Historical Jesus

[abaddon]

I’ve just had a quick look at the Jesus page on Wikipedia and something immediately stuck out to me “... Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically....” not historians? Why is this?

Euphemism for "Theologists".

 

[dejudge]

I still don't know why this topic gets you so bent out of shape.

I am an atheist. I don't care if there was a real Paul/Saul or a real jesus because I DONT GIVE A RATS PATOOTIE.

Why is this so difficult to get into your head?

I consider a composite jesus likely and an actual Paul/Saul likely on balance. But I can't be bothered to give a flying **** either way.

My engagement with theists revolves around the incessant attempts to impose their beliefs on everyone.

In that regard, you self present as just another evangelist who happens to promote a different idea. Religiously. That is how you appear to me.

Not buying your religion any more than any of the others.

Your post is irrelevant and absurd since you cannot ever and will never provide any historical evidence to support a likely composite Jesus and an actual Saul/Paul.

You give the impression that because you claim to be an atheist that whatever you believe about Jesus and Saul/Paul must not be challenged.

 

[smartcooky]

Your post is irrelevant and absurd since you cannot ever and will never provide any historical evidence to support a likely composite Jesus and an actual Saul/Paul.

You give the impression that because you claim to be an atheist that whatever you believe about Jesus and Saul/Paul must not be challenged.

You just zoomed right past what he said.

People are allowed to have opinions!

 

[acbytesla]

I still don't know why this topic gets you so bent out of shape.

I am an atheist. I don't care if there was a real Paul/Saul or a real jesus because I DONT GIVE A RATS PATOOTIE.

Why is this so difficult to get into your head?

I consider a composite jesus likely and an actual Paul/Saul likely on balance. But I can't be bothered to give a flying **** either way.

My engagement with theists revolves around the incessant attempts to impose their beliefs on everyone.

In that regard, you self present as just another evangelist who happens to promote a different idea. Religiously. That is how you appear to me.

Not buying your religion any more than any of the others.

Your post is irrelevant and absurd since you cannot ever and will never provide any historical evidence to support a likely composite Jesus and an actual Saul/Paul.

You give the impression that because you claim to be an atheist that whatever you believe about Jesus and Saul/Paul must not be challenged.

You just zoomed right past what he said.

People are allowed to have opinions!

I think a few things are going on here. Yes, people are allowed to have opinions. But I can see dejudge's point.as well as abaddon's. I'm a bit like abaddon because regardless if there was an actual Paul or Jesus, I don't believe that Jesus's divinity is true or any reason why I should.

Still, I can fully understand dejudge's frustration. Abaddon says a composite Jesus/Paul are 'likely' true. Frankly, I'm unconvinced that he has any information that could credibly allow him to say how likely or unlikely the historicity of either actually is.

While dejudge hasn't convinced me his position is correct, he certainly has made me revisit why I might believe any of it. I'm considering that what I know on this subject is the product indoctrination and popular consensus and maybe nothing else.

 

[Delvo]

I am dealing with evidence not the general impression of plenty people...

In any event, you have not, will not and cannot ever provide any actual historical evidence to support the baseless claims of the general consensus that "Paul wrote in the 50's...

You still cannot provide any historical evidence at all to show that a person named Paul actually wrote Epistles to Churches in the 50's...

All the historians who claim Saul/Paul is a figure of history and wrote Epistles in the 50's have never ever provided any historical corroborative evidence. Never.

OK, tell me about the evidence. Precisely what do you have that points to the later dates you're giving? Or, precisely where did the earlier dates come from and why were those conclusions flawed?

Hans seems to be going with the general rule (although I'm not sure he'd apply it to all New Testament books, but at least the ones that are often said to be the earliest) that the early dates which are usually given (and most casual observers would have probably heard before) are derived from contents of the stories, which is wrong because that really only tells us about the setting not the authorship. Is that what you would say? If so, where do more recent dates come from. You've posted two examples that you said were dated based on linguistics. Is that the general rule for all of the new Testament book dates you accept?

Apparently, saying this makes me a dumbass, Dan Brown fanboy conspiracy theorist... go figure!

