Historical Jesus

[Jerrymander]

You keep writing sentences in "double negatives", and that makes it very difficult for anyone to know what you mean.

If you mean that all Christians of that time (e.g. 1st century AD) believed Jesus to be quote "a part of history and living among humans", then that is not evidence of a real Jesus ... the fact that they believed all sorts of religious claims (from preaching and writing) is not any kind of evidence at all that such religious beliefs were actually true.

In fact, almost all religious beliefs about figures such as gods or messiahs, are now known to be untrue!

And all claims that were made about Jesus, wherever we have been able test or check them, have also now turned out be untrue!

You believe that Jesus was originally just a heavenly figure who did not live on earth, so show us as sect a Christianity that claimed that.

That's not a problem at all. And anyone here can guess at how belief in Jesus could very easily arise without anyone knowing a real Jesus.

For a start it's a matter of universal knowledge that from at least as far back as 500BC OT prophecy promised the coming of a saviour from God for the people of Israel. So that's already the entire basis of it all right there.

But it's also a well known fallacy to say that because someone can't think up an answer that satisfies you, that must mean that what was said was wrong ... it's known as "the fallacy from personal ignorance or personal incredulity" ... i.e. ; just because you yourself cant think of how Jesus beliefs might have arisen without a real Jesus, does not mean Jesus must therefore be real ... and nor does it mean that anyone else must offer an explanation which you are willing to agree with

There was nothing in the OT that predicts that the messiah will be killed and no Jew believed it before Christians. Its clearly ad hoc reasoning by early Christians. I'm not using incredulity I'm using Occam's razor.

 

[Jerrymander]

No I don’t.

The only Jesus that we have any evidence for is the religious/mythical Jesus and I would hope we all agree that Jesus never existed!

Its anti-intellectual to claim that we can't reconstruct a historical figure with supernatural powers attributed to him.

 

[Jerrymander]

You suffer from amnesia or is being dishonest.

I did show that Jesus and the Devil had a history of being together in Jerusalem on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple in the Gospels.

Matthew 4.

The Devil and Jesus had a history of being together on earth.

You don't seem to understand that there is no requirement for a character to physically exist to be regarded as figures of history in the Christian writings.

In the Christian Bible, the Jewish God, Satan, the angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost and Jesus the son of the Ghost had a history of being on earth and talking to human beings.

Show me were Satan is treated like a historical figure.

 

[dejudge]

Show me were Satan is treated like a historical figure.

What absurdity!!!

The same Christian writings that state their Jesus was born of a Ghost admitted the Devil was with Jesus on earth in Jerusalem.

Both the Devil and Jesus were treated as characters who actually existed by Christian writers.

 

[GDon]

As I was saying, in better informed days, in a poll 58% of the UK believed that Sherlock Holmes was real, and really lived at 221B Baker Street. Meanwhile 27% believed Florence Nightingale was myth, while about a fifth believed that WINSTON CHURCHILL is a fictional character.

And any of those numbers FAR outstrips the percentage of Xians in the first century. That should be more than enough reason not to base historicity on finding a group that BELIEVED something was real.

Oh c'mon, no-one here is BASING it on that AFAICS. That's ridiculous. But in a cumulative case about whether a HJ or MJ is the better explanation for the origin of Christianity, "No Christian sect believed that Jesus never walked the earth" is a relevant piece of data.

BASING it. Sheesh.

I think you don't even need to find a Carrier-style MJ cult -- which idea I'm not particularly married to, either -- to be back at the problem that the only guys we have who claim to have ever talked to Jesus have done so in visions.

Do you see that as a valid piece of data adding to a cumulative case supporting the idea that MJ is a better explanation than HJ for the origin of Christianity? Because I do.

 

[GDon]

You figure step one is to put together a new apocalyptic preacher messiah, a convincing and compelling one, with a scriptural prophecy basis.

If you were really doing this from scratch at the time, what would you have pulled from OT scripture and called prophecy? What kind of character would you make, to try to appeal to the people at the time, and what audience would you be trying to capture?

You know, 50 years ago one argument against the Gospel Jesus was that the OT prophecies were so DIFFERENT to what we see fulfilled in the Gospels, that the Gospel Jesus wasn't the Messiah, and largely a made-up character. For example, Psalm 22.

Nowadays, the argument against the Gospel Jesus is that the OT prophecies are so SIMILAR to what we see fulfilled in the Gospels, that the Gospel Jesus is a completely made-up character. For example, Psalm 22.

