Historical Jesus

[Jerrymander]

Paul may well have believed that a figure known as Jesus once resurrected from the dead. But in that case his belief was wrong. And his mistaken beliefs about resurrection are NOT evidence of any reality for Jesus.

But his belief in a human Jesus (and meeting that Jesus' brother) are.

 

[catsmate]

Oh yes it is. Human parthenogenesis is possible and has occurred.

Really? Are you seriously claiming that humans can spontaneously and successfully reproduce asexually?

 

[catsmate]

False. They could merely be mistaken.

And therefore need to be corrected. For example on the matter of humsn parthenogenic reproduction...

 

[IanS]

It isn't a strawman. You guys are basically saying that if a person is thought of as divine or had supernatural powers that means they didn't exist. No scholar of ancient history thinks that way.

No! Nobody has said anything of the kind. None of us have said that quote "if a person is thought of as divine or had supernatural powers that means they didn't exist." ... you really must stop with your completely false repeated allegations like that.

What sceptics here are saying, actually trying to explain to you (but you seem to be religiously blind to the facts), is that Jesus is a figure who was repeatedly and constantly described in supernatural terms ... there's actually virtually nothing said about him in the biblical writing that is not in fact supernatural...

... but the biblical writing is really the only and entire source for anything at all about Jesus (later non-biblical writing cannot be shown to be independent of the bible ... all roads lead back to the bible), and there is really no evidence in that biblical writing to show that any of those writers ever thought that Jesus was an ordinary human preacher.

So what you have is a set of about 35 to 45 gospels stories of Jesus, all of which were once believed as absolutely true, and believed as absolute proof that Jesus must have been the messiah, but where we now know that all of those 35 to 40 stories are certainly untrue ... and that is the total evidence in the bible for any such person as Jesus ever being known to anyone as a real human person ... i.e. zilch, literally zero, nothing at all.

First century religious fanatics may have believed he was a real person, or more accurately believed he was a god in human form that once walked upon the Earth. Paul may have believed that too. But the evidence which they gave for that belief in their biblical writing is actually one huge mass of evidence against their beliefs ever being true … there is precisely no evidence there of any such figure as a real Jesus doing any of the things that were claimed for him by any of the biblical writers.

 

[IanS]

But his belief in a human Jesus (and meeting that Jesus' brother) are.

No! How obviously untrue are you going to get lol ...

... his (i.e. Paul) belief in a human Jesus is NOT evidence that Jesus was a real person! .... (a) Paul's mere religious belief is not evidence that his beliefs were ever true, and (b) Paul clearly did NOT believe Jesus was an ordinary "human"!

As far as "James" is concerned we have already been through that in vast detail with every quote and reference imaginable at least 1000 times over the years in these various HJ threads.

 

[Jerrymander]

No! Nobody has said anything of the kind. None of us have said that quote "if a person is thought of as divine or had supernatural powers that means they didn't exist." ... you really must stop with your completely false repeated allegations like that.

What sceptics here are saying, actually trying to explain to you (but you seem to be religiously blind to the facts), is that Jesus is a figure who was repeatedly and constantly described in supernatural terms ... there's actually virtually nothing said about him in the biblical writing that is not in fact supernatural...

... but the biblical writing is really the only and entire source for anything at all about Jesus (later non-biblical writing cannot be shown to be independent of the bible ... all roads lead back to the bible), and there is really no evidence in that biblical writing to show that any of those writers ever thought that Jesus was an ordinary human preacher.

So what you have is a set of about 35 to 45 gospels stories of Jesus, all of which were once believed as absolutely true, and believed as absolute proof that Jesus must have been the messiah, but where we now know that all of those 35 to 40 stories are certainly untrue ... and that is the total evidence in the bible for any such person as Jesus ever being known to anyone as a real human person ... i.e. zilch, literally zero, nothing at all.

First century religious fanatics may have believed he was a real person, or more accurately believed he was a god in human form that once walked upon the Earth. Paul may have believed that too. But the evidence which they gave for that belief in their biblical writing is actually one huge mass of evidence against their beliefs ever being true … there is precisely no evidence there of any such figure as a real Jesus doing any of the things that were claimed for him by any of the biblical writers.

Jesus is described in both supernatural and human terms in the gospels. He is not described as simply a mythological god in the heavens. His portrayal is consist with a real person given supernatural attributes.

