Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

So, again, you ignore what was told to you repeatedly before, and think that just repeating the same nonsense assertion over and over again is gonna cut it. The claim never was that Paul founded Xianity as a whole, so you're chasing a strawman. As usual. The claim was that he founded the gentile-oriented sub-sect of it, and more specifically certain chapters of it, like the one in Corinth.

There is no historical evidence anywhere that anyone named Paul started any Church or sub-sect of any Church anywhere before c 70 CE or before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

There was no Jesus cult or subsect of a Jesus cult in Corinth or anywhere before c 70 CE or before the the fall of the Jewish Temple.

All the claims in the Epistles about Jesus, the disciples, Paul and Churches are a pack of lies fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, but again, to have any validity at all, a test must be verifiable on cases where you know the result. Both where it's "yes", and where it's "no". So yes, we already know that Josephus was real, from OTHER considerations. Your criterion fails it miserably and that's the point.

As, incidentally, does your paleography criterion.

If your criterion can't be tested on both cases where it should say "yes" and cases where it should say "no", then deriving any conclusion from it is just pulled from the butt.

 

[ahhell]

So, how do you tell if someone is a troll or actually believes what they are saying?

 

[dejudge]

Yes, but again, to have any validity at all, a test must be verifiable on cases where you know the result. Both where it's "yes", and where it's "no". So yes, we already know that Josephus was real, from OTHER considerations. Your criterion fails it miserably and that's the point.

As, incidentally, does your paleography criterion.

If your criterion can't be tested on both cases where it should say "yes" and cases where it should say "no", then deriving any conclusion from it is just pulled from the butt.

Well, based on your criterion the claim that there are authentic Epistles composed since c 50 CE was pulled from the butt.

 

[IanS]

How can anyone here (or anywhere) decide that the 6 or 7 letters (claimed as “authentic") are more likely to be from Paul than any of the other 6 or 7 (claimed as fakes) ? – on what basis did those 6 or 7 become most likely to be authentic? As far as I know, there is absolutely no way to draw any such conclusion … any one of the other letters (the “fakes”) is just as likely to be from Paul as any of the “authentic” ones.

In which case, if the “genuine” letters are actually “fakes”, then how can you decide that anything said in those letters about Jesus was reliable or historical at all?

As for Biblical Scholars, the “fact” about that is that almost none of them can claim to be impartial. As lifelong Christian believers they are all very “partial” indeed, to put put it mildly.

 

[abaddon]

What absolute rubbish you post!!!

Scholars admit the so-called Pauline Epistles have multiple authors so it is an argument from fallacy for them to claim some of them were really authentic.

Trivially false argument. Who wrote the Harry Potter novels? JK Rowling.
Who wrote the vast volume of fanfic available? ?????

It is completely impossible to identify the true author of any NT writing when it cannot even be corroborated when any of them really lived.

Yet scholars say you are wrong and quite happily do so all the time. This tells me you are not a scholar. Just some internet person with an enormous chip on the shoulder.

And what is even more ridiculous some Scholars also admit that some Epistles that they claim are authentic have been manipulated which means that the existing Epistles are not really authentic and the original contents and author cannot ever be known.

Of course they do. You are simply unaware of the methodologies used to distinguish one from the other. Nobody can fix that ignorance but you.

But we still come down to the question you never answer. To me, this is all trivial. I care not if some bloke existed or not. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Doesn't bother me either way. Because it is still just some bloke. Raving nutter if he existed 2,000 years ago, but is to me a mere matter of amusement along with the superstitious nonsense built on his myth.

See, I can take it or leave it. If it was all made up, then fine. Doesn't get any closer to demonstrating a god that I don't believe in.

If it was an amalgam of various apocalytic preachers, then fine. Doesn't get any closer to demonstrating a god that I don't believe in.

If it was entiresly made up out of whole cloth, then fine. Doesn't get any closer to demonstrating a god that I don't believe in.

So it isn't anything that I much care about beyond the reasons I already gave and which you did not read.

What is missing here is YOUR explanation of why it matters to you so much. And you refuse to say why.

