Historical Jesus

[theheno]

Indeed. All these things accrued around the man Jesus. But there was no Christianity before the birth of the actual man himself which is the point.


The Greek pantheon was absorbed and expanded by the Roman pantheon. There are lots of similar examples. But none of these gods has an actual known beginning – the earliest ones were to explain natural events like lightning (Zeus) or the movement of the sun across the sky (Helios).

Dejudge has been constantly called out for speaking with certainty. What evidence is there that makes you do certain that all this accrued around the 'the man' Jesus? That there was no Christianity before this? I've read this whole thread and have yet to see any evidence of that.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge has been constantly called out for speaking with certainty. What evidence is there that makes you do certain that all this accrued around the 'the man' Jesus? That there was no Christianity before this? I've read this whole thread and have yet to see any evidence of that.

Please, again and again - I have stated that my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not exist is based on the EXISTING EVIDENCE. -never ever on certainty.

1. In existing Christian writings it is admitted their Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, Son of a Ghost and God Creator without a human father.

2. In writings attributed to 1st century Jewish writers there is no mention of Jesus, the disciples and Paul or a new Jewish religion.

3. In writings attributed to 1st century Roman writers there is no mention of Jesus, the disciples and Paul or a new Jewish religion.

4. In Jesus cult Christians writings it is admitted people were called Christians since at least c41-54 CE who did not believe the Jesus stories.

5. There is no historical evidence of a known Jew who was a Jesus cult Christian in the 1st century.

6. No early manuscript of the Jesus cult writings have been found in Judea.

7. All the NT writings about Jesus were falsely attributed or are associated with forgeries.

8. All mention of Jesus and Paul in 1st writings are forgeries. [Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and Seneca letters]

9. Jesus cult writers had no idea when, where and who wrote their own Gospels and no idea what their supposed Paul wrote.

10. The Jesus cult Church claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about their own Jesus but that has turned out to be false.

11. The Jesus cult Church claimed all the Epistles under the name of Paul were written by a single person but that has also turned out to be false.

12. The Jesus cult Church claimed Epistles were written by James, Jude, Peter and John but that too turned out to be false.

There is no existing evidence that NT Jesus was a figure of history and that Christianity originated around the same character.

No poster or Bible Scholar, Christian or not, has ever or can ever present any historical evidence that there was an HJ.

Based on the existing evidence- Based on the existing evidence I have no reasonable doubt that Jesus the disciples and Paul were figures of fiction.

 

[theheno]

Please, again and again - I have stated that my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not exist is based on the EXISTING EVIDENCE. -never ever on certainty.

1. In existing Christian writings it is admitted their Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, Son of a Ghost and God Creator without a human father.

2. In writings attributed to 1st century Jewish writers there is no mention of Jesus, the disciples and Paul or a new Jewish religion.

3. In writings attributed to 1st century Roman writers there is no mention of Jesus, the disciples and Paul or a new Jewish religion.

4. In Jesus cult Christians writings it is admitted people were called Christians since at least c41-54 CE who did not believe the Jesus stories.

5. There is no historical evidence of a known Jew who was a Jesus cult Christian in the 1st century.

6. No early manuscript of the Jesus cult writings have been found in Judea.

7. All the NT writings about Jesus were falsely attributed or are associated with forgeries.

8. All mention of Jesus and Paul in 1st writings are forgeries. [Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and Seneca letters]

9. Jesus cult writers had no idea when, where and who wrote their own Gospels and no idea what their supposed Paul wrote.

10. The Jesus cult Church claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about their own Jesus but that has turned out to be false.

11. The Jesus cult Church claimed all the Epistles under the name of Paul were written by a single person but that has also turned out to be false.

12. The Jesus cult Church claimed Epistles were written by James, Jude, Peter and John but that too turned out to be false.

There is no existing evidence that NT Jesus was a figure of history and that Christianity originated around the same character.

No poster or Bible Scholar, Christian or not, has ever or can ever present any historical evidence that there was an HJ.

Based on the existing evidence- Based on the existing evidence I have no reasonable doubt that Jesus the disciples and Paul were figures of fiction.

Believe me, at this stage I know what your position is. I was asking tassman what he was basing his conviction on, what evidence points to Jesus being a man. I can understand people that say there was possibly a man behind it all, but tassman seemed a lot more certain than that. For myself, from reading this thread and some books recommended, I strongly lean towards your view, there was no man Jesus. Even the books I read that insist there was a historical Jesus, I couldn't really see any real evidence for that.

