Historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

@Jerrymander
REALLY? Writing some 80 years after the alleged events, and across the Mediterranean, he'd find eye witnesses? When the average life expectancy at the time, outside the very rich, was like 50 years? I.e., when anyone old enough to be a witness (like, say, at least 10 years old) to the crucifixion, would be dead decades ago? Did Tacitus use necromancy to interview them, or WTH?

Plus, where does he or anyone else actually cite those witnesses?

Frankly, all you manage to demostrate there is the kind of dumb nonsense people make up when they really really want to believe BS.

 

[dejudge]

And it is also documented that Josephus did not use two appellations on two different sentences for the same person. Nor would he bother repeating a appellation if he already introduced them. If the "James" he was talking about was the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, he would have called him "James son of Damneus" and would later have stated that "and made James' brother Jesus high priest". Or maybe said "brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah whose name was James," and later "and made Jesus high priest" since he already introduced him.


Jesus called the Messiah ≠ Jesus son of Damneus.

What you say does not make any sense.

Josephus in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 stated that the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic ruler c 66 CE-70 CE during the War with the Romans.

Jesus called Christ [anointed] the brother of James is documented as a High Priest c 63-64 CE.

You don't even know the word Christ is derived from the Greek word meaning anointed.

Jews called their High Priests and Kings the Christ [the anointed].

The word Christ [anointed] is found multiple times in the Septuagint in reference to the Kings of the Jews like David.

Eusebius' Church History 1.3.7.

And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed...

Multiple Christian writers admitted their Jesus had no brother called James.
Multiple non-apologetic sources admitted no well know writer mentioned Jesus.
The Jews would not have called a man who was already dead a Messianic ruler.
The Jews do not look in graveyards for their Messiah.

Your HJ the post-humous Messiah is a product of fiction.

Please, you have no credible historical evidence at all to support your bizarre scarcely known HJ who supposedly became a Messianic ruler of the Jews decades after he was dead.

 

[Delvo]

Even without the chronological issue, a non-Christian explaining what Christianity is can only possibly be reporting what somebody else told him/her.

 

[Jerrymander]

What you say does not make any sense.

Josephus in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 stated that the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic ruler c 66 CE-70 CE during the War with the Romans.

And Josephus says Jesus was CALLED Messiah/Christ not that he was one, so there is no contradiction.

And Jesus Damneus was a different Jesus, as Josephus makes clear with the different appellation. You expect us to believe that this Jesus was called Christ before he was even made priest? That's as stupid as saying Lincoln was called President and then a few sentences later writing at the 1960 election!

 

[Jerrymander]

@Jerrymander
REALLY? Writing some 80 years after the alleged events, and across the Mediterranean, he'd find eye witnesses? When the average life expectancy at the time, outside the very rich, was like 50 years? I.e., when anyone old enough to be a witness (like, say, at least 10 years old) to the crucifixion, would be dead decades ago? Did Tacitus use necromancy to interview them, or WTH?

Plus, where does he or anyone else actually cite those witnesses?

Frankly, all you manage to demostrate there is the kind of dumb nonsense people make up when they really really want to believe BS.

Sigh. You know he met with exiled aristocratic Jews in Rome who would have known the history of the region?

 

[HansMustermann]

Which? NAMES? I mean this stupidity has moved even past the level of believing someone must have studied records because he says so himself (e.g., Luke), to the point of just flat out INVENTING some witnesses just because he didn't say he didn't.

 

[IanS]

And it is also documented that Josephus did not use two appellations on two different sentences for the same person. Nor would he bother repeating a appellation if he already introduced them. If the "James" he was talking about was the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, he would have called him "James son of Damneus" and would later have stated that "and made James' brother Jesus high priest". Or maybe said "brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah whose name was James," and later "and made Jesus high priest" since he already introduced him.


Jesus called the Messiah ≠ Jesus son of Damneus.

You are claiming to know very precisely what Jospehus would have written if various hypothetical situations were the case. But everyone here with even an ounce of sense must realise that you can have absolutely no idea what "Josephus" would, or would not, have written or said.

You need to stick to actual evidence, not your own (Christian?) preferred guesswork.