The "Dan Brown" thing is probably the key. Dan Brown's stuff was so wrong but so famous that it might have set up the words "Niecene" and "Nicea" as trigger words causing a reflexive "kill it, kill it, it must burn" response because Dan Brown stuff immediately following next after one of those words is just so automatic. But the problem with that response is that sometimes people DO say stuff about Nicea that is NOT from Dan Brown.

 

[dejudge]

@Delvo
Actually, while I don't agree with his ideas, dejudge does have a bit of a point there. The dating of the epistles and generally the timeline does partially rely on Acts, as well as bits and pieces from the epistles themselves to get a timeline.

Can you please tell me where it is stated in Acts of the Apostles that Saul/Paul wrote letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians, Thessalonians and Colossians?

Saul/Paul of Acts wrote no letters to any Churches.

In fact, the author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul received letters.

1. In Acts 9 it is stated Saul received letters from the high priest giving authority to arrest people in Damascus.

2. In Acts 15.22-23 it is claimed Saul received letters from the elders of the Jerusalem Church in order to send greetings to people in Syria, Antioch and Clicia.

Now, in Acts it is claimed that Saul/Paul went to Rome for trial sometime when Porcius Festus was governor of Judea c 59-62. In Acts 28 when Saul/Paul arrived in Rome he had no letter for the Romans and none was received by the brethren.

Examine Acts 28.

Acts 28:21

And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.

Again in Acts 28. Saul/Paul stayed in Rome for two whole years which implies he was there until at least c 62 CE or later in which there is no claim anywhere he wrote letters to Churches.

Acts 28:30

And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him.

So relying on Acts if it is assumed Saul/Paul was the author of Pauline Epistles then they could not have been written before c 62 CE.

 

[acbytesla]

The "Dan Brown" thing is probably the key. Dan Brown's stuff was so wrong but so famous that it might have set up the words "Niecene" and "Nicea" as trigger words causing a reflexive "kill it, kill it, it must burn" response because Dan Brown stuff immediately following next after one of those words is just so automatic. But the problem with that response is that sometimes people DO say stuff about Nicea that is NOT from Dan Brown.

I'm curious, has Dan Brown written any actual "nonfiction". I never considered his writings to be anything more than entertaining.

 

[smartcooky]

Hans seems to be going with the general rule (although I'm not sure he'd apply it to all New Testament books, but at least the ones that are often said to be the earliest) that the early dates which are usually given (and most casual observers would have probably heard before) are derived from contents of the stories, which is wrong because that really only tells us about the setting not the authorship.

The "Dan Brown" thing is probably the key. Dan Brown's stuff was so wrong but so famous that it might have set up the words "Niecene" and "Nicea" as trigger words causing a reflexive "kill it, kill it, it must burn" response because Dan Brown stuff immediately following next after one of those words is just so automatic. But the problem with that response is that sometimes people DO say stuff about Nicea that is NOT from Dan Brown.

I'm going to answer these using a sort of anecdote that I often fall back on when people try to claim that the setting proves the reality of what is written; that these things and people and places really existed, therefore, this really happened.

Firstly, in 1995, in the "Op Center" series of books, Tom Clancy and his co-writers wrote about an autonomous agency called the "National Crisis Management Center" (NCMC) located in an old pilot's Ready Room near the Flight Line at Andrews Air Force base, in Maryland. The director of NCMC is Paul Hood.

This setting is real

- Maryland exists
- Andrews AFB exists
- Andrews AFB has a flight line (of course) and even the Ready Room at which NCMC is supposedly located, is real, and right where Clancy says it is..

However, NCMC and all its staff are entirely fictional. We don't come to the conclusion that Paul Hood must have been a real person simply because Clancy's book mentions Maryland and Andrews AFB, and other places that we know are real. All of the things that took place in that series of books, e.g.

- South Korean soldiers running a false flag bombing operation in Seoul against North Korea
- a company selling nuclear waste to terrorists.
- a faction trying to provoke a Spanish Civil War

are all fiction.