 

[dejudge]

…... I can understand people that say there was possibly a man behind it all, but tassman seemed a lot more certain than that. For myself, from reading this thread and some books recommended, I strongly lean towards your view, there was no man Jesus. Even the books I read that insist there was a historical Jesus, I couldn't really see any real evidence for that.

I can't understand why people believe it was possibly that NT Jesus was really a man without any evidence.

Based on existing evidence, if NT Jesus was an actual known man then he would not have been worshiped as a God by Jesus cult Christians.

Jesus cult Christians do not worship men as Gods.

How would it be possible to show that NT Jesus had a human father when Jesus cult believers stated he had none?

Tertullian "On the Flesh of Christ."

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

NT Jesus never had any history as an actual human being.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument was always dead in the water.

The fundament hurdle for the HJ argument is that it cannot be shown that a Christian religion could not have developed unless there was an actual human being named Jesus.

Once it is admitted that there were multiple characters, real or not, who were believed to be or called Christ in antiquity then it must also be admitted that their followers would be called Christians.

Jesus cult writers stated that there were many false Christs.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXXXII

For He said we would be put to death, and hated for His name's sake; and that many false prophets and false Christs would appear in His name, and deceive many: and so has it come about.

In Against Heresies, the Christian followers of Menander regarded him as the Savior of mankind.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html

Against Heresies

……...Menander, also a Samaritan by birth, and he, too, was a perfect adept in the practice of magic. He affirms that the primary Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself is the person who has been sent forth from the presence of the invisible beings as a saviour, for the deliverance of men..

The Christian followers of Saturninus was taught that their Saviour was without birth, without and without a figure.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html

Against Heresies XXIV

2. He has also laid it down as a truth, that the Saviour was without birth, without body, and without figure, but was, by supposition, a visible man; and he maintained that the God of the Jews was one of the angels.....

The Christian followers of Valentinus had multiple versions of their Jesus Christ.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0314.htm

Tertullian "Against the Valentinians

Now, concerning even the Lord Jesus, into how great a diversity of opinion are they divided!
One party form Him of the blossoms of all the Æons.

Another party will have it that He is made up only of those ten whom the Word and the Life produced; from which circumstance the titles of the Word and the Life were suitably transferred to Him.

Others, again, that He rather sprang from the twelve, the offspring of Man and the Church, and therefore, they say, He was designated Son of man.

Others, moreover, maintain that He was formed by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who have to provide for the establishment of the universe, and that He inherits by right His Father's appellation.

Some there are who have imagined that another origin must be found for the title Son of man; for they have had the presumption to call the Father Himself Man, by reason of the profound mystery of this title: so that what can you hope for more ample concerning faith in that God, with whom you are now yourself on a par?

Such conceits are constantly cropping out among them, from the redundance of their mother's seed.

And so it happens that the doctrines which have grown up among the Valentinians have already extended their rank growth to the woods of the Gnostics.

It is clear that the Christian religion did not require an actual human Jesus.

The HJ argument was always dead in the water.

 

[Tassman]

Dejudge has been constantly called out for speaking with certainty. What evidence is there that makes you do certain that all this accrued around the 'the man' Jesus?

I have not spoken with certainty; I am arguing the probability of a man at the core of the Jesus story on the basis that it began as a social movement. And such “movements” generally have a specific origin – in this instance some sort of charismatic figure exercising a peripatetic mission and attracting a following.

That there was no Christianity before this? I've read this whole thread and have yet to see any evidence of that.

Well was there Christianity before this period in time? Certainly, the ingredients were there but there was no overt Christian religion that I know of in say, 50 or 100 BCE. Again, this speaks to a movement that originated around an historical figure at its core.

 

[theheno]

I have not spoken with certainty; I am arguing the probability of a man at the core of the Jesus story on the basis that it began as a social movement. And such “movements” generally have a specific origin – in this instance some sort of charismatic figure exercising a peripatetic mission and attracting a following.



Well was there Christianity before this period in time? Certainly, the ingredients were there but there was no overt Christian religion that I know of in say, 50 or 100 BCE. Again, this speaks to a movement that originated around an historical figure at its core.