 

[Jerrymander]

No! How obviously untrue are you going to get lol ...

... his (i.e. Paul) belief in a human Jesus is NOT evidence that Jesus was a real person! .... (a) Paul's mere religious belief is not evidence that his beliefs were ever true, and (b) Paul clearly did NOT believe Jesus was an ordinary "human"!

As far as "James" is concerned we have already been through that in vast detail with every quote and reference imaginable at least 1000 times over the years in these various HJ threads.

Even your boy Richard Carrier admits that if Paul thought of Jesus as human, then that would be evidence for HJ.

And no, you didn't explain James. All you could do was shout "forgery!". All the arguments against the James passages by MJs have been shown to be forced and contrived.

 

[Darat]

It isn't a strawman. You guys are basically saying that if a person is thought of as divine or had supernatural powers that means they didn't exist. No scholar of ancient history thinks that way.

And no one has argued that in this entire thread. It is exactly as I said a strawman.

 

[Delvo]

If yall don't want to be associated with the use of "but they said supernatural stuff about him" as an argument that he didn't exist, then it's up to yall to quit trotting out "but they said supernatural stuff about him" as an argument that he didn't exist.

Or at least, if your actual meaning involves a few other steps between those two components, then quit being Underpants Gnomes and state the intermediate part(s).

 

[IanS]

Jesus is described in both supernatural and human terms in the gospels. He is not described as simply a mythological god in the heavens. His portrayal is consist with a real person given supernatural attributes.

No. That is yet again untrue from you. Almost every mention of Jesus is a story of the supernatural.

It is not true to say he is also described there in human terms as if that was equally often with the supernatural descriptions. It may be the case that in a few of the biblical stories he is said to have done things that a human person could do, such as walk about, talk, eat his supper etc., ... but afaik in all of those mentions it is part of a story where something supernatural then happens ... e.g. he walks to a village and then he produces a miracle ... he meets an apparently ordinary man, and then produces a miracle ...

... even the so-called Lords supper is actually the setting for prophetic insight which amazes his disciples ... he foretells the future of his own betrayal and death.

Really, almost every mention in the gospels and letters is a clear unambiguous story of the supernatural. And there can be no disputing that those parts are very clear and completely unambiguous in their miracle claims. But there is really nothing similarly clear or unambiguous there as an account of why or how Jesus was an ordinary real human being

If you think there are such clear unambiguous stories of Jesus there as a human man, then by all means quote the gospels for whatever that is.

By all means try to quote any such thing from Paul's letters as well.

 

[Darat]

If yall don't want to be associated with the use of "but they said supernatural stuff about him" as an argument that he didn't exist, then it's up to yall to quit trotting out "but they said supernatural stuff about him" as an argument that he didn't exist.

Or at least, if your actual meaning involves a few other steps between those two components, then quit being Underpants Gnomes and state the intermediate part(s).

Show me where I said this.

 

[IanS]

Even your boy Richard Carrier admits that if Paul thought of Jesus as human, then that would be evidence for HJ.

Why is Richard Carrier "my boy"? Why do you think we are related?

I'm afraid you are once again completely deluded.

And no, you didn't explain James. All you could do was shout "forgery!". All the arguments against the James passages by MJs have been shown to be forced and contrived.

Please go back to post #1929 on page 49, there are 9 or 10 separate itemised points there explaining why we cannot take that sentence at face value where it says "other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother", and it's really only one of those points where I explain why that has the structure of an interpolated afterthought ... so it's yet again completely untrue for you to claim that "all you could do was shout forgery".

 

[IanS]

If yall don't want to be associated with the use of "but they said supernatural stuff about him" as an argument that he didn't exist, then it's up to yall to quit trotting out "but they said supernatural stuff about him" as an argument that he didn't exist.

Or at least, if your actual meaning involves a few other steps between those two components, then quit being Underpants Gnomes and state the intermediate part(s).

Show me where I said this.

While you are at it Delvo - also show me where I ever said that.

 

[Jerrymander]

Please go back to post #1929 on page 49, there are 9 or 10 separate itemised points there explaining why we cannot take that sentence at face value where it says "other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother", and it's really only one of those points where I explain why that has the structure of an interpolated afterthought ... so it's yet again completely untrue for you to claim that "all you could do was shout forgery".