How can we deduce that Jesus was a real person just because the gospels mention Herod, and Jerusalem and the Romans?

And secondly, why do people get so bent out of shape over Dan Brown? He's just a bloody fiction writer (and a poor to average one at that). The Da Vinci Code is fiction, Angels and Demons is fiction, The Digital Fortress is fiction.

People don't get their panties in a bunch when Tom Clancy writes about non-existent government agencies, because they know that"Op Center" is fiction, or when Clive Cussler writes about Britain selling Canada to the USA, because they know that "Night Probe" is fiction, or when Ian Fleming wrote about James Bond, because the know that the Double Zero Section and the Licence to Kill is fiction!

 

[maximara]

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.

Actually the expert in question is Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University. "The only mission of biblical studies should be to end biblical studies as we know it."

"Despite the weight that theologians place on the words and deeds of the great figures in the Bible (Abraham, Moses, and David), research indicates that these figures are not as "historical" as once thought. There is no independent evidence for the life or teachings of Jesus in the first century CE, which means that most modern Christians are not even following Jesus' teachings."

Carrier was even harsher in his blog: "Then I discovered that the field of New Testament studies was so monumentally f---d the task wasn’t as straightforward as I had hoped ... the biggest thing I discovered is that every expert who is a specialist in methodology has concluded, one and all, that the methods now used in Jesus studies are also totally f---d".

Even someone like me with my basic knowledge of Historical Anthropology can see the misuse of the historical method with regards to Jesus.

Take Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) (544–496 BCE?) as an example. You can hold what is supposedly his words in your hands, he has references in the Records of the Grand Historian and Spring and Autumn Annals which used earlier official records that haven't survived (the historian who wrote Records of the Grand Historian even noted "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank.") and yet modern historians are not sure Sun Tzu existed (Sawyer, Ralph D. (2005), The Essential Art of War, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-07204-6)

If we can't be sure of that a man who is in far better shape evidence-wise then Jesus actually existed and yet proclaim from the roof tops Jesus existed then as Carrier said the historical method with regards to Jesus is royally f---d. If Sun Tzu can't get a free ride then why does Jesus? Is it because Jesus is thought to be white while Sun Tzu is Chinese? (Yes, I went there).

Carrier rightly lam-blasted N.T. Wright's totally insane (or should be be inane?) claim “Jesus is as well established as a figure of history as is, say, the emperor Caligula, his near-contemporary.” This is the type of misuse of the historical method that both Avalos and Carrier are on about.

Lataster, Raphael (2019). "Inadequate Methods". Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Brill. pp. 129, 149, n. 92. ISBN 978-90-04-40878-4. has this to say:
"The recent defences of Jesus’ historicity by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey lack lucid and competent methodologies, rely on highly questionable documents, and further make use of sources that no longer exist, if they ever did.
[...]
If the consensus view that a historical Jesus certainly existed is based on such tenuous methodology, it would seem reasonable that the consensus view should be reviewed, while not necessarily immediately rejected as false. Let us end this section with a mainstream scholar’s admission that such methods — like the earlier and often mentioned appeal to imaginary sources — are idiosyncratic; that they are unique to historians who specialise in the New Testament texts"

Anytime you can demonstrate a field of science is not consistent on how it handles data then the field has major problems in the area where the exceptions happen.

 

[smartcooky]

Your post is irrelevant and absurd since you cannot ever and will never provide any historical evidence to support a likely composite Jesus and an actual Saul/Paul.

You give the impression that because you claim to be an atheist that whatever you believe about Jesus and Saul/Paul must not be challenged.

I think it is perfectly valid to hold opinions without evidence. This is a form of speculation; even Sagan said that there was nothing wrong with speculation as long as you were cautious.

“We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”

My opinion is that the person the NT calls Jesus, was likely made up of a number of different people, and therefore, my opinion is that the Historical Jesus of the NT narrative is unlikely to be a single person. My reasons (NOT evidence) for thinking this is that many of the different gospel writers wrote conflicting things in the narrative about Jesus, that make it difficult for me to believe they were writing about the same person. Additionally, there are also references to things that happened in the narrative that are suspiciously similar to stories from Greek mythology, some examples:

The Immaculate conception: Dionysus was a descendant of Zeus and mortal woman Semele

Turning water into wine: Dionysus was God of the wine and could turn water into wine.