And the actual evidence in the HJ case is that in 12 years or more of these HJ threads, across many tens of thousands of posts from HJ believers, not a single micron of genuine credible evidence has ever been produced to show that Jesus was, or even “probably” was, a real ordinary human person preaching in 1st century Judea.

There is a vast mountain of evidence to the contrary of course. And really (as I said earlier), the gospels and letters are in actual fact massive evidence against any human Jesus ever being known to anyone. But evidence for a HJ? … none, zero.

 

[dejudge]

And Josephus says Jesus was CALLED Messiah/Christ not that he was one, so there is no contradiction.

And Jesus Damneus was a different Jesus, as Josephus makes clear with the different appellation. You expect us to believe that this Jesus was called Christ before he was even made priest? That's as stupid as saying Lincoln was called President and then a few sentences later writing at the 1960 election!

Well, based on your statement it would be stupid for Josephus or Jews to call your scarcely known character the Christ if he wasn't one and after he was dead.

The Jews don't call dead people Messianic rulers posthumously .

One must be living to stand a chance of being a Jewish Messianic ruler.

Jesus the brother of James, the High Priest, must have been living c 63-64 CE to be called the Christ.

 

[dejudge]

Sigh. You know he met with exiled aristocratic Jews in Rome who would have known the history of the region?

You mean the authors of the Gospels??

According to Hierocles, the stories of Jesus were written by men who were liars.

What Hierocles said turned out to be true. The Jesus stories are indeed a pack of lies from conception to ascension.

 

[Agatha]

Will you all please refrain from calling your interlocutors epithets such as "liar" or "dishonest". Address arguments rather than attack arguers.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Jerrymander]

Well, based on your statement it would be stupid for Josephus or Jews to call your scarcely known character the Christ if he wasn't one and after he was dead.

The Jews don't call dead people Messianic rulers posthumously .

One must be living to stand a chance of being a Jewish Messianic ruler

Sign. Jesus was called the Messiah by Christians. That's who Josephus was referring to when he says "Jesus who was called the Messiah".

 

[Jerrymander]

You are claiming to know very precisely what Jospehus would have written if various hypothetical situations were the case. But everyone here with even an ounce of sense must realise that you can have absolutely no idea what "Josephus" would, or would not, have written or said.

You need to stick to actual evidence, not your own (Christian?) preferred guesswork.

And the actual evidence in the HJ case is that in 12 years or more of these HJ threads, across many tens of thousands of posts from HJ believers, not a single micron of genuine credible evidence has ever been produced to show that Jesus was, or even “probably” was, a real ordinary human person preaching in 1st century Judea.

There is a vast mountain of evidence to the contrary of course. And really (as I said earlier), the gospels and letters are in actual fact massive evidence against any human Jesus ever being known to anyone. But evidence for a HJ? … none, zero.

I'm just stating what mainstream scholarship says. While all you have is New Atheist polemics.

And why is it okay for you to speculate why Paul's mention of James doesn't actually refer to the brother of Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

Sign. Jesus was called the Messiah by Christians. That's who Josephus was referring to when he says "Jesus who was called the Messiah".

The writings of Josephus do not mention or refer to any people called Christians except in the forgery of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

 

[IanS]

I'm just stating what mainstream scholarship says. While all you have is New Atheist polemics.

And why is it okay for you to speculate why Paul's mention of James doesn't actually refer to the brother of Jesus?

The mainstream "scholarship" that you are talking about are almost all faithful practicing Christians. And even the very few who seem to have lost their faith, such Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos, say themselves that when they entered the profession of teaching bible studies they were extremely committed street evangelists with such strong religious beliefs that it was for that reason they entered that bible studies profession in the first place ...

... that's a million miles from being a group of impartial unbiased observers when it comes to a subject at the very heart of a religious faith that is so vitally important to them.

As far as speculation is concerned - it's fine to speculate or guess about things, but you have to back that up with a sound argument. In the case of Josephus he would not himself have any knowledge about Jesus, and where he got any stories about James from is total speculation which cannot really be supported by merely asserting that he may have known various exiled members of Jewish aristocracy who might have known a story about a man named James … even if that sort of speculation was true, it would still be very far from a fact or even likely that the speculated aristocrats would have any of their own knowledge of anyone called James … at best, even if that chain of speculation did happen, it would still be more likely that those people were just repeating whatever Christians on the streets were saying from what they had all been taught as preaching from the biblical.