Lithrael, it's an interesting thought experiment. The messiah figure in the OT appears to be a suffering servant from the line of David. But the truth is that the Bible contains so many wild and contradictory ideas, that you could probably make up any figure you wanted (within reason) and still have it conform to whatever messiah figure you wanted to make.

 

[dejudge]

Most scholars agree that Josephus did originally mention Jesus without the resurrection claims.

Your statement appears to be baseless and deliberately mis-leading. You have no idea of the actual amount of Scholars who agree about anything on the passage in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

Mythological gods were not treated as humans. Jesus was. Opponents of Christanity felt the need to make all kinds of accusations about Jesus but not one claim he didn't exist.

How ridiculous can you be!!!

How could a person who believed that the Lord Savior was only a spiritual being also claim he did not exist?

Don't you understand the difference between a spiritual and physical being?

Christians themselves argued that their Savior was only a spiritual being similar to Jewish, Greek and Roman Gods [unbegotten]

Those Christians who claimed their Savior was both a spiritual and physical being invented a fiction story that he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

There is no historical evidence anywhere at all that NT Jesus physically lived at anytime anywhere up to today.

 

[dejudge]

You know, 50 years ago one argument against the Gospel Jesus was that the OT prophecies were so DIFFERENT to what we see fulfilled in the Gospels, that the Gospel Jesus wasn't the Messiah, and largely a made-up character. For example, Psalm 22.

Nowadays, the argument against the Gospel Jesus is that the OT prophecies are so SIMILAR to what we see fulfilled in the Gospels, that the Gospel Jesus is a completely made-up character. For example, Psalm 22.

Lithrael, it's an interesting thought experiment. The messiah figure in the OT appears to be a suffering servant from the line of David. But the truth is that the Bible contains so many wild and contradictory ideas, that you could probably make up any figure you wanted (within reason) and still have it conform to whatever messiah figure you wanted to make.

It is already known the Bible is not a credible historical source to determine an historical Jesus.

It is already known that multiple Christian cults in antiquity did not require an historical Jesus.

It is already known that there are no historical sources of antiquity which mention any historical character called Jesus of Nazareth.

We can't be going over the same facts over and over.

The HJ argument is dead in the water.

 

[IanS]

There was nothing in the OT that predicts that the messiah will be killed and no Jew believed it before Christians. Its clearly ad hoc reasoning.

Also, you believe that Jesus was originally just a heavenly figure who did not live on earth, so show us as sect a Christianity that claimed that.

Someone else here may be be able to cite the various passages, though I am not in the habit of reading the OT .. BUT - we did discuss this some years back and iirc I think the OT does actually say in several places, in terms (most of the OT is written in obscure phrases like that), that the messiah will be harmed and/or rejected etc.

In Psalm 22 (5th Cent. BC for the following parts) for example it says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_have_pierced_my_hands_and_my_feet


Text of Psalm 22:16 (21:17)
This verse, which is Psalm 22:17 in the Hebrew verse numbering, reads in the Masoretic Text as: כארי ידי ורגלי, which may be read literally as "like a lion my hands and my feet". The full verse of the Masoretic text reads: כִּ֥י סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֭רֵעִים הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי (Kî sĕḇāḇûnî kĕlāḇîm 'ăḏaṯ mĕrē'îm hiqqîpûnî kā'ărî yāḏay wĕraglāy).

When translated into English, the syntactical form of this Hebrew phrase appears to be lacking a verb. In this context the phrase was commonly explained in early Rabbinical paraphrases as "they bite like a lion my hands and my feet".
The Septuagint, a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek made before the Common Era, has "ὤρυξαν χεῗράς μου καὶ πόδας" ("they dug my hands and feet"), which Christian commentators argue could be understood in the general sense as "pierced". This reading was retained by Saint Jerome in his translation from the Greek Hexapla into the Latin of his Gallican Psalter (Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos) which was incorporated into both the Vulgate and the Divine Office.

Aquila of Sinope, a 2nd-century CE Greek convert to Christianity and later to Judaism, undertook two translations of the Psalms from Hebrew to Greek. In the first, he renders the verse "they disfigured my hands and feet"; in the second he revised this to "they have bound my hands and feet".
The Jewish Publication Society translates the phrase a "Like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet".

English translations
Some English language translations, primarily those translated by or for Christian communities, render the text as: "They have pierced my hands and my feet" although English translations are not uniform in this rendering. Versions translated outside of Christian circles, such as the Jewish Publication Society and The Judaica Press, use different English renderings based on the Hebrew text rather than the Greek.