Crucified, died and resurrected after three days: Dionysus was sacrificed by being crucified in the branches of a tree, died and was resurrected three days later.

It is highly likely that the original gospels were written in Greek, and in an environment with a heavy Hellenistic influence, so that would tend to give weight to the above speculation. It almost makes me think they were making stuff up, and plagiarising other stories to add to their narrative. If they were prepared to do this, then how to we know any of it is true, or that Jesus was really a single person? The answer is, we do not know!

I recognize that my opinion might be flawed; my speculation wide of the mark, and am open to being convinced otherwise, but simply ranting about a lack of evidence for holding that opinion is not going to cut the mustard. You will need to provide positive, compelling evidence that the truth is something other than the opinion I currently hold.

At this stage, I see no more evidence for a single HJ than I do for a composite one - either concept could be true.

 

[maximara]

At this stage, I see no more evidence for a single HJ than I do for a composite one - either concept could be true.

In this case it is more an Occam's Razor ("the simplest solution is most likely the right one") issue then evidence. A composite Jesus better fits and explains what we have then either a single HJ or celestial Jesus.

On the whole born of a virgin thing:

It has been suggested that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" as well as being an "attempt to explain an individual's superiority to other mortals. Generally Mediterranean peoples looked at one's birth or parentage to explain one's character and behavior" and "veneration of a benefactor." Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato were all stated as being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people—so the term 'born of a virgin' was never meant to be taken literally.

I might add that Greek/Roman mythology has Zeus being, as one person put it, the 'god of one night stands'.

 

[smartcooky]

I might add that Greek/Roman mythology has Zeus being, as one person put it, the 'god of one night stands'.

Yeah, the god of spreading seed (and we're not talking agriculture here)

 

[dejudge]

I think it is perfectly valid to hold opinions without evidence. This is a form of speculation; even Sagan said that there was nothing wrong with speculation as long as you were cautious.

An opinion without evidence is indeed speculation.

“We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.”

To find the truth you need facts not imagination.

My opinion is that the person the NT calls Jesus, was likely made up of a number of different people, and therefore, my opinion is that the Historical Jesus of the NT narrative is unlikely to be a single person.

You are contradicting yourself.

If your opinion without valid evidence is that NT Jesus was likely made up of a number of different people then NT Jesus was likely not a figure of history.

My reasons (NOT evidence) for thinking this is that many of the different gospel writers wrote conflicting things in the narrative about Jesus, that make it difficult for me to believe they were writing about the same person.

All The Gospels contain fiction and implausible stories of their Jesus whether or not they conflict. In other words if only one of the Gospels was in the NT the character called Jesus would still be a figure of fiction.

Additionally, there are also references to things that happened in the narrative that are suspiciously similar to stories from Greek mythology, some examples:

The Immaculate conception: Dionysus was a descendant of Zeus and mortal woman Semele

Turning water into wine: Dionysus was God of the wine and could turn water into wine.

Crucified, died and resurrected after three days: Dionysus was sacrificed by being crucified in the branches of a tree, died and was resurrected three days later.

The NT Gospels stories of Jesus are compilation of fiction, implausibility and Jewish/Greek/Roman mythology.

Christian writings admit Jesus was nothing different to Greek/Roman myths.

Justin's First Apology"

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

It is highly likely that the original gospels were written in Greek, and in an environment with a heavy Hellenistic influence, so that would tend to give weight to the above speculation. It almost makes me think they were making stuff up, and plagiarising other stories to add to their narrative. If they were prepared to do this, then how to we know any of it is true, or that Jesus was really a single person? The answer is, we do not know!

Jesus of the NT was not a real person.

Jesus in the NT was God Creator from the beginning.

Jesus in the NT was purest mythology.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I recognize that my opinion might be flawed; my speculation wide of the mark, and am open to being convinced otherwise, but simply ranting about a lack of evidence for holding that opinion is not going to cut the mustard. You will need to provide positive, compelling evidence that the truth is something other than the opinion I currently hold.