And all that is apart from the fact that as a source Josephus is far far too late when the earliest extant copies apparently date from the 11th century … that's a complete non-starter to claim something as late as that as reliable evidence for things that almost certainly none of them would ever have known themselves.

 

[Brainache]

The mainstream "scholarship" that you are talking about are almost all faithful practicing Christians. And even the very few who seem to have lost their faith, such Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos, say themselves that when they entered the profession of teaching bible studies they were extremely committed street evangelists with such strong religious beliefs that it was for that reason they entered that bible studies profession in the first place ...

... that's a million miles from being a group of impartial unbiased observers when it comes to a subject at the very heart of a religious faith that is so vitally important to them.

You keep saying this, but some evidence that all, or most, Scholars of the Ancient Near East are practising Christians might be nice. What about the Jewish ones?

As far as speculation is concerned - it's fine to speculate or guess about things, but you have to back that up with a sound argument. In the case of Josephus he would not himself have any knowledge about Jesus, and where he got any stories about James from is total speculation which cannot really be supported by merely asserting that he may have known various exiled members of Jewish aristocracy who might have known a story about a man named James … even if that sort of speculation was true, it would still be very far from a fact or even likely that the speculated aristocrats would have any of their own knowledge of anyone called James … at best, even if that chain of speculation did happen, it would still be more likely that those people were just repeating whatever Christians on the streets were saying from what they had all been taught as preaching from the biblical.

Josephus was living in Jerusalem at the same time as James was there. He would have been a first-hand witness for many of the things he describes.

And all that is apart from the fact that as a source Josephus is far far too late when the earliest extant copies apparently date from the 11th century … that's a complete non-starter to claim something as late as that as reliable evidence for things that almost certainly none of them would ever have known themselves.

That is true for all ancient texts except for the occasional archeological find like the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. So I'm not sure why you think this matters, do you think people studying the text are unaware of this?

 

[dejudge]

I'm just stating what mainstream scholarship says. While all you have is New Atheist polemics.

The scarcely known HJ is a recent and sudden invention unknown to early Christian writers.

 

[dejudge]

Josephus was living in Jerusalem at the same time as James was there. He would have been a first-hand witness for many of the things he describes.

Jesus called Christ, the High Priest, the brother of James, was alive c 63-64 CE.

It is virtually impossible to show that Jesus called Christ was Jesus of Nazareth since there is no other reference to Jesus called Christ anywhere else in the writings of Josephus except the forgery in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 was forged because there was no reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus.

The Jews had no Messianic ruler, High Priest, or King named Jesus of Nazareth in the history of the Jews.

In Christian writings James the apostle, the so-called brother of the Lord, was alive long after the character called James was stoned in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

 

[Jerrymander]

Jesus called Christ, the High Priest, the brother of James, was alive c 63-64 CE.

In one ear, out the other. Jesus son of Damneus and Jesus called Christ are not the same person, you matter how many times you parrot that line.

 

[Jerrymander]

The mainstream "scholarship" that you are talking about are almost all faithful practicing Christians. And even the very few who seem to have lost their faith, such Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos, say themselves that when they entered the profession of teaching bible studies they were extremely committed street evangelists with such strong religious beliefs that it was for that reason they entered that bible studies profession in the first place ...

So what? Now they are not believers. Now you think only atheists who were never Christians are reliable? You guys are just making up the rules as you go along.

 

[GDon]

So what? Now they are not believers. Now you think only atheists who were never Christians are reliable? You guys are just making up the rules as you go along.

And it's also good for mythicists on this board to keep in mind that mythicists like Dr Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty have no problems with the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed conclusions by modern scholars, including Christian ones. Mythicists generally agree on dates, provenance and authorship of early texts. Disagreements exist around a few key passages.

That's not like the divide between Creationists and modern biological sciences, where Creationists disagreement with fundamental aspects of evolution. Carrier and Doherty tend to have no problems with the vast bulk of Biblical academic scholarship, including those by Christian scholars within academia.