Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Do you think Christianity just sprang up out of nowhere then?

I hope you realise that there were multiple cults of Christians of which some did not believe the Jesus stories.

The Jesus cult of Christians sprang up after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

I can't link them but what makes Roman sources not legitimate?

Jewish and Roman sources, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius writing after c 70 CE admitted that the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic ruler around the time of the Jewish War c 66-70 CE.

Up to at least c 133 CE the Jewish Messianic ruler had not yet arrived.

There was never any Jewish Messianic ruler named Jesus of Nazareth, a contemporary of Pilate, in all historical writings.

Why would the apostles who were with Jesus of Nazareth martyr themselves for someone that doesn't exist?

Why would the apostles martyr themselves for an entity that was born of a Ghost?

Would you?

It should be evident that the stories of Jesus are not historical accounts.

Jesus of Nazareth had no apostles, no family and no history.

The Jesus cult of Christians was initiated by belief - never history.

 

[Brainache]

I hope you realise that there were multiple cults of Christians of which some did not believe the Jesus stories.

The Jesus cult of Christians sprang up after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.


Jewish and Roman sources, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius writing after c 70 CE admitted that the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic ruler around the time of the Jewish War c 66-70 CE.

Up to at least c 133 CE the Jewish Messianic ruler had not yet arrived.

There was never any Jewish Messianic ruler named Jesus of Nazareth, a contemporary of Pilate, in all historical writings.



Why would the apostles martyr themselves for an entity that was born of a Ghost?

Would you?

It should be evident that the stories of Jesus are not historical accounts.

Jesus of Nazareth had no apostles, no family and no history.

The Jesus cult of Christians was initiated by belief - never history.

Would you please give it a rest?

There is absolutely no evidence for your idea. Religions don't work like that, people don't work like that. There is no reason to suppose that it was all faked in the second century, it's a ridiculous idea.

You aren't going to convince anyone, so it might be best if you move on to something else. Try something sane next time.

 

[dejudge]

Would you please give it a rest?

There is absolutely no evidence for your idea. Religions don't work like that, people don't work like that. There is no reason to suppose that it was all faked in the second century, it's a ridiculous idea.

You aren't going to convince anyone, so it might be best if you move on to something else. Try something sane next time.

You are wasting your time. If you understood how religions work you would not be arguing the baseless absurdity that Bible Paul was an Herodian.

Christian writers documented how the Jesus cult of Christian started.

See Aristides Apology.

People who believe that God came down from heaven and was born of a virgin were called Christians.

Aristides Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel.... ........... And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians...

Christian writers also stated that the Fall of the Jewish Temple was the sign that the Jewish Messiah had already come.

Tertullian Answer to the Jews

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader......

The evidence is clear.

After the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE stories were invented that the Jews killed their prophesied Messiah and those who believed those stories were called Christians.

 

[Brainache]

What the hell, I'm bored...

You are wasting your time. If you understood how religions work you would not be arguing the baseless absurdity that Bible Paul was an Herodian.

It actually has some historical basis, which you would know if you actually read and understood those threads.

Christian writers documented how the Jesus cult of Christian started.

See Aristides Apology.

People who believe that God came down from heaven and was born of a virgin were called Christians.

Aristides Apology

Christian writers also stated that the Fall of the Jewish Temple was the sign that the Jewish Messiah had already come.

Tertullian Answer to the Jews

The evidence is clear.

After the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE stories were invented that the Jews killed their prophesied Messiah and those who believed those stories were called Christians.

That is not how the study of ancient history works. Your insistence on repeating ancient apologists as if they had anything useful to offer on the question is bizarre and useless.

Until your arguments show the slightest hint of actual Historical insight, there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously.

Please stop wasting everybody's time.

 

[Lupus]

Some MJ folks have said so in this thread. It appears to be a premise of theirs that that's just how religion always works: it's all always false, so of course you can just make anything up at any time in any place in any culture and people will buy it and start a movement around you. They have yet to produce any evidence for it, or a single example of it, or an answer to the numerous counterexamples against it.