 

[smartcooky]

*** checks in ***

dejudge is still posting his personal beliefs as if they were facts, and hurling abuse anyone who dares disagree with him.

Nothing new here then...

*** checks out ***

 

[Shepherd]

Delete.

 

[dejudge]

*** checks in ***

dejudge is still posting his personal beliefs as if they were facts, and hurling abuse anyone who dares disagree with him.

Nothing new here then...

*** checks out ***

You appear to be confused. You must have forgotten what you previously posted.

Nobody here disagrees with my claim that NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not exist.

AND LITERALLY NO ONE HERE IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON THIS!

 

[smartcooky]

You appear to be confused. You must have forgotten what you previously posted.

Nobody here disagrees with my claim that NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not exist.

Yeah, that isn't what I'm talking about, and you know it!

 

[dejudge]

As everyone here agrees NT Jesus did not exist!!

One might ask when, how or from what was NT Jesus manufactured?

It can easily be seen that part of the NT Jesus fables were crudely derived from Hebrew Scripture.

The NT authors admitted and referred to so-called prophecies from the Hebrew Bible to assemble the birth, the miracles, the triumphant entry, the trial and the crucifixion of their Jesus.

The use of supposed prophecies by NT authors appear to show that they were not Jews and not familiar with the teachings of the Jews.

For example, gMatthew used Isaiah 7.14 as prophecy for the birth of his Jesus but such a claim is just completely absurd. The author of gMatthew did not seem to have realized that the Jews believed Isaiah 7.14 had already been fulfilled hundreds of years before the time of Pilate.

Matthew 1:23

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

Isaiah 7: 14

......Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.....

Another example of NT authors simply ripping verses from Hebrew Scripture to manufacture their Jesus can be seen in their crucifixion stories.

In gMark, these are the supposed last words of his Jesus:

Mark 15:34

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

But, the last words of gMark's Jesus is really words lifted from the Psalms of David 22.1

Psalm 22:1

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?.....

Now, look at the last words of gLuke Jesus when he was crucified.

Luke 23:46

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

The author of gLuke used another Psalms for the last words of his Jesus.

Psalm 31:5

Into thine hand I commit my spirit....

There are numerous examples showing that NT authors were just using random passages taken out context to fabricate their Jesus.

Now, there are certain fables about Jesus in the NT which are only found in the writings attributed Josephus.

The mention of stories found only in Josephus' writings gives an indication of when the NT Jesus stories were made up.

In the Life of Flavius Josephus written sometime c 94-96 there is a peculiar event.

Josephus himself asked that three crucified Jews to be taken down from their crosses and was given permission however two died and one survived.

The Life of Flavius Josephu

....I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance.

I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

The NT also contain stories of Jesus crucified with two persons and only Jesus survived [resurrected].

But, what is most significant is that the NT authors used the name of Joseph as the person who asked for the body of their crucified Jesus.

Mark 15:43

Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus

Again, we have in the Life of Flavius Josephus another fascinating event.

The author claimed he was shipwrecked on his way to Rome during the time when Felix Governor of Judea. c 62-64 CE.

Guess who was claimed to have been shipwrecked on his way to Rome in the Adriatic
Sea 62-64 CE ???

Saul/Paul in Acts of Apostles !!!!

The Life of Flavius Josephus

3. But when I was in the twenty-sixth year of my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome, and this on the occasion which I shall now describe.
At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea there were certain priests of my acquaintance, and very excellent persons they were, whom on a small and trifling occasion he had put into bonds, and sent to Rome to plead their cause before Caesar. These I was desirous to procure deliverance for, and that especially because I was informed that they were not unmindful of piety towards God, even under their afflictions, but supported themselves with figs and nuts. (4)
Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were through a great number of hazards by sea; for as our ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea...

Acts 27.1

And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus' band.................
27 But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country;

And again, the writings attributed to Josephus are the only first century documents which state that Pharisees believe in the resurrection.

Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.1

....They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again...

Guess who is a Pharisee and believes in the resurrection????

Saul/Paul!!!

Acts 23:6

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

It is clear that the NT stories of Jesus and Paul were also ripped and made up from the works of Josephus which were completed sometime around c 94-96 CE.

