Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

The so-called HJ is really an assumed character reproduced from the orifices of NT authors.

There are those who claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and that "one cannot prove a negative."

They imply that evidence is required for existence and that "one can prove a positive".

Well, what is the evidence for an HJ or what is the proof of his existence??

All we get is amnesia or dishonesty!!!

Those who argue for an HJ have no evidence and cannot prove an HJ lived or probably existed.

All they have done is to rely on the orifices of NT authors and apologetic writers.

 

[IanS]

Whoops ... Correction - in my post 1516, that very first line should say "of course it would NOT make me dissapear ...."

 

[IanS]

Dejudge. If it is in the bible it is false by default. That is what he said.

oesn't magically produce some GAAAAWWWWWDDDDD, does it?

I have not noticed Dejudge saying that. I think he was talking about people who are mentioned in the bible and what they are claimed to have done. I don't recall Dejudge or anyone else saying that Jerusalem did not exist because it was mentioned in the bible.

Perhaps you can quote Dejudges post where says that Jerusalem was mentioned in the bible and that means Jerusalem therefore cannot exist?

 

[Tassman]

I know that. You know that. Look, I lived through the 1985 summer of moving statues of holy mary. It was remarkable how people deluded themselves. En mass. I was 17 at that time, already an atheist and still living at home with two parents who were devout catholics. Even they were aghast at the way a mass delusion grew legs. News crews would record it and show people afterward that the statue din't move at all. Did that change the believers minds? Did that make them rethink? No, they dug in their heels.

So, yes, you are correct. Mass delusion is an odd thing, but a very real thing. You only have to see it once to know that.

If you want to see this in action, ten minutes of this insanity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZjM83wZmWw

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that particular "miracle" - but it doesn't take much to convince those who want to believe.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That is only part of the story.

In the NT it is claimed that thousands of Jews were converted sometimes as much as 5000 in a day.

A lot of things are claimed in the NT, many of which are obviously not true. But that doesn't mean a Historical Jesus didn't exist.

In the NT, after the Jews killed or caused the death of Jesus thousands of them repented of their sins and became believers.

And in the US in 2017, according to official records more people attended Trump's inauguration than Obama's! Just because the numbers were inflated doesn't mean it didn't happen.

There is no back story in the NT about Jesus. The NT is all fiction with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul with the Epistles being the last writings- not the first.

Can't you read? Back stories are typically given to fictional characters. The NT does give Jesus a backstory. That doesn't mean he must have existed - on the contrary a suspiciously convenient backstory could be an indication that the character is fictitious.

By rejecting the backstory, you are weakening your own argument!

I have never argued that Jesus was initially just a man.

Please, I am arguing that Jesus, the disciples and Paul never ever existed and that their stories are fiction.

Yes, I know. But just 'arguing' (ie. asserting without evidence) is not enough. You have to prove your theory. Repeating the same claim ad nauseam won't do it.

You see, it's possible that despite the obvious fictions in the NT and lack of corroboration from outside sources, Christianity could have been started by a Jew whose name was Jesus - even if nothing said about him in the NT is accurate. For a modern parallel, just look at what Trump's supporters say about him. Then imagine they wrote a book about him - it would be filled to the brim with fiction, but Trump is a historical person.

Your problem is you have identified that the Jesus described in the Bible could not have existed (which is obvious), but you have not shown that a man called Jesus could not have started the religious movement that became Christianity. That is what most people think of when we say 'a historical Jesus' - not a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting being - a man.

The earliest version of the Jesus depicts him as a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting being. Such a being is not human. Later writers added more fiction claiming that he was God's own Son, the Creator and was born of a Ghost before he ascended to heaven.

The 'earliest' depiction of Jesus in the Bible is of a man who claimed he was was God's son and did some magic tricks. Later in the story he was put to death, then purportedly resurrected shortly before ascending to heaven - never to be seen again.

If you read that story through the eyes of his followers, it's not much different from what Trump's followers might tell you about him (even including being 'chosen by God'). But Trump is a historical figure. Even if all other records of his existence were destroyed and the only writings left were those of his most fervent 'believers', it still wouldn't prove that he didn't exist.

You cannot present any historical evidence that another man was resurrected after being dead for at least four days.