You didn't answer my question of how you think Christianity was created.

They were all written a bit late, a couple of them really only talk about Christians not Christ himself, and the one paragraph of one Roman book that supposedly describes Jesus himself is fake. (The author whose book that fakery got inserted into does write some other stuff that I see as evidence of a real historical Jesus, but it is noteworthy that those parts do not use that name.)

They say that Christians worshiped Christ who died on the cross from what I recall.

Short answer: they didn't.

The Bible is the only thing that claims that even a couple of them were killed, and even that isn't specific about their Christianity being the reason why, or that they ever had the choice of getting out of it by recanting. For the rest, there's nothing in the Bible or anywhere else indicating anything in particular about their deaths, and nothing non-Biblical to indicate that they ever even existed. Stories you might have heard about their deaths are simply "church tradition", which means somebody in the church came up with them later on. And really, Roman persecution of Christians was just not a thing in general anytime near the lifetimes of anybody who could have been one of Jesus's original followers.

So, you think that Acts of the Apostles is fake as well. This goes back to previous question of what your explanation is. Specifically anti-Christian persecution also isn't required for them to be killed for promoting Christianity.

 

[Lupus]

I hope you realise that there were multiple cults of Christians of which some did not believe the Jesus stories.

The Jesus cult of Christians sprang up after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Yes, but all of them accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

Jewish and Roman sources, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius writing after c 70 CE admitted that the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic ruler around the time of the Jewish War c 66-70 CE.

Up to at least c 133 CE the Jewish Messianic ruler had not yet arrived.

There was never any Jewish Messianic ruler named Jesus of Nazareth, a contemporary of Pilate, in all historical writings.

Why would the apostles martyr themselves for an entity that was born of a Ghost?

Would you?

It should be evident that the stories of Jesus are not historical accounts.

Jesus of Nazareth had no apostles, no family and no history.

The Jesus cult of Christians was initiated by belief - never history.

Those weren't the sources I was alluding to.

I heard Julius Caeser never existed as well. I know there are writings by him and a clear legacy spanning hundreds of years but he's not actually historical, just look at his heroic protagonist character in Plutarch's lives.

 

[Kapyong]

Do you think Christianity just sprang up out of nowhere then?

It sprang from the same place as the ancient Greek mysteries, or the ancient Egyptian religion of Isis and Osiris, or belief in Bacchus, or many more beliefs and faiths and religions.

Why do YOU think Christianity is special ?
Perhaps because it is YOUR faith ?

I can't link them but what makes Roman sources not legitimate?

It's not that Roman sources are illegitimate - but their CONTENTS.
Do you believe what is found the Roman book The Golden Ass ?
No ?
Because its contents are not believable.
Just like the Gospels.

Why would the apostles who were with Jesus of Nazareth martyr themselves for someone that doesn't exist?

They didn't.
The apostles are as much fiction as Jesus.
No-one ever met the alleged Jesus.
The Gospels are myths, not history.

 

[Kapyong]

Yes, but all of them accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

False.
Several early Christians believed Jesus did NOT come in the flesh at all, but was merely a PHANTASM or ILLUSION :


2 John warns of those who don't

"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".​

Tertullian on Marcion :

“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”​

Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"​

Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :

"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh"​

Bardesanes, in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ had a physical body :

"...assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual;​

Of course, the early Church did their best to erase all those alternative views - so that many modern Christians like Lupus are totally unaware of them.

 

[Brainache]

It sprang from the same place as the ancient Greek mysteries, or the ancient Egyptian religion of Isis and Osiris, or belief in Bacchus, or many more beliefs and faiths and religions.

Why do YOU think Christianity is special ?
Perhaps because it is YOUR faith ?




It's not that Roman sources are illegitimate - but their CONTENTS.
Do you believe what is found the Roman book The Golden Ass ?
No ?
Because its contents are not believable.
Just like the Gospels.




They didn't.
The apostles are as much fiction as Jesus.
No-one ever met the alleged Jesus.
The Gospels are myths, not history.