You tried to claim that it was a "half sentence" which it only is in one English translation.

 

[theheno]

Popped back to have a look, this thread is hotting up huh. I'm not sure everyone debating now is an atheist, been some 'passionate' posts. Enjoyable to dip in and out of though.

 

[IanS]

You tried to claim that it was a "half sentence" which it only is in one English translation.

You said all I did was shout forgery ... please show that from the complete post #1929.

Please quote the post and show that all it does is shout forgery.

 

[Jerrymander]

From what Paul writes in that letter, I think it's highly likely that the half-sentence (which is only 10 words) did not mean a literal family blood brother. The reason why I think that is as follows -

1 that claim (if we are allowed to politely call it a "claim" just for the sake of clarity & explanation here) was never again (afaik) repeated anywhere in any of Paul's supposedly "genuine" letters. It was a complete one-off remark.

2 that same James apparently wrote his own gospel where he expressed all sorts of beliefs about "the Christ" but afaik (according to those who have read that gospel), nowhere does that same James ever claim even to have ever met any such person as Jesus, let alone claim to have been his family brother.

3 iirc, in writing about that same meeting where he saw James with others who he describes as the "Pillars of the Church of God", Paul never mentions asking this James person, a single thing about his "brother Jesus". And that same James who he saw at that meeting apparently also never told Paul nor anyone else a single thing about ever being a family brother of Jesus. And remember here that we are talking about Paul having his entire life totally changed by this belief in Jesus, and yet when he meets the actual brother of Jesus, not one word is ever mentioned about any of them knowing or meeting Jesus at all.

4 on the contrary, what Paul did say in his letters was that those people he met as the "Pillars of the Church", inc. James, were claiming to believe in various different people as the messiah, and he rebukes them all for that, where he also tells them that he has no interest in what any of them say or believe about a messiah, and that his own belief is the one true understanding of the prophesised "Christ", because he says that none of those other leaders of the Church had told him anything about the Christ ... he specifically says "the gospel I preach came from no Man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone" ... so he is getting none of that Jesus belief from the Pillars of the Church inc. James, nothing from them at all, and he tells us that they each believed in a variety of deceased or otherwise absent or non-existent names as the one-time Christ upon the Earth.

5 the only sense in which Paul ever suggests that he and James and "500 others at once" and "the twelve" had ever "met" Jesus, was as a spiritual vision of Christ in the heavens. Nobody else, inc. Paul, ever claimed to have met or known Jesus in any other sense ... and that included James in his own gospel who afaik also never claimed to have met any human Jesus.

6 In the same letters, Paul makes it repeatedly clear that his knowledge of Jesus came to him through divine revelation from God, where he says "God was pleased to reveal his Son in me", and where he says that what was revealed to him was a new understanding of "Scripture" where he suddenly realised that the true meaning of ancient messiah prophecy was that "the Christ" (he uses that term so often that I wonder if the word/name "Yehoshua"/"Iesous"/Jesus was actually also yet another later interpolation?) had already descended to Earth from the heavens in order to prove to the faithful that the long-awaited (since at least 500BC) apocalypse of God's final judgement was now very close at hand.

7 the structure of that half sentence about James, is this - it says “other apostles saw I none” then there is a comma or "pause” and then it continues “save James the Lords brother”. That structure looks suspiciously like it may have originally just said “other apostles saw I none” … and then at a later date a Christian copyist decided that he should have also seen James at that time, and so he adds the words “save James” … and then either at that same time or at another later date another copyist decides that the letter should explain who “James” was, and he adds the final 3 words “the Lords brother”. But be careful here, because I am not presenting that as if it think it must have happened that way … I am just pointing out that it is constructed in the form of 3 separate afterthoughts, i.e. the first bit is just to say “other apostles saw I none”, but then someone decides that he should have also met James there, so as an afterthought he adds “save James”, as if to say “oh, and I forgot to mention that James was also there”, and after that there's another afterthought to explain who James was in case they did not know who he was and now he adds “the Lords brother” … I'm just pointing out that the structure of that half-sentence is in the form of a series of additional afterthoughts.

8 the reason to suspect so-called “interpolations” is because after nearly 2000 years, biblical scholars and others eventually realised that much of the writing about Jesus does contain what appear to be later interpolations where scribes who made copies at a later date, decided that certain parts of the original writing had to be changed either to remove something they now disagreed with or to add something which they had now decided should have been included in the original.