Ok, can I ask what actual evidence convinces you of this probability?

 

[dejudge]

I have not spoken with certainty; I am arguing the probability of a man at the core of the Jesus story on the basis that it began as a social movement....

Ok. The probability of an HJ is next to zero or a smaller number.

 

[Tassman]

Ok, can I ask what actual evidence convinces you of this probability?

I repeat, was there any Christianity before the time Jesus traditionally existed? There was no overt Christian religion that I know of in say, 50 or 100 BCE, which speaks to a movement that originated around an historical figure at a specific point in time.

 

[IanS]

Ok, can I ask what actual evidence convinces you of this probability?

I repeat, was there any Christianity before the time Jesus traditionally existed? There was no overt Christian religion that I know of in say, 50 or 100 BCE, which speaks to a movement that originated around an historical figure at a specific point in time.

Did you think that your reply was an answer to the question???

You were asked what evidence exists to convince you that Jesus probably existed. And your reply is to say that as far as you know the word 'Christian" was not used around 50BC to 100BC !!

It's not evidence of the reality of Jesus simply because at some later date people started use the word "Christian" to describe certain types of religious people.

That has zero to do with any evidence of Jesus.

Any of us could speculate about what the word "Christians" originally meant, or when it was first used etc. But that's just a word that came to describe one or more groups of religious people around that time ... that is by no stretch of any coherent imagination any sort of evidence that Jesus was real.

Can you actually offer some real evidence of Jesus ever being known to anyone?

Becasue if none of those biblical writers ever knew any such person as Jesus, then it means that what they were writing was only hearsay belief in religious superstitions about an unknown never seen Christ from the past.

 

[Tassman]

You were asked what evidence exists to convince you that Jesus probably existed. !

I have never said I’m convinced that a historical man called Jesus existed. At best it’s a probability. This is based upon the relatively sudden rise of a Jesus movement which, in my view, would require some sort of historical figure for the Jesus stories to coalesce around.

Any of us could speculate about what the word "Christians" originally meant, or when it was first used etc. But that's just a word that came to describe one or more groups of religious people around that time ... that is by no stretch of any coherent imagination any sort of evidence that Jesus was real.

Can you actually offer some real evidence of Jesus ever being known to anyone?

Because if none of those biblical writers ever knew any such person as Jesus, then it means that what they were writing was only hearsay belief in religious superstitions about an unknown never seen Christ from the past.

The question arises as to why at this particular period in time did a “hearsay belief in religious superstitions about an unknown never seen Christ from the past” suddenly begin – what was the catalyst. There is no evidence whatsoever that such hearsay beliefs were in circulation prior to the traditional time of Jesus - even as recently before then as 50 BCE - which speaks to a movement that originated around an historical figure at a specific point in time.

 

[theheno]

I have never said I’m convinced that a historical man called Jesus existed. At best it’s a probability. This is based upon the relatively sudden rise of a Jesus movement which, in my view, would require some sort of historical figure for the Jesus stories to coalesce around.



The question arises as to why at this particular period in time did a “hearsay belief in religious superstitions about an unknown never seen Christ from the past” suddenly begin – what was the catalyst. There is no evidence whatsoever that such hearsay beliefs were in circulation prior to the traditional time of Jesus - even as recently before then as 50 BCE - which speaks to a movement that originated around an historical figure at a specific point in time.

You said his existence is probable, I asked what evidence convinces you it's probable. Do I understand now that the only 'evidence' that makes you believe its probable that Jesus existed, is the fact that Christianity arise suddenly?

As I've said many times, I'm no expert but that seems incredibly weak to me. How long did it take for scientology to gather believers.

 

[Darat]

I have never said I’m convinced that a historical man called Jesus existed. At best it’s a probability. This is based upon the relatively sudden rise of a Jesus movement which, in my view, would require some sort of historical figure for the Jesus stories to coalesce around.



The question arises as to why at this particular period in time did a “hearsay belief in religious superstitions about an unknown never seen Christ from the past” suddenly begin – what was the catalyst. There is no evidence whatsoever that such hearsay beliefs were in circulation prior to the traditional time of Jesus - even as recently before then as 50 BCE - which speaks to a movement that originated around an historical figure at a specific point in time.

We went from Dianetics to Scientology in less than 2 decades doesn’t add to the probability that Xenu exists.