You have admitted that you are speculating so I really can't help you.

At this stage, I see no more evidence for a single HJ than I do for a composite one - either concept could be true.

I do not deal with speculation.

I deal strictly with the written evidence.

The NT authors do state that their Jesus was God Creator born of a virgin and a Ghost who was with the devil on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple, walked on water, transfigured, raised from the dead on the third day and ascended into heaven.

NT Jesus was a figure of fiction.

NT Jesus had no history.

 

[maximara]

Yeah, the god of spreading seed (and we're not talking agriculture here)

I have my own joke regarding Zeus along those lines - Zeus really couldn't keep it in his toga and spread his seed around the Greek world like a demented farmer.

 

[Darat]

In this case it is more an Occam's Razor ("the simplest solution is most likely the right one") issue then evidence. A composite Jesus better fits and explains what we have then either a single HJ or celestial Jesus.

On the whole born of a virgin thing:

It has been suggested that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" as well as being an "attempt to explain an individual's superiority to other mortals. Generally Mediterranean peoples looked at one's birth or parentage to explain one's character and behavior" and "veneration of a benefactor." Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato were all stated as being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people—so the term 'born of a virgin' was never meant to be taken literally.

I might add that Greek/Roman mythology has Zeus being, as one person put it, the 'god of one night stands'.

Using Occam’s Razor I would say the theory to go with is that Jesus was “made up*”. For all religions that have come about in more recent times (for example Mormonism and Scientology) that we have actual contemporary documents for how they came about (personal and 3rd party contemporary accounts and so on) we know religions are simply made up. To suppose Christianity was an exception to this is to unnecessarily add additional elements to the theory, in other words we would be saying “religions are made up except for Christianity”.


*By made up I am meaning the claimed foundational events are made up, so there are no “clears”, there are no solid gold tablets, no Angels appeared and so on.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Using Occam’s Razor I would say the theory to go with is that Jesus was “made up*”. For all religions that have come about in more recent times (for example Mormonism and Scientology) that we have actual contemporary documents for how they came about (personal and 3rd party contemporary accounts and so on) we know religions are simply made up. To suppose Christianity was an exception to this is to unnecessarily add additional elements to the theory, in other words we would be saying “religions are made up except for Christianity”.


*By made up I am meaning the claimed foundational events are made up, so there are no “clears”, there are no solid gold tablets, no Angels appeared and so on.

Matthew 8:26

As the Red Queen said: "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

 

[slyjoe]

...

The Immaculate conception: Dionysus was a descendant of Zeus and mortal woman Semele

Do you even know what the dogma of Immaculate Conception IS?

Hint: It's not about Jesus.

ETA: Maybe you meant Virgin Birth?

 

[maximara]

Using Occam’s Razor I would say the theory to go with is that Jesus was “made up*”. For all religions that have come about in more recent times (for example Mormonism and Scientology) that we have actual contemporary documents for how they came about (personal and 3rd party contemporary accounts and so on) we know religions are simply made up. To suppose Christianity was an exception to this is to unnecessarily add additional elements to the theory, in other words we would be saying “religions are made up except for Christianity”.

*By made up I am meaning the claimed foundational events are made up, so there are no “clears”, there are no solid gold tablets, no Angels appeared and so on.

There is a light-year of distance between the religion being made up and the founder being made up. We know that Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith and Scientology has L. Ron Hubbard as a flounderer.

As a general rule of thumb if a religion proclaims a human founder it has turned out that founder existed. Sure, you have maybes like Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) but they tend to be rare.

Even the John Furm cult can point to a possible founder - Manehevi - the first native history records using the name "John Frum". Though admittedly there may have been an lost founder who started things up in the 1910s but only one letter even shows he may have existed.

Jesus is unique in that the evidence for him being a historical myth with single person behind it is next to nil. Also when compared to about any other founder Jesus is a total train wreck in terms of history (Pontius Pilate's behavior is totally at odds with what we know of him through every other source) It certainly doesn't help that there are these strange gaps in the records of people who recorded events of that time.