False.
Several early Christians believed Jesus did NOT come in the flesh at all, but was merely a PHANTASM or ILLUSION :


2 John warns of those who don't

"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".​

Tertullian on Marcion :

“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”​

Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"​

Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :

"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh"​

Bardesanes, in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ had a physical body :

"...assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual;​

Of course, the early Church did their best to erase all those alternative views - so that many modern Christians like Lupus are totally unaware of them.

Seriously, where did you study History?

Is this what you think it is, a bunch of unsupported "just-so" stories?

 

[dejudge]

I hope you realise that there were multiple cults of Christians of which some did not believe the Jesus stories.

The Jesus cult of Christians sprang up after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Yes, but all of them accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

Not all. You seem not to know that the existence of Jesus of Nazareth was not required to be called a Christian. Please get familiar with writings of antiquity.

....I heard Julius Caeser never existed as well. I know there are writings by him and a clear legacy spanning hundreds of years but he's not actually historical, just look at his heroic protagonist character in Plutarch's lives.

I heard people in the Roman Empire believed Romulus and Remus existed but they did not.

 

[dejudge]

That is not how the study of ancient history works. Your insistence on repeating ancient apologists as if they had anything useful to offer on the question is bizarre and useless.

Until your arguments show the slightest hint of actual Historical insight, there is no reason for anyone to take them seriously.

Please stop wasting everybody's time.

You repeat what is written in the very Christian Bible to argue that Paul was an Herodian.

You have nothing at all to contribute to this thread.

You are irrelevant.

 

[Brainache]

You repeat what is written in the very Christian Bible to argue that Paul was an Herodian.

That's where the clues are. I also use other sources, again, you would know this if you'd read and understood those threads.

You have nothing at all to contribute to this thread.

You are irrelevant.

Says the person who has been posting the same idiotic bizarre nonsense for years.

This is useless.

Good luck to anyone trying to educate this one.

 

[dejudge]

That's where the clues are. I also use other sources, again, you would know this if you'd read and understood those threads.

What contradictory nonsense. You just accused me of using ancient apologetic sources and now admit you use the Christian Bible for your clues.

Says the person who has been posting the same idiotic bizarre nonsense for years.

This is useless.

Good luck to anyone trying to educate this one.

Just as I expected. You have nothing to contribute. Have a nice day.

 

[Lupus]

False.
Several early Christians believed Jesus did NOT come in the flesh at all, but was merely a PHANTASM or ILLUSION :

Whether some sect thought he was a purely supernatural being or not doesn't make a difference though because even if that were true which it isn't, it doesn't change that he appeared to be a physical person. Also that doesn't equate to them thinking that Jesus wasn't real but just that God was making himself appear as a human.
I wasn't unaware of them, you were unaware that counter-arguments could exist.

It sprang from the same place as the ancient Greek mysteries, or the ancient Egyptian religion of Isis and Osiris, or belief in Bacchus, or many more beliefs and faiths and religions.

Why do YOU think Christianity is special ?
Perhaps because it is YOUR faith ?

For starters Christianity has an actual ethics and morality system. There aren't mythical explanation for the causes of natural phenomena(Zeus) that make those other religions objectively ridiculous. You also don't sacrifice animals in Christianity. There's also a central book and two centuries worth of thinkers for breadth.

 

[RedStapler]

For starters Christianity has an actual ethics and morality system. There aren't mythical explanation for the causes of natural phenomena(Zeus) that make those other religions objectively ridiculous. You also don't sacrifice animals in Christianity. There's also a central book and two centuries worth of thinkers for breadth.

None of these make Christianity special in any way. It's just another fairytale.

 

[Tassman]

Whether some sect thought he was a purely supernatural being or not doesn't make a difference though because even if that were true which it isn't, it doesn't change that he appeared to be a physical person. Also that doesn't equate to them thinking that Jesus wasn't real but just that God was making himself appear as a human.
I wasn't unaware of them, you were unaware that counter-arguments could exist.