Obviously, and I wouldn't attempt to. But this is irrelevant. Even the most accurate biographies of real people contain errors and 'facts' that could be disputed. How inaccurate does it have to be before we decide that it was not based on an actual person? You may arbitrarily decide that there is no 'there' there, but others don't have to agree. While there is still a possibility that there was a real man behind the stories, you can't justify dismissing it outright. You need to prove that a real person could not have been behind it - even if every part of it is full of distortions, exaggerations and inventions. Otherwise it's no different from claiming Trump doesn't exist based on what his followers say about him.

Are you arguing that obvious lies and inventions are evidence that Jesus existed?

Oh dear. You are the one arguing that obvious lies and inventions are evidence that Jesus did not exist. You need to back up that claim with more than just 'because the Bible contains obvious lies and inventions'.

 

[Tassman]

The so-called HJ is really an assumed character reproduced from the orifices of NT authors.

There are those who claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and that "one cannot prove a negative."

They imply that evidence is required for existence and that "one can prove a positive".

Well, what is the evidence for an HJ or what is the proof of his existence??

All we get is amnesia or dishonesty!!!

Those who argue for an HJ have no evidence and cannot prove an HJ lived or probably existed.
All they have done is to rely on the orifices of NT authors and apologetic writers.

Your blanket dismissal of any sort of historical figure is I think a problem. I don't think there are many here (including myself) who argue for the miracle-working bodily-resurrected Jesus - if for no other reason that its a highly improbable story. And there are NO original texts. And there is abundant evidence that the texts of the gospels represent evolved edited texts, without known authors. This true for several of the letters too

But this is a different issue from saying that some sort of deranged fanatical preacher (they were a dime a dozen back then) never existed - someone who managed to strike the right chord with a group of illiterate fisherman. And who ultimately featured in an apparent revelatory encounter on the Damascus road with a delusional but well educated pharisee named Paul, who henceforth promoted Jesus with the persuasive vigor that only a convert can muster.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

The same ridiculous ******** claim, willfully repeated, over and over - no matter how many times it is shown to be false.

No-one here made that claim, and Delvo must be aware of it.

This troll is a waste of time

Erm... I keep reading dejudge as claiming precisely that. But perhaps I'm reading his posts the wrong way...

To clarify my opinion: The fact that the gospel writers were constantly making up BS means that they are totally unreliable as evidence for the existence of Jesus. But that doesn't mean that they are evidence against the existence of Jesus, either.

BS is BS; nothing can be learned from it, except perhaps something about the psychology of the BS'er. BS'ers do occasionally say things that are true, though. Even the greatest BS'er of our times (DJT) is rumored to have said ten true things. There's a topic about that in another part of the forum!

 

[Darat]

Your blanket dismissal of any sort of historical figure is I think a problem. I don't think there are many here (including myself) who argue for the miracle-working bodily-resurrected Jesus - if for no other reason that its a highly improbable story. And there are NO original texts. And there is abundant evidence that the texts of the gospels represent evolved edited texts, without known authors. This true for several of the letters too



But this is a different issue from saying that some sort of deranged fanatical preacher (they were a dime a dozen back then) never existed - someone who managed to strike the right chord with a group of illiterate fisherman. And who ultimately featured in an apparent revelatory encounter on the Damascus road with a delusional but well educated pharisee named Paul, who henceforth promoted Jesus with the persuasive vigor that only a convert can muster.

But he doesn't make such a blanket dismissal, it's a subtle difference but what he makes a blanket dismissal of is the so called historical evidence for a person called Jesus who started Christianity.

There is nothing outside the texts of those that believe in a god called Jesus that evidences that he ever existed, just like there is no evidence Zeus existed or indeed the gods described in the old testament.

Indeed that is probably the best example to use, if one thinks it is likely or 50/50 that Jesus existed why not also hold the same view about the old testament god that the Christians claim is the same god as Jesus? After all there is just as much actual historical evidence that he was a real person.

It is simply that our cultures in what are or at least were originally "Christian" countries that make us prone to the idea that Jesus "probably" was a "real" person, it is a baked in assumption. Step beyond that presumption and you see he was no more likely to have been a real person than as I said Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu or Xemu.

 

[dejudge]

The so-called HJ is really an assumed character reproduced from the orifices of NT authors.

There are those who claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and that "one cannot prove a negative."

They imply that evidence is required for existence and that "one can prove a positive".