In the book of Daniel (2nd century BC), it says this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament_messianic_prophecies_quoted_in_the_New_Testament

Daniel 9:24-27
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;
The book of Isaiah says this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament_messianic_prophecies_quoted_in_the_New_Testament

Isaiah 53:5
Main article: Isaiah 53
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5 (King James Version)

"But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed." Isaiah 53:5 (JPS The Judaica Press Tanakh with Rashi's commentary

Isaiah 53 is probably the most famous example claimed by Christians to be a messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. It speaks of one known as the "suffering servant," who suffers because of the sins of others. Jesus is said to fulfill this prophecy through his death on the cross.[41] The verse from Isaiah 53:5 is understood by many Christians to speak of Jesus as the Messiah.


I'm also pretty sure that somewhere in the OT it talks of the Messiah, or someone very like a Messiah, being "Hung on a Tree" (and I think that's also repeated in the NT Book of ACTS) ... but someone who is more familiar with reading the OT can probably dig that one out.


Also in Psalm 22 is the following -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_22#:~:text=The original psalm (v.,portion of the composition (v.
Christianity[edit]
Christians[who?]*contend that "They have pierced my hands and my feet"*(Psalm 22:16), and "I can count all my bones"*(Psalm 22:17)*are prophecies indicating the manner of Jesus's crucifixion: that he would be nailed to a cross*(John 20:25)*and, per the Levitical requirement for a sacrifice, that none of his bones would be broken*(Numbers 9:11-13). (Christians view Jesus as an*atoning*sacrifice.)
Some Christian commentators, such as E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes,[15]*and H A Ironside*[16]*a point out that the word use for worm in 'I am a worm and not a man'*(Psalm 26)*is 'tola'*[17]*a middle eastern worm that lives in a tree and is crushed for its red dye, also translated crimson. It is also the word used in*(Isaiah 41:14)*in the*servant songs*of Isaiah. This would be consistent with the view of the suffering person being an atoning sacrifice, dying on a tree.[18]


In the NT book of ACTS, it also says this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_1

Verses 21–22

39And we are witnesses ('martyres') of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God,

 

[Delvo]

Problem 1 with the con artist scenario: no profit. Some founders of religions do get rich, but that doesn't seem to apply to this case.

Problem 2: the con artist would need to somehow get Josephus to write from an outsider's perspective about a couple of guys who seem suspiciously similar to the con artist's fictional character, but not exactly identical or identified by name, for no apparent reason.

Problem 3...

From the point of view of somebody in that time & place, a future messiah is believable, a present messiah who isn't done messiahing yet is believable, and a past messiah is entirely impossible. The real messiah, after having already messiah'd, would have brought either the forceful ejection of the Romans or the end of the whole world. People would have noticed. Somebody you didn't notice because he didn't change the world isn't the messiah. A con artist trying to invent a new religious con would get nowhere trying to use a messiah who was already gone as the starting point.

A different starting point for the con job, with the messiah still alive and not done with his work yet but just located somewhere else at the moment, OR no messiah-based claims being made at all, would also get nowhere for different reasons. People would mix up the con artist's boss who isn't there with some other guy who actually is there and making the same claim for himself, and shift over to that guy because getting it first-hand is more compelling. If the con artist got it through to them that that other guy over there is a fake, the next subject would be where to go find the real guy, followed by why they haven't heard any such news from anybody else over there lately and why they should believe someone who's only talking about someone else instead of doing something himself. These are exactly the kinds of complications that con artists avoid, not invite. This isn't saving yourself trouble at all but multiplying it.

Con artists do like to take advantage of what people already think, though, so, as soon as people raised the subject of some other guy they knew of who made similar claims about himself, the con artist might piggyback onto that. But then we'd be talking about a movement that's based on a real historical person, not somebody the con artist made up. And the best move of all might be to eliminate the idea of having to choose which of two or more other preachers somewhere out there was real by combining them and telling the audience that the rumors they'd heard about a few different guys were actually all talking about one guy. But then we'd be talking about an amalgam of real historical figures, which is still closer to one real historical figure than it is to pure imagination.

This merging in with the real guys would be so easy, even so difficult to avoid, given the lack of a real figurehead to make the con artist's story distinct from them, that it would happen whether the con artist deliberately went along with it or not.

 

[Jerrymander]

Someone else here may be be able to cite the various passages, though I am not in the habit of reading the OT .. BUT - we did discuss this some years back and iirc I think the OT does actually say in several places, in terms (most of the OT is written in obscure phrases like that), that the messiah will be harmed and/or rejected etc.

