No it wouldn’t. Because we would know actual people were recorded in such books, all we have for Jesus are claims that a supernatural being existed.
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Ricardo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus jesus
- Status
No it wouldn’t. Because we would know actual people were recorded in such books, all we have for Jesus are claims that a supernatural being existed.
We only have the claims of a supernatural being existing in regards to Jesus, we have nothing else, there is no evidence of a none supernatural Jesus anywhere and no claims of such.
Consider an equivalent couple of examples, do you think Zeus was based on a real person, or Xenu was?
We have just as much historical evidence for them being based on real people as we do for Jesus.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
How is either of them anywhere near equivalent to Jesus or even to each other?
Well, what you should have noticed there (if short articles like that are to be believed as accurate) is that it's describing exactly what I was saying in my earlier post. Namely that by the time of Paul (if he really was living around the time of Jesus and writing around 50 to 60AD), and by the time of the gospel writers (if they really were originally writing in the 1st century AD), that region of Judea was awash with all sorts of variations on what had previously passed as OT religious messianic beliefs ... in fact, what it confirms is that those changes had been increasing since probably 100BC or earlier, and that the changed beliefs were very similar to what Paul was preaching as a messiah who was now believed to be sent to warn the faithful to gather in readiness of the coming apocalypse.
That's all very similar indeed to what Paul was preaching. And as Paul says himself in the letters, it was also very different what he himself had previously believed to be the correct messiah beliefs that he had learned from the OT ... he actually says in the letters that his blinding revelation showed him that the true meaning of OT messianic prophecy was not as he'd formally believed and preached with such certainty and zeal, but instead God now revealed to him an apocalyptic messiah who had already been present on the Earth, and that is apparently what we now know was also contained/preached in the Scrolls from a century or more before Paul.
What you should also take from that, is the fact that whereas all the gospels and letters are actually known to us only as much later copies that might well be quite different from any 1st century original writing, and indeed where the non-biblical sources that have been listed so often in these threads are also known to us only as copies written many centuries later and in fact as much as 1000 years latter (!!), the Dead Sea Scrolls are genuinely and accurately dated to around 200BC through to about 100AD, and they do describe for us in great detail the religious beliefs of a very sizeable population of Jews in that precise region.
IOW - the Scrolls provide a far more credible and accurate guide as the basis for real original evidence, rather than any gospels or letters of the NT.
But if that above article/link was not explicit enough for you, then here's one that it is much more detailed and precisely all about the links between the contents of the scrolls and the NT letters of Paul -
http://forerunner777.blogspot.com/2018/02/dead-sea-scrolls-and-pauline-literature.html
The devastating problem with the HJ argument is that it is derived directly from the NT the very source which states Jesus was a water walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost and God Creator.
Those who argue for an HJ must first openly discredit the NT and then use it exclusively as a credible historical source.
For example, Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist" after admitting the NT is riddled with historical problems used the very same NT as a credible independent source for his scarcely known HJ.
Ehrman admits the NT contains multiple forgeries, false attribution, fiction and implausibility.
In effect, Ehrman's HJ is a product of an admitted source of fiction without any external historical corroboration.
Those who argue for an HJ must first openly discredit the NT and then use it exclusively as a credible historical source.
For example, Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist" after admitting the NT is riddled with historical problems used the very same NT as a credible independent source for his scarcely known HJ.
Ehrman admits the NT contains multiple forgeries, false attribution, fiction and implausibility.
In effect, Ehrman's HJ is a product of an admitted source of fiction without any external historical corroboration.
Last edited:
Both are claimed by their believers to be gods that walked in the guise of men, interacted as men with thosearound them and carried out miraculous deeds.
I don't know much more than what is probably in a Wikipedia article about him, but from memory when its been raised here before I think there there are many issues with the claims of his historical existance as well. I've always more held him more of being a Paul or Hubbard or Smith rather than claimed to be the foundational character of the relgion.
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain anyything similar to the teachings of the so-called Pauline Epistles.
Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scolls is it taught that salvation and forgiveness of sins are directly based on the resurrection of a crucified man.
Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls is it taught to abolish the Laws of the Jewish God.
1 Corinthians 15:17
Galatians 3:11
The teachings in the so-called Pauline Epistles were derived directly from fictitious stories about a character called Jesus in the 2nd century and never from any revelation from any God.