Well, what is the evidence for an HJ or what is the proof of his existence??

All we get is amnesia or dishonesty!!!

Those who argue for an HJ have no evidence and cannot prove an HJ lived or probably existed.

All they have done is to rely on the orifices of NT authors and apologetic writers.

Your blanket dismissal of any sort of historical figure is I think a problem. I don't think there are many here (including myself) who argue for the miracle-working bodily-resurrected Jesus - if for no other reason that its a highly improbable story. And there are NO original texts. And there is abundant evidence that the texts of the gospels represent evolved edited texts, without known authors. This true for several of the letters too

Again, you spout amnesia or dishonesty.

While you admit the Jesus story is improbable you still dismiss the argument that NT Jesus did not exist.

Where is the evidence to show that an HJ probably existed?

It is in the orifices of the NT authors.
No NT author presented any historical evidence at all to support an HJ.

The author of gMatthew had an opportunity to correct the fiction in gMark about Jesus.

The author of gMatthew added more fiction instead.

The author of gLuke could have corrected the false claims about Jesus in gMark and gMatthew.

The author of gLuke advanced more fiction.

The author of gJohn changed the stories of the Synoptics but wrote total fiction claiming that Jesus was God Creator and from the beginning.

The author of Acts, a deceiver, falsely claimed in his story that there is infallible proof of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

Authors of the Epistles, multiple fraudster, claimed they saw the resurrected Jesus after he was dead for three days and that they were witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The NT is total fiction with regards to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

You have no evidence at all, none whatsoever, to show that an HJ probably existed.

You cannot prove a positive with no evidence.

But this is a different issue from saying that some sort of deranged fanatical preacher (they were a dime a dozen back then) never existed - someone who managed to strike the right chord with a group of illiterate fisherman. And who ultimately featured in an apparent revelatory encounter on the Damascus road with a delusional but well educated pharisee named Paul, who henceforth promoted Jesus with the persuasive vigor that only a convert can muster.

Again, you promote amnesia or dishonety!!

I am not arguing that no-one was called Jesus in antiquity or that there were no mad men mentioned in writings of antiquity.

Josephus mentioned multiple characters called Jesus.
Josephus and Philo mention mad-men.


None of them mentioned a character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God in the 1st century.

You can't prove that an HJ probably existed because all you have are the orifices of NT authors.

 

[IanS]

That is only part of the story.

In the NT it is claimed that thousands of Jews were converted sometimes as much as 5000 in a day.

A lot of things are claimed in the NT, many of which are obviously not true. But that doesn't mean a Historical Jesus didn't exist.

It doesn't mean he could not have existed. It doesn't prove non-existence. But how many times do we have to find clearly untrue invented stories of Jesus in the NT before we can conclude that those writers almost certainly had never known any real Jesus, and that they were just writing or re-writing what had been stories and traditions of messiah prophecy that they had all known and been taught from far more ancient scripture?

How many untrue fictional accounts do we need to see before we can conclude that the gospels are far too unreliable to be valid as any sort of source of true witness information?

To make a believable case for a HJ, it really needs something vastly better than the gospels & letters of the NT ... but unfortunately there is no such other source. There is no reasonable or believable source at all.

 

[Lithrael]

IanS hits it square on here. There’s no contemporary sources where we might hope to see some, and once you get to the oldest sources we do have, there is a lot of support for the idea that NT Jesus was a character created out of much older religious concepts being back-filled to support a growing movement (as opposed to oral traditions passed down from a HJ finally being written down).

Again the cultural momentum can’t be understated. As a lay person it would never have occurred to me that none of the NT stories about Jesus were written by anyone who ever met or heard the guy speak, or even met a guy who met the guy, etc. That when you go looking what you actually get is stuff like guys practically saying ‘I hallucinated this.’