In Psalm 22 (5th Cent. BC for the following parts) for example it says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_have_pierced_my_hands_and_my_feet


Text of Psalm 22:16 (21:17)
This verse, which is Psalm 22:17 in the Hebrew verse numbering, reads in the Masoretic Text as: כארי ידי ורגלי, which may be read literally as "like a lion my hands and my feet". The full verse of the Masoretic text reads: כִּ֥י סְבָב֗וּנִי כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים עֲדַ֣ת מְ֭רֵעִים הִקִּיפ֑וּנִי כָּ֝אֲרִ֗י יָדַ֥י וְרַגְלָֽי (Kî sĕḇāḇûnî kĕlāḇîm 'ăḏaṯ mĕrē'îm hiqqîpûnî kā'ărî yāḏay wĕraglāy).

When translated into English, the syntactical form of this Hebrew phrase appears to be lacking a verb. In this context the phrase was commonly explained in early Rabbinical paraphrases as "they bite like a lion my hands and my feet".
The Septuagint, a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek made before the Common Era, has "ὤρυξαν χεῗράς μου καὶ πόδας" ("they dug my hands and feet"), which Christian commentators argue could be understood in the general sense as "pierced". This reading was retained by Saint Jerome in his translation from the Greek Hexapla into the Latin of his Gallican Psalter (Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos) which was incorporated into both the Vulgate and the Divine Office.

Aquila of Sinope, a 2nd-century CE Greek convert to Christianity and later to Judaism, undertook two translations of the Psalms from Hebrew to Greek. In the first, he renders the verse "they disfigured my hands and feet"; in the second he revised this to "they have bound my hands and feet".
The Jewish Publication Society translates the phrase a "Like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet".

English translations
Some English language translations, primarily those translated by or for Christian communities, render the text as: "They have pierced my hands and my feet" although English translations are not uniform in this rendering. Versions translated outside of Christian circles, such as the Jewish Publication Society and The Judaica Press, use different English renderings based on the Hebrew text rather than the Greek.

In the book of Daniel (2nd century BC), it says this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament_messianic_prophecies_quoted_in_the_New_Testament

Daniel 9:24-27
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;
The book of Isaiah says this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament_messianic_prophecies_quoted_in_the_New_Testament

Isaiah 53:5
Main article: Isaiah 53
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5 (King James Version)

"But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed." Isaiah 53:5 (JPS The Judaica Press Tanakh with Rashi's commentary

Isaiah 53 is probably the most famous example claimed by Christians to be a messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. It speaks of one known as the "suffering servant," who suffers because of the sins of others. Jesus is said to fulfill this prophecy through his death on the cross.[41] The verse from Isaiah 53:5 is understood by many Christians to speak of Jesus as the Messiah.


I'm also pretty sure that somewhere in the OT it talks of the Messiah, or someone very like a Messiah, being "Hung on a Tree" (and I think that's also repeated in the NT Book of ACTS) ... but someone who is more familiar with reading the OT can probably dig that one out.


Also in Psalm 22 is the following -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_22#:~:text=The original psalm (v.,portion of the composition (v.
Christianity[edit]
Christians[who?]*contend that "They have pierced my hands and my feet"*(Psalm 22:16), and "I can count all my bones"*(Psalm 22:17)*are prophecies indicating the manner of Jesus's crucifixion: that he would be nailed to a cross*(John 20:25)*and, per the Levitical requirement for a sacrifice, that none of his bones would be broken*(Numbers 9:11-13). (Christians view Jesus as an*atoning*sacrifice.)
Some Christian commentators, such as E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes,[15]*and H A Ironside*[16]*a point out that the word use for worm in 'I am a worm and not a man'*(Psalm 26)*is 'tola'*[17]*a middle eastern worm that lives in a tree and is crushed for its red dye, also translated crimson. It is also the word used in*(Isaiah 41:14)*in the*servant songs*of Isaiah. This would be consistent with the view of the suffering person being an atoning sacrifice, dying on a tree.[18]


In the NT book of ACTS, it also says this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_1

Verses 21–22

39And we are witnesses ('martyres') of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God,

Again, all you did was provide ad hoc interpretations by Christians. The idea that the early Jesus followers could construct a narrative based on these vague cherrypicked verses as opposed to interpreting them later to match a real executed person fails Occam's razor.

