short he had a seizure.