 

[theheno]

I have to say I have found this thread fascinating. I was raised catholic, lost my faith in that god about 15 years of age, full atheist about 20 years old I'd say. I always assumed jesus did exist but the whole religion of it is nonsense, like the HJ side of this thread. Reading this thread I dont have nearly enough knowledge to engage in debate on it, I'm learning lots from you guys. I have a couple of questions if that's ok, things I'm not quite sure what your stance is.
1.. For the HJ believers. Is it your belief that the generally accepted dates are correct, Jesus dying around 33AD, epistles wrote in the 50's? Would this mean that christianity spread so quick and so wide that within a few decades back then , it had spread to Rome in such a large manner that there was so many members there that Nero could use them as a scapegoat for the fire, and the people of Rome would all know who these people were etc. If this is so haven't a lot of people said the lack of sources mentioning Jesus in the first century are because he was of no importance and would basically be unknown to most. If someone could clarify this for me , and yes my thinking might be muddled here.
2.. For the MJ believers. Do you believe that Nero blamed the christians for the fire? If so and there was so many christians at that time, when and how do you think the religion started , and began to spread so wide .
Anyway I hope the thread keeps running, I'm learning lots

 

[Lithrael]

The impression I’m getting from historical sources is that early Christians were known as an influential religious group but not known for following a prophet/guy/God/etc known as Jesus Christ. It was more like a concept that they were going to have this saviour for the end times that were coming, based on older prophecies from the OT era, etc.

Those who’ve actually researched, have I grasped the likely end of the stick?

 

[Delvo]

There's no amount of false stories about any person/character that would rationally lead to a conclusion about that person's/character's existence There's just not a bit of sense to be found in that concept because there's no limit to how much false stuff can be said about a real person. (And the impossible parts of this guy's story aren't even very much of it anyway. It's mostly just wandering around talking & some simple routine Benny-Hinn-type "magic" stunts.)

The problem for the "he's just entirely made up" argument is that we have the choice of two human behaviors to ascribe to the authors...

1. Get inspired by a real guy or his following to write some made-up stuff about him along with the real stuf, or
2. Make up an entirely unreal person for those impossible feats to have been done by

...of which #1 is clearly more consistent with human behavior in historical context, by such a wide margin as to make #2 almost absurd by comparison. There's no contest at all which one is the more realistic explanation for the authors' decision to write the books, in the absence of other evidence.

 

[Delvo]

The impression I’m getting from historical sources is that early Christians were known as an influential religious group but not known for following a prophet/guy/God/etc known as Jesus Christ. It was more like a concept that they were going to have this saviour for the end times that were coming, based on older prophecies from the OT era, etc.

Those who’ve actually researched, have I grasped the likely end of the stick?

You just described messianic/apocalyptic Jews, not Christians. Christianity is what happens when a group like that believes the person they've been waiting for has arrived.

 

[theheno]

I dont think any of those answered my questions? they were specific enquiries

 

[theheno]

1.. For the HJ believers. Is it your belief that the generally accepted dates are correct, Jesus dying around 33AD, epistles wrote in the 50's? Would this mean that christianity spread so quick and so wide that within a few decades back then , it had spread to Rome in such a large manner that there was so many members there that Nero could use them as a scapegoat for the fire, and the people of Rome would all know who these people were etc. If this is so haven't a lot of people said the lack of sources mentioning Jesus in the first century are because he was of no importance and would basically be unknown to most. If someone could clarify this for me , and yes my thinking might be muddled here.
2.. For the MJ believers. Do you believe that Nero blamed the christians for the fire? If so and there was so many christians at that time, when and how do you think the religion started , and began to spread so wide .

 

[dejudge]

1.. For the HJ believers. Is it your belief that the generally accepted dates are correct, Jesus dying around 33AD, epistles wrote in the 50's? Would this mean that christianity spread so quick and so wide that within a few decades back then , it had spread to Rome in such a large manner that there was so many members there that Nero could use them as a scapegoat for the fire, and the people of Rome would all know who these people were etc. If this is so haven't a lot of people said the lack of sources mentioning Jesus in the first century are because he was of no importance and would basically be unknown to most. If someone could clarify this for me , and yes my thinking might be muddled here.

HJ believers claim their Jesus was little known, a failed prophet and was deified after he was dead.

Who would worship a little known crucified dead failed prophet instead of worshipping the Great Magician Simon MAGUS as a God while he was alive?

Who would worship a little known crucified dead failed prophet as a God instead of worshipping the living Emperors of Rome?

The HJ argument makes no sense.

It is simply absurd that Jews and people of the Roman Empire would worship a little known crucified dead failed prophet as the Messiah, Lord, Saviour and Son of God.

A Jewish Messiah must be alive to be regarded as the prophesied Messianic ruler by the Jews.

Now, once it is understood that all the NT writings are products of fiction, forgeries and false attribution then it is easily seen that the chronology of the events surrounding NT Jesus is completely bogus.