9 In that respect of interpolations and later copyists reproductions - we also have to keep in mind that the earliest copies that we actually have for any of Paul's letters most probably date from around 200AD, and not from anywhere near 50 to 60 AD as all biblical scholars like to imply. And that leaves about 150 years of constant copying and re-copying by scribes who were apparently in the habit of altering the original texts. So we really cannot rely on those copies known as P46 to be exactly what was originally written in the letters, and that includes not being at all confident that the ultra-brief half-sentence about James was originally there or in that same form of words.

10 you, along with everyone else who believes in a HJ, are quoting passages from the gospels and letters of the bible. But it is clear that none of the people who wrote those gospels and letters had ever known any such living person as Jesus. In all of that biblical writing, the authors only ever describe their belief in a supernatural being of the past that none of them had ever met. So at best, what evidence there is in the gospels and letters is only evidence of the writers belief in a supernatural deity that the writers had never known.

And please lets be clear - in all of that biblical writing, that is how Jesus was always described, ie as constantly supernatural.

The evidence contained in the bible is indeed evidence of something, but it is not evidence of a human Jesus ever known either to the writers or to anyone else. It is only evidence of how the biblical authors believed in a supernatural scion of Yahweh that none of them had ever met, seen, heard or otherwise known at all.

Paul wants to be seen as an independent and equal apostle and not inferior to people like Peter and James so of course he stresses he got the news from Jesus directly. Paul has an inferiority complex about not knowing Jesus when he was alive. The fact that he mentions James as an afterthought is actually evidence that he did meet him, since he does not stress that point. He states this just after claiming how independent he is and he didn't meet with the other apostles but begrudging admits it he meet James. That's also a reason why he wouldn't ask James about Jesus. But if he did, he certainly wouldn't tell the Galatians that since it ruins his claim of independence. As for the interpolation, there's no reason why a later Christian would add such an unremarkable statement that serves no apologetic purpose.

 

[dejudge]

It isn't a strawman. You guys are basically saying that if a person is thought of as divine or had supernatural powers that means they didn't exist. No scholar of ancient history thinks that way.

Scholars of ancient history do not think that characters thought of as divine and/or human must have existed.

 

[IanS]

Paul wants to be seen as an independent and equal apostle and not inferior to people like Peter and James so of course he stresses he got the news from Jesus directly. Paul has an inferiority complex about not knowing Jesus when he was alive. The fact that he mentions James as an afterthought is actually evidence that he did meet him, since he does not stress that point. He states this just after claiming how independent he is and he didn't meet with the other apostles but begrudging admits it he meet James. That's also a reason why he wouldn't ask James about Jesus. But if he did, he certainly wouldn't tell the Galatians that since it ruins his claim of independence. As for the interpolation, there's no reason why a later Christian would add such an unremarkable statement that serves no apologetic purpose.

So where does my post "only shout forgery"?

Do I have to ask you a third time?

Or are you going to admit that your claim was (as usual) completely untrue.

 

[Jerrymander]

No. That is yet again untrue from you. Almost every mention of Jesus is a story of the supernatural.

It is not true to say he is also described there in human terms as if that was equally often with the supernatural descriptions. It may be the case that in a few of the biblical stories he is said to have done things that a human person could do, such as walk about, talk, eat his supper etc., ... but afaik in all of those mentions it is part of a story where something supernatural then happens ... e.g. he walks to a village and then he produces a miracle ... he meets an apparently ordinary man, and then produces a miracle ...

... even the so-called Lords supper is actually the setting for prophetic insight which amazes his disciples ... he foretells the future of his own betrayal and death.

Really, almost every mention in the gospels and letters is a clear unambiguous story of the supernatural. And there can be no disputing that those parts are very clear and completely unambiguous in their miracle claims. But there is really nothing similarly clear or unambiguous there as an account of why or how Jesus was an ordinary real human being

If you think there are such clear unambiguous stories of Jesus there as a human man, then by all means quote the gospels for whatever that is.

By all means try to quote any such thing from Paul's letters as well.

Jesus wasn't the only person whose actions were framed as supernatural or prophesied. Ever heard of Alexander the Great?