The works of Josephus predated the fabrication of the fiction characters called Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

 

[Tassman]

How can anyone here (or anywhere) decide that the 6 or 7 letters (claimed as “authentic") are more likely to be from Paul than any of the other 6 or 7 (claimed as fakes) ? – on what basis did those 6 or 7 become most likely to be authentic? As far as I know, there is absolutely no way to draw any such conclusion … any one of the other letters (the “fakes”) is just as likely to be from Paul as any of the “authentic” ones.

In which case, if the “genuine” letters are actually “fakes”, then how can you decide that anything said in those letters about Jesus was reliable or historical at all?

The “authentic” letters are considered to be by the same author because of the similarity of literary structure and style such as the use of a common vocabulary, idioms, common phrases and sentence structure. The reason they are attributed to Paul is that there is no good reason to think they weren’t by Paul. Who else would bother writing them?

Conversely, the exclusion of the pseudograph letters centers on differences in style and vocabulary and theological development.

As for Biblical Scholars, the “fact” about that is that almost none of them can claim to be impartial. As lifelong Christian believers they are all very “partial” indeed, to put put it mildly.

Some notable biblical scholars are “very partial lifelong believers” certainly. But many are not, e.g. Zeba Crook, James Crossly, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and Gerd Ludemann etc. Exercising historical-critical methodology is what true scholarship is all about, NOT one’s personal belief system. The fundamental rule is that the scholar must be obedient to the texts and allow them to determine their interpretation.

 

[Delvo]

The problem there is that even the non-Christians who end up professionally working on the Bible tend to have gotten their interest in the Bible in the first place from their exposure to it in a Christian context, typically because of being former Christians or having been raised in Christian environments. Even once they leave Christianity behind, that prior experience with the Bible from an exclusively Christian perspective can color their interpretations, essentially causing them to presume Christian ideas about it until absolutely proven wrong. That kind of bias can stick around even after one ditches the religion that created it.

That doesn't mean that the conclusion that Jesus was real must be a product of that bias. But it does mean we can't just believe that such a conclusion was bias-free. A conclusion either way must depend on not just how many of them reached the same conclusion but what case they make for it.

Also, this situation reminds me of another subject on which one side of a debate kept insisting that they had most of the experts on their side but not showing any evidence of that claim itself. It was just such a routine mantra that it was accepted without anybody bothering to try to look into it. When we found that an actual survey on the subject had really been done, it showed that the claim of "what the experts agree on" was false. They actually agreed on the opposite. So, I'm not only unprepared to accept the consensus without knowing what the evidence behind it is, but also unprepared to accept the claim that the consensus even is what it's claimed to be without evidence of the consensus itself.

 

[Kapyong]

Some notable biblical scholars are “very partial lifelong believers” certainly. But many are not, e.g. Zeba Crook, James Crossly, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and Gerd Ludemann etc. Exercising historical-critical methodology is what true scholarship is all about, NOT one’s personal belief system. The fundamental rule is that the scholar must be obedient to the texts and allow them to determine their interpretation.

Dr Bart Ehrman ?
Are you kidding ?

Dr Ehrman became a faithful evangelical believer in Jesus as a teenager, and his whole life and work has been based on the historical Jesus. He has never expressed the slightest doubt about Jesus - the very opposite is true.

His reputation depends on Jesus,
his faith depends on Jesus,
his friendships depend on Jesus,
his job depends on Jesus,
his books depend on Jesus.

If Dr Ehrman now expressed doubts about Jesus then his reputation would be ruined, his books would be obsolete, his faith would be broken, his friendships would suffer, and he would probably lose his job.

Dr Ehrman is probably the most partial, biased, faithful committed believer on the whole planet. Well, maybe second after the Pope.

The claim that Dr Ehrman is unbiased is transparently and ridiculously false.

Kapyong

 

[abaddon]

Dr Bart Ehrman ?
Are you kidding ?

Dr Ehrman became a faithful evangelical believer in Jesus as a teenager, and his whole life and work has been based on the historical Jesus. He has never expressed the slightest doubt about Jesus - the very opposite is true.