.. For the MJ believers. Do you believe that Nero blamed the christians for the fire? If so and there was so many christians at that time, when and how do you think the religion started , and began to spread so wide .

The very first thing that must be understood is the term Christian does not inherently refer to those who believe the Jesus stories.

According writers of antiquity people who believed that Simon Magus was God were called Christians since the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE.

In addition ,there is no mention of a character called Jesus, the Christ and the word Christians in Tacitus Annals 15.44 has been shown to have been manipulated.

In effect, the term Christians in Tacitus Annals 15.44 is in no way evidence of a Jesus cult or an HJ.

 

[IanS]

Erm... I keep reading dejudge as claiming precisely that. But perhaps I'm reading his posts the wrong way...

To clarify my opinion: The fact that the gospel writers were constantly making up BS means that they are totally unreliable as evidence for the existence of Jesus. But that doesn't mean that they are evidence against the existence of Jesus, either.
BS is BS; nothing can be learned from it, except perhaps something about the psychology of the BS'er. BS'ers do occasionally say things that are true, though. Even the greatest BS'er of our times (DJT) is rumored to have said ten true things. There's a topic about that in another part of the forum!

Re. the highlight - I don't think that view is unreasonable. But ... if you take away the gospels, discard those completely, then all that would be left as any mention of Jesus at all would be Paul's letters ... but they too are totally discredited by the following observations -

1 for most of Christian history, we had 13 letters which were all assumed without question to be actually written by Paul himself around 50 to 60 AD

2 but now we know that we have no such letters from anywhere near 50 to 60 AD, and the earliest we have probably date from around 200AD

3 all of the letters we have are anonymously written, we have no idea who the copyist writers were

4 out of those 13, even Christian Bible Scholars now accept that at least 6 of the letters are fakes written various people

5 but the remaining 7, although Bible Scholars and Christians all insist that these are genuinely by Paul, in fact we have no idea if those are the genuine ones! It could just as easily be that one of the "fakes" is the only genuine one! ... or it might just as easily be that none of them are genuine!


That's not very good to start with as a credible source of evidence. But of course it gets worse -


6 nowhere in the "genuine" letters does the author "Paul" ever claim to have met a real human Jesus. In fact he specifically says that he only "met" Jesus as a spiritual vision in the heavens.

7 that same author tells us that 500 or more people also "met" Jesus, but again they only met him as sprit in the skies

8 repeatedly throughout all those letters "Paul" make very clear that what he knew about Jesus is always "according to scripture" ... everything Paul writes about his belief in a "Christ", he says he got that from scripture following a blinding revelation from God.

9 Paul never says he got anything at all about Jesus from any actual witnesses ... in fact on the contrary he insists that he got it "from no man", he says in every instance it was a revealtion from God that was "according to scripture".


That's not any kind of credible evidence of a real Jesus, is it? That's really barely any better than the gospels, isn't it?? Where is the evidence that should make us believe that Jesus was more likely than not, ie better than 50% likely?

 

[theheno]

HJ believers claim their Jesus was little known, a failed prophet and was deified after he was dead.

Who would worship a little known crucified dead failed prophet instead of worshipping the Great Magician Simon MAGUS as a God while he was alive?

Who would worship a little known crucified dead failed prophet as a God instead of worshipping the living Emperors of Rome?

The HJ argument makes no sense.

It is simply absurd that Jews and people of the Roman Empire would worship a little known crucified dead failed prophet as the Messiah, Lord, Saviour and Son of God.

A Jewish Messiah must be alive to be regarded as the prophesied Messianic ruler by the Jews.

Now, once it is understood that all the NT writings are products of fiction, forgeries and false attribution then it is easily seen that the chronology of the events surrounding NT Jesus is completely bogus.



The very first thing that must be understood is the term Christian does not inherently refer to those who believe the Jesus stories. According writers of antiquity people who believed that Simon Magus was God were called Christians since the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE.
In addition ,there is no mention of a character called Jesus, the Christ and the word Christians in Tacitus Annals 15.44 has been shown to have been manipulated.

In effect, the term Christians in Tacitus Annals 15.44 is in no way evidence of a Jesus cult or an HJ.

I did no know that about believers of Simon Magnus were called Christians,that explains the problem i had, thanks for that .