Which other religions’ central supernatural character do you think it is probable they existed, I mean in the sense they were real people who then had the supernatural added? I’m wondering as it would help me understand what level of evidence you are using to make your probable determination.

 

[Delvo]

The comparison is Hubbard, not Xenu.

 

[theheno]

Hubbard would be Paul surely?

 

[theheno]

But Hubbard etc is beside the point. I'll ask again, is the only evidence that makes Jesus probable, the fact that Christianity arose so quickly? Is there other evidence that I'm unaware of?

 

[Delvo]

I'll ask again, is the only evidence that makes Jesus probable, the fact that Christianity arose so quickly?

That plus the absurdity of the alternative explanations, plus Josephus's outsider (even hostile, really) descriptions of a guy or two who fit(s) the bill. (As has already been pointed out repeatedly here.)

(There's also a third potentially relevant source or set of sources from Persia & Egypt that are known mostly just to Syriac Orthodox churches, but the guy who wrote about them appears to be a bit fringey, so I'm not sure what to make of that yet.)

Of course, to me, the fact that Josephus wrote about two guys would mean that the Christian Jesus is a combination of at least two guys, not just one (unless they were both really the same guy, since one's name & fate are unknown, but that's stretching it), so I don't believe there was one single historical person who by himself equates to the Christian Jesus. But that's a pretty insignificant distinction in the face what utterly, mind-bendingly irrational & dishonest gobbldigook has been offered in this thread lately against the idea of a historical Jesus. So I've ended up arguing against the anti-HJ side not so much because of the conclusion but because of the method (or complete lack thereof) by which one gets there.

 

[Darat]

The comparison is Hubbard, not Xenu.

No it isn’t. Hubbard created Xenu, like the founders of all religions do I.e. create their foundational character. Tasman is talking about the founder of Christianity. One thing we can know with absolute certainty is that the Jesus of the Christians after around 100 CE never existed.

 

[Darat]

That plus the absurdity of the alternative explanations, plus Josephus's outsider (even hostile, really) descriptions of a guy or two who fit(s) the bill. (As has already been pointed out repeatedly here.)

(There's also a third potentially relevant source or set of sources from Persia & Egypt that are known mostly just to Syriac Orthodox churches, but the guy who wrote about them appears to be a bit fringey, so I'm not sure what to make of that yet.)

Of course, to me, the fact that Josephus wrote about two guys would mean that the Christian Jesus is a combination of at least two guys, not just one (unless they were both really the same guy, since one's name & fate are unknown, but that's stretching it), so I don't believe there was one single historical person who by himself equates to the Christian Jesus. But that's a pretty insignificant distinction in the face what utterly, mind-bendingly irrational & dishonest gobbldigook has been offered in this thread lately against the idea of a historical Jesus. So I've ended up arguing against the anti-HJ side not so much because of the conclusion but because of the method (or complete lack thereof) by which one gets there.

The method is simply “lack of evidence”, your own stated position is indeed the same!

 

[IanS]

I have never said I’m convinced that a historical man called Jesus existed. At best it’s a probability. This is based upon the relatively sudden rise of a Jesus movement which, in my view, would require some sort of historical figure for the Jesus stories to coalesce around.

We are now getting lost in a mass of errors about what people here have said. I did not say that you are "convinced" he was real. I asked what has convinced you that he was probably real!

The question arises as to why at this particular period in time did a “hearsay belief in religious superstitions about an unknown never seen Christ from the past” suddenly begin – what was the catalyst. There is no evidence whatsoever that such hearsay beliefs were in circulation prior to the traditional time of Jesus - even as recently before then as 50 BCE - which speaks to a movement that originated around an historical figure at a specific point in time.

Well that is of course a well-known fallacy called the "argument from ignorance" or "the argument from personal incredulity". Ie, just because you personally cannot conceive of how a religion becomes a widespread belief amongst people despite the fact that it's central claims/beliefs and it's central deity figure are mythical, definitely does not mean the claimed deity figure must have been a real person ...

... it must have been pointed out at least 20 times already in this very thread that all religions are based upon a deity that never existed at all. And yet you are still having trouble believing that that is exactly what happens in every religion!

But we are still waiting for any evidence that convinces you that Jesus was probably real … what can you produce to show that anyone ever made a credible claim of meeting or seeing Jesus?