His reputation depends on Jesus,
his faith depends on Jesus,
his friendships depend on Jesus,
his job depends on Jesus,
his books depend on Jesus.

If Dr Ehrman now expressed doubts about Jesus then his reputation would be ruined, his books would be obsolete, his faith would be broken, his friendships would suffer, and he would probably lose his job.

Dr Ehrman is probably the most partial, biased, faithful committed believer on the whole planet. Well, maybe second after the Pope.

The claim that Dr Ehrman is unbiased is transparently and ridiculously false.

Kapyong

Ehrman is an atheist.

ETA: Just to expand a little

His reputation depends on Jesus,

False. Ehrmans reputation is as a biblical scholar and bible textual critic.

his faith depends on Jesus,

False. He has no faith.

his friendships depend on Jesus,

This will come as a surprise to the likes of Dan Dennett, Matt Dilahunty, et al.

his job depends on Jesus,

False. He is a tenured professor.

his books depend on Jesus.

False. Try actually reading them. Ehrmans position is that jesus was a wandering apocalyptic jewish rabbi in the Levant about 2,000 years ago. Not an unreasonable position given that the Levant at that time was overflowing with same. And further that christianity is a house of cards built upon the wholly unremarkable life of that individual. Also not an unreasonable position.

You might also ask yourself why is it that he engages in debate against the brightest minds of christianity. For example...
(Note, these are long debates)
vs William Lane Craig. "Evidence for the ressurection". WLC says plenty, Ehrman says none.
vs Dinesh D'Souza. "Theodicy, god and suffering" Where Dinesh tries to justify catholic god's torture of humanity. Ehrman gives him a good kicking.
vs Mike Licona. "Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose from the Dead?" Licona says yes, Ehrman says no.
And so on and so forth.

That's a good 6 hours of careful attention right there if you can manage that. And plenty more besides.

How you can claim Ehrman's entire life is built around faith in jesus is bizarre.

 

[dejudge]

The “authentic” letters are considered to be by the same author because of the similarity of literary structure and style such as the use of a common vocabulary, idioms, common phrases and sentence structure. The reason they are attributed to Paul is that there is no good reason to think they weren’t by Paul. Who else would bother writing them?

It is completely illogical to assume letters are authentic simply because they appear to be from the same author especially when there is no corroborative historical evidence that any of the letters were written before c 70 CE.

Once it is admitted the Epistles are products of multiple unknown authors and unknown time of composition then it cannot be determined which letters are authentic.

Some notable biblical scholars are “very partial lifelong believers” certainly. But many are not, e.g. Zeba Crook, James Crossly, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and Gerd Ludemann etc. Exercising historical-critical methodology is what true scholarship is all about, NOT one’s personal belief system. The fundamental rule is that the scholar must be obedient to the texts and allow them to determine their interpretation.

The quantity of people who believe anything is not evidence at all.

There is no historical evidence at all that any letter to any church or Jesus cult was written by anyone before c 70 CE in or out the NT.

 

[dejudge]

Ehrman is an atheist.

Well, Carrier is an atheist who argues that Jesus was a myth.

Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus is the very worst. It is riddled with massive amounts of logical fallacies.

 

[abaddon]

Well, Carrier is an atheist who argues that Jesus was a myth.

Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus is the very worst. It is riddled with massive amounts of logical fallacies.

Wow.

You really can't read, can you.

(Not a question)

 

[abaddon]

So, how do you tell if someone is a troll or actually believes what they are saying?

You can't, you have no option but to take it at face value until actual evidence appears.

That said, it is a well known tactic for evangelicals to pretend online to be extreme militant atheists in order to discredit atheism as though it was a church of some sort. And the reverse is occasionally true where some misguided atheist will pretend to be an extreme christian in order to discredit christianity.

The rest of us are left to navigate that internet minefield as best we can.

Where is dejudge sit on that spectrum? I have no idea.

But it is funny as all get out to watch him melt down, stamp his feet and hurl insults at all and sundry.

 

[abaddon]

Well, Carrier is an atheist who argues that Jesus was a myth.

Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus is the very worst. It is riddled with massive amounts of logical fallacies.

So you claim. Got any evidence, or shall this be added to your list of unevidenced rants?