For example, the five volume account (c40 CE) regarding his embassy to Caligula that he wrote is missing the entire volume regarding Pontius Pilate.

Some other missing/strange omission works:

*Damis, author of Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher and mystic who was a contemporary with Jesus.

*Seneca the Younger's On Superstition (c.40 - c.62), which covered every cult in Rome, was not preserved. The only reason we know it did NOT talk about Christianity at all is because Augustine in the 4th century complained about it. But if the book could have been as early as 40 CE then there would be no reason to expect notice of what at that time would have been a very small group. Despite this, Seneca's lack of mention was sufficiently troublesome to some early Christians that they forged correspondence between Seneca and Paul of Tarsus. Jerome, in de Viris Illustribus 12, and Augustine, in Epistle 153.4 ad Macedonium, both refer to the forged communication.

*Pliny the Elder, who wrote Natural History (77 CE), the oldest known encyclopedia. It has 37 chapters, spread over 10 books, and mentions hundreds of people (major and minor characters alike) - and yet, it contains no reference to either Christ or Christians. Pliny the Elder also wrote a history of Rome, from 31 CE to the then-present day (sometime before his death in 79 CE) with a volume for each year. This work, however, was not preserved by the Christians.

*Celsius' The True Logos (2nd-century) is known only through Origen's rebuttal in the 3rd century.

*Froto, a 2nd century teacher, friend, and correspondence to Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180), wrote 'Discourse against the Christians' which is only known through Minucius Felix's Octavius rebuttal of the 3rd century.

*Juvenal, Martial, Petronius, and Persius, Roman satirists who favored topics similar to Jesus's story.

*Cassius Dio's Roman History has the sections covering 6 to 2 BC and 30 CE missing.

*Pausanias, whose massive Guide to Greece includes mentions of thousands of names, including minor Jewish figures in Palestine.

*Historians Epictetus and Aelius Aristides, who both recorded events and people in Palestine.

*Clovius Rufus' detailed history of Nero, which would have documented the active persecution of Christians by Nero, was not preserved.

*Tacitus: the entire section covering 29-31 CE of the Annals: “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.” (Carrier)

*Papias (2nd century): Five volume Explanations of the Stories of the Lord (c 130 - c 150) which is known only through all too brief references and quotes. And what we do have makes him come off as very gullible and that he knew of the apostles only via people who had claimed that they knew them.

*Hegesippus: Five volume Memoirs (c 180) that covered various legends about the early churches and apostles as well as a list of the first bishops. As with Papias known only through all too brief references but enough to show that any actual history had been replaced by myth and legend.

You would have to be blind not to see the pattern here.

 

[HansMustermann]

I am also at a loss to understand why he's getting so ranty. It seems to me that he wants to make it more complicated than it really is in order to argue against any view he does not hold and avoid answering giving simple and direct answers to simple and direct questions.

Oh please. What you said is still quote at the top of the page, two pages ago, so at least have the decency to not outright LIE that those questions were all there was ever to this discussion. Those questions were you trying to decree that no other evidence or level of detail is acceptable, if it challenges your nonsense.

here:

Also, it is worth noting that the "divinity" of the Jesus character wasn't even determined until long after his alleged death. The NT is written today in such a way as to infer his divinity was contemporaneously understood, but it was not. In fact, his divinity was decided some 300 years afterwards (at the First Council of Nicea) whereupon the biblical accounts were subjected to a bunch of historical revisionism. The Gnostic Gospels (among others) were removed because Gnosticism held and taught that the key to eternal life was through personal spirituality, not orthodoxy and the teachings of ecclesiastical authority - in other words, you didn't need the Church or the Bishops in order to reach everlasting bliss in the afterlife. From the Gnostic viewpoint, salvation came from direct knowledge of the supreme divinity, not through repentance of sin, but through enlightenment.

Nearly all of that is in fact not just wrong, but yeah, Dan Brown level of wrong. Let's start:

1. Saying that the divinity of Jesus wasn't even determined until Nicaea is at best misleading, and it doesn't mean what I'm pretty sure by now you think it means.