The Jewish God has never revealed anything to anyone at anytime.
The Jewish God do not exist.
The claim that NT Epistles were written since 50-60 CE is uncorroborated nonsense.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Nope, just crank preachers. We know the Levant was awash with them, we still have them to this day.
Sai Baba was a crank preacher, but even in his own lifetime "miracles" were attributed to him. It is not as if we are not aware that this is a rather common thing.
ETA: Although Sai Baba died in 1918.
For a more contemporary example have Sathya Sai Baba, died in 2011. Still has plenty of followers.
Here is a list of his claimed "miracles".
That is less than 10 years ago.
Last edited:
Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, not the foundational character of Buddhism? One of us has the stick by the wrong end there.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
I glad I'm not the only one!
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
2,000 years ago there was a bloke. He happened to be nutty.
Somehow this is considered to be an extraordinary claim in a world where the leader of the free world today is a nutty bloke.
It's a little oddly religious as a claim.
Somehow this is considered to be an extraordinary claim in a world where the leader of the free world today is a nutty bloke.
It's a little oddly religious as a claim.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
So, there was no HJ because he failed to file his taxes?
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
No, it's also being claimed that all supernatural entities are always inventions;that in every single case, somebody one day just said "Hey everybody, let me tell you about the supernatural wonders of the great Jobu", and others responded "OK, now we believe in this Jobu thing we never heard of before"... so none could possibly ever have begun as metaphorical personifications of part of nature, or representative stand-ins for humanity or for parts/aspects of humanity, or, of course, actual humans whose stories grew to include what we would now call supernatural.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Years ago, this whole malarkey became of interest to me. I read widely on both sides, engaged in various debates and so forth.
Eventually it dawned on me. While the religious dig their heels in on absurd arguments, so does their opposition. And we see it here in this very thread.
Seems to me that the best position at this point is to sit at one side and point and laugh at the protagonists.
Sure, both sides hurl pointless argument and insult at each other, but it is far more entertaining to sit on the sidelines and hurl an occasional hand grenade into the mix.
Was there a HJ? Maybe, but I don't care one way or the other. It is not important to me. It is important to christians to prove there was, it is equally important to militant atheists to prove there was not.
Seems to me that hurling insults gets nobody anywhere. Does that give either "side" pause for thought? Nope.
Now, I am as inoffensive an atheist as one can be. Nevertheless that does not stop the accusations of me of being a closet christian. Simply for being NOT irrational. Why? Ask the posters making that claim. I have no idea why they espouses this confrontational tactic. Seems counter-productive to me, but that is their chosen path.
I will paraphrase Adam savage.
"I reject your religion and substitute my own".
That is all that is happening in this thread.
The same glassy eyed fervour, denigration of every opposing view, hurling insults. It is like time travel to some medieval nightmare.
Fun to watch, though.
Eventually it dawned on me. While the religious dig their heels in on absurd arguments, so does their opposition. And we see it here in this very thread.
Seems to me that the best position at this point is to sit at one side and point and laugh at the protagonists.
Sure, both sides hurl pointless argument and insult at each other, but it is far more entertaining to sit on the sidelines and hurl an occasional hand grenade into the mix.
Was there a HJ? Maybe, but I don't care one way or the other. It is not important to me. It is important to christians to prove there was, it is equally important to militant atheists to prove there was not.
Seems to me that hurling insults gets nobody anywhere. Does that give either "side" pause for thought? Nope.
Now, I am as inoffensive an atheist as one can be. Nevertheless that does not stop the accusations of me of being a closet christian. Simply for being NOT irrational. Why? Ask the posters making that claim. I have no idea why they espouses this confrontational tactic. Seems counter-productive to me, but that is their chosen path.
I will paraphrase Adam savage.
"I reject your religion and substitute my own".
That is all that is happening in this thread.
The same glassy eyed fervour, denigration of every opposing view, hurling insults. It is like time travel to some medieval nightmare.
Fun to watch, though.
Ok picture this: a bunch of charismatic guys are known to have had their own mini cults of Christianity.
The HJ side supposes that the one of these guys whose ideas people still follow today was HJ. The MJ side supposes that the one of these guys whose ideas people still follow today was a guy who went “let me just tell you what Jesus said.”
- Status