The "Suffering Servant" was never interpreted to be the Messiah before Jesus and the text clearly identifies the servant as Israel.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It was a huge stumping block for both Jews and gentiles. Crucifixion was the most shameful way to die and there are no traditions in Judaism of a crucified figure raised by God. The early followers really needed to sell it.

Jesus being baptized implies that he sinned. In addition, why does a mythological god need to be a successor to some hermit preacher?

Most scholars agree that Josephus did originally mention Jesus without the resurrection claims.

Mythological gods were not treated as humans. Jesus was. Opponents of Christanity felt the need to make all kinds of accusations about Jesus but not one claim he didn't exist.

All good points, but the mythicists will find some way to deny them.

If we're talking about Paul, I think the big difference would be that there would be no James or the other "Pillars of the Church" in Jerusalem with whom Paul had so many disputes.

Paul talks about how this group of "super Apostles" were involved with Jesus in the flesh before Paul came along. He would have to have invented them too. Maybe he paid some actors to come into town and force circumcision on his followers so he could complain about how horrible they were...

It doesn't makes sense, but that is exactly what some here are arguing - even as they believe Paul when it suits them.

But why? Why are MJers so invested in 'proving' that a historical Jesus could not have existed, even to the point of evangelism? For some it may just be a debating game, while others may have unwisely chosen a position which they have to defend to save face. But I think there may be more to it than that. In our Christian societies most atheists were at least nominally believers, and so have an ongoing need to defend their position. So it's not surprising that some are willing to discard facts and logic. It's just a bit sad to see people who consider themselves to be 'rational' and 'skeptical' being anything but when beliefs that they have an emotional need to hold onto are questioned.

I was in the 'mythical Jesus' camp until I realized that I took this position more to counter religious claims than to be historically accurate. But stripping away the religious element is easy (even if we had mountains of irrefutable proof that Jesus did exist, it still wouldn't make their supernatural claims true). The problem comes when you try to deny the 'mundane' parts. Not only do you have to go against the historical consensus, putting your self above those who are experts in their field (never a good sign), you also have to make peculiar arguments that go against what we know about human behavior. This is disturbing close to the tactics of conspiracy theorists.

In their efforts to repudiate pervading religious mumbo jumbo, some atheists are falling into the same trap. Lying for not-Jesus is no better than lying for Jesus, even if it is for a good cause - and even if you are only lying to yourself. True skeptics also question their own beliefs, and don't dogmatically stick to a position when it is not rational.

 

[Jerrymander]

Your statement appears to be baseless and deliberately mis-leading. You have no idea of the actual amount of Scholars who agree about anything on the passage in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3

Since you quoted Wikipedia

The extant manuscripts of the book Antiquities of the Jews, written by the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus around 93–94 AD, contain two references to Jesus of Nazareth and one reference to John the Baptist.[1][2]

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]

Josephus also mentions Jesus in another passage.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

 

[dejudge]

Since you quoted Wikipedia

The extant manuscripts of the book Antiquities of the Jews, written by the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus around 93–94 AD, contain two references to Jesus of Nazareth and one reference to John the Baptist.[1][2]

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]

Since you quoted Wikipedia. The passage is not authentic so has no credibility. Assumptions about its original content is worthless.

Josephus could not have written Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 since he already stated that the Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE and Vespasian was indeed the Messianic ruler predicted in Hebrew Scripture.

See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4.

Josephus, a captured prisoner in Rome, would have been a complete suicidal idiot to declare a dead Jew was the Messianic ruler of the Roman Empire instead of a Roman Emperor who defeated the Jews.

Josephus also mentions Jesus in another passage.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

That passage Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth.

The Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was alive in the time of Albinus c 64 CE and was the son of Damneus.

Jesus the son of Damneus was called Christ because he was a High Priest.

High Priest were called Christ by Jews.

The word Christ simply means "anointed".

High Priest were anointed with oil when installed.

Jesus of Nazareth would not ever be called the Christ [the anointed] by Jews since he was never a High Priest or King of the Jews.

Jesus of Nazareth had no human father.
Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and never ever had any history.

 

[dejudge]

I was in the 'mythical Jesus' camp until I realized that I took this position more to counter religious claims than to be historically accurate. But stripping away the religious element is easy (even if we had mountains of irrefutable proof that Jesus did exist, it still wouldn't make their supernatural claims true). The problem comes when you try to deny the 'mundane' parts.

Please, there are no mundane parts in the Jesus story. Even Ehrman admitted that non-supernatural elements in the Jesus story are implausible.

The baptism story is complete fiction with the voice from heaven and the Holy Ghost bird and in addition the baptism by John could not be for remission of sins.