The ONLY thing discussed on that topic at Nicaea was Arianism, which, guess what? ALSO made Jesus divine. They did NOT think that Jesus was just some human guy or anything. The difference in Arius's position was largely that for him Jesus was a lesser divine (based on the "the father is greater than I" quote from gospel) created by God at the beginning of time. Basically the same as the Logos of Philos. Meanwhile the Catholics maintained that it's the same God, and Jesus was one of the 3 persons in that God for all eternity, and was never created.

So, yeah, they "decided" something about the divinity of Jesus, but not what you seem to think they did. The question was NOT _IF_ Jesus is divine, but _HOW_ divine was he.

Otherwise everyone who was a Catholic bishop -- i.e., everyone invited at Nicaea -- ALREADY thought that, yep, Jesus is very much divine.

Because let me stress that again: EVERYONE TAKING PART WAS A CATHOLIC BISHOP. Even Arius wasn't actually invited to defend his views, because he was not a bishop.

2. The Gnostic gospels or anything else for that matter were NOT removed at Nicaea, nor later based on the Nicene creed. Again: everyone invited there was a Catholic bishop. The Gnostics were not even on the list of stuff to talk about, because the Catholics had already decided that that's heresy.

And in case you were wondering, THAT is why I call that Dan Brown kinda nonsense. Because he too propagates exactly that nonsense: that they actually decided at Nicaea which gospels are in and which are out. In fact, that wasn't even on the list of topics to discuss at Nicaea or even after, since the Catholics had already decided that some century and a half ago.

3. That how you achieve salvation was even a consideration in that, or even considered at all. Again, everyone there was already a Catholic Bishop, and they had very much ALREADY decided exactly which gospels are canon and which aren't. For them it was already fixed in stone since the time of Irenaeus, and very much not up for debate. It wouldn't matter WHAT was written in it, or what kind of salvation it proposes. Just being a fifth book already made it a heresy. Period.

Apparently, saying this makes me a dumbass, Dan Brown fanboy conspiracy theorist... go figure!

No, but trying to redefine what can be said to challenge your nonsese is dumb and dishonest. And that by now you're outright lying about what that was about, is making you a liar.

 

[HansMustermann]

On the whole born of a virgin thing:

It has been suggested that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" as well as being an "attempt to explain an individual's superiority to other mortals. Generally Mediterranean peoples looked at one's birth or parentage to explain one's character and behavior" and "veneration of a benefactor." Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato were all stated as being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people—so the term 'born of a virgin' was never meant to be taken literally.

I might add that Greek/Roman mythology has Zeus being, as one person put it, the 'god of one night stands'.

I'm not even sure that's the case. Sure, you had to have a God as a parent to be someone, but actual claims of virgin births were more the exception than the norm.

You have to remember that at this point most people pretty much thought that the guy plants the seed, and the woman is just the pot it grows in. Hence it was that seed of Zeus (or some other suitable god) that was a lot more important than whether the flower pot was new

And you can see it in the case of Apollonius Of Tyana. How do you one-up all the guys with one god as a father? Well, obviously not by giving mom a divine ancestry too or anything. It was by claiming that his mom conceived him with TWO gods. (Holy gang-bang, batman! No, literally)

The whole virgin obsession of Xians seems to have been more of the incidental result of (A) a mistranslation in the Septuagint, and (B) Matthew scouring it for stuff to take out of context to claim it's a prophecy that Jesus fulfilled, even if he has to make up how he fulfilled it. Remember it's the same guy who made Mary leg it to Egypt and back with the newborn baby, to claim that Jesus fulfilled god's chosen coming out of Egypt. (Which had been said about the Jewish people, rather than being about any one person.) Also the guy who makes Jesus ride into town on TWO donkeys, like some kind of circus performer, because he didn't understand how emphasis works in Semitic languages.

So basically when Matthew runs into something mistranslated as a virgin giving birth, that's like hitting jackpot. The other stuff like going to Egypt and back is meh, but an actual miracle? Woohoo! He just had to make Jesus fulfil that