Jews must sacrifice to their God for remission of sins.

Jews believed that baptising or bathing in the river Jordan was for cleansing or healing of the body.

The trial by Pilate is also implausible when it is claimed Pilate found no fault yet still asked the Jews to determine his fate.

Not only do you have to go against the historical consensus, putting your self above those who are experts in their field (never a good sign), you also have to make peculiar arguments that go against what we know about human behavior. This is disturbing close to the tactics of conspiracy theorists.

Never a good sign to put experts above evidence. Your so-called experts have no historical evidence for their claims about their Jesus.

You seem to want to be a follower of the crowd instead of follower of the evidence.

Perhaps you don't know that many of the Bible experts who claim their Jesus exist are bishops of the Church.

In their efforts to repudiate pervading religious mumbo jumbo, some atheists are falling into the same trap. Lying for not-Jesus is no better than lying for Jesus, even if it is for a good cause - and even if you are only lying to yourself. True skeptics also question their own beliefs, and don't dogmatically stick to a position when it is not rational.

Who is lying?

It is stated in the NT that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Who says Jesus of Nazareth was human?

The people who are lying.

 

[IanS]

Oh c'mon, no-one here is BASING it on that AFAICS. That's ridiculous. But in a cumulative case about whether a HJ or MJ is the better explanation for the origin of Christianity, "No Christian sect believed that Jesus never walked the earth" is a relevant piece of data.

BASING it. Sheesh.


Do you see that as a valid piece of data adding to a cumulative case supporting the idea that MJ is a better explanation than HJ for the origin of Christianity? Because I do.

GDon, your replies are getting quite ridiculous. I thought you said you were going to be sensible about this and try to genuinely consider why HJ-sceptics here are putting to you points, explanations, and in fact a huge mass of evidence that shows your belief in a real HJ is probably misplaced/wrong.

You are talking about "data", when you should be talking about actual "evidence", and you are taking a sentence that someone just invented above where they said "No Christian sect believed that Jesus never walked the earth" , and you are calling that "Data" which you then treat as evidence of a HJ !! ... that's absurd and a completely erroneous piece of faulty reasoning from you ...

... it's not "data" (or "evidence") simply because one of your fellow HJ believers here writes "No Christian sect believed that Jesus never walked the earth" ... apart from it being a horrible gobbledygook double-negative sentence in mangled English, it's not data or evidence just by someone saying (and I'll unscramble the double-negative) "all Christians believed that Jesus walked the Earth" ...

… first of all, neither that poster or you or any of us, “know” what all Christians believed about Jesus, that's an absurd and very naïve remark to begin with. But completely irrespective of that - just because Christians believed that Jesus was a real person on Earth, is not any kind of evidence at all that the belief was true … it's precisely Zero evidence of a real Jesus.

Can we please stick to genuine evidence, and stop claiming that 1st century religious belief is itself evidence to show Jesus was real.

 

[dejudge]

What is most amusing is that since the 3rd century attempts were made by skeptics to historicise Jesus but were called liars by Christian writers.

Origen "Against Celsus" 1

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera; and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost
for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage.

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

The claim that Jesus of Nazareth had a human father is a falsehood - an invention by those who do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

There was never any historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth was a always a Ghost story.

 

[IanS]

Again, all you did was provide ad hoc interpretations by Christians. The idea that the early Jesus followers could construct a narrative based on these vague cherrypicked verses as opposed to interpreting them later to match a real executed person fails Occam's razor.

The "Suffering Servant" was never interpreted to be the Messiah before Jesus and the text clearly identifies the servant as Israel.

Well it's all there in undeniable black-&-white with the full references. And you still can't admit the truth ...

... You are truly a faithful believer. May your God go with you, Amen!

 

[Darat]

You believe that Jesus was originally just a heavenly figure who did not live on earth, so show us as sect a Christianity that claimed that.



There was nothing in the OT that predicts that the messiah will be killed and no Jew believed it before Christians. Its clearly ad hoc reasoning by early Christians. I'm not using incredulity I'm using Occam's razor.

No. IanS is of the opinion that you need to provide evidence for a real Jesus rather than the mythical Jesus (we all agree there is overwhelming evidence for that Jesus) and that there is pretty much zilch evidence from any time around when your real Jesus is meant to have lived (according to the evidence for the mythical Jesus).

 

[Darat]

Its anti-intellectual to claim that we can't reconstruct a historical figure with supernatural powers attributed to him.

It might be but that position has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.