The majority of H/j’s in this thread are arguing just this. Namely that the MAN Jesus existed and that the mystical/miraculous stuff accrued around him after his death by his followers embellishing the story - which kept growing in the telling.

For starters Christianity has an actual ethics and morality system.

ALL societies throughout history have had ethics and morality systems.

There aren't mythical explanation for the causes of natural phenomena(Zeus) that make those other religions objectively ridiculous.

You don’t get more “mythical” or “objectively ridiculous” than the Genesis creation narratives.

You also don't sacrifice animals in Christianity.

All self-respecting deities demand a sacrifice. In this case Jesus made a blood sacrifice of himself, the Son – to himself, the Father. Prior to this the Hebrew deity, i.e. Jesus’ father, demanded lots of sacrifices on a regular basis. Just browse through the early books of Leviticus and check it out.

There's also a central book and two centuries worth of thinkers for breadth.

Actually, it took several centuries to determine exactly would be included in this “central book”, e.g. ‘Revelation’ barely scraped in. And certainly, there were several centuries of “thinkers” trying to make sense of Jesus as divine in a monotheistic religion that already had its god. The nonsensical doctrine of the Holy Trinity (i.e. three persons in one god) and the ludicrous Hypostatic Union (i.e. Jesus simultaneously fully god and fully man) were the embarrassing outcomes.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Actually, it took several centuries to determine exactly would be included in this “central book”, e.g. ‘Revelation’ barely scraped in. And certainly, there were several centuries of “thinkers” trying to make sense of Jesus as divine in a monotheistic religion that already had its god. The nonsensical doctrine of the Holy Trinity (i.e. three persons in one god) and the ludicrous Hypostatic Union (i.e. Jesus simultaneously fully god and fully man) were the embarrassing outcomes.

More like 20 centuries and counting- it has still not been settled today - most "protestant" versions of Christianity use a different Bible to the RCC and its sister churches. The RCC has an additional 7 holy books - Baruch, Judith (1&2), Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit and Wisdom in its bible.

 

[Delvo]

You didn't answer my question of how you think Christianity was created.

That wasn't what you asked, but OK: a preacher who seems to have given the Romans the idea that he was mixing his Jewish theology with rebelliousness against Rome built up a following of a few thousand people, which got attacked by the Romans. The Romans recorded that he escaped, but the other survivors then faced the dilemma that they had lost, which was something a messiah wasn't supposed to do, but they couldn't accept the idea that they might have been wrong about all that, so they figured out that it must have all really been a secret win. Later, there was also another guy who emerged in Jerusalem preaching a much more depressed & depressing theology in which there was no winning and the Romans were about to ruin everything, and parts of his story got combined with his predecessor's as if he was the same guy, which he even could have actually been, with some psychological changes resulting from his earlier experiences.

For starters Christianity has an actual ethics and morality system.

A terrible one which, fortunately, modern Christians really don't want followed. What they do want followed instead is a separate one that they're getting from somewhere else and merely claiming was invented by Christianity no matter how much the two clearly contradict each other.

There aren't mythical explanation for the causes of natural phenomena(Zeus) that make those other religions objectively ridiculous.

Of course there are, to a far greater extent than any other I'm familiar with. Christianity claims to have the explanations for everything, not just bits & pieces.

You also don't sacrifice animals in Christianity.

That's far from unique.

There's also a central book and two centuries worth of thinkers for breadth.

Millennia, but it doesn't matter, since others have that too, and sometimes even more/bigger books and even longer history... and also because the whole subject is irrelevant because how good or bad or right or wrong an idea is has no correlation with how long it's been around, when it was written, how much was written about it, or how many people have talked/written about it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

 

[dejudge]

Whether some sect thought he was a purely supernatural being or not doesn't make a difference though because even if that were true which it isn't, it doesn't change that he appeared to be a physical person. Also that doesn't equate to them thinking that Jesus wasn't real but just that God was making himself appear as a human.
I wasn't unaware of them, you were unaware that counter-arguments could exist.

Your argument is void of logic. You must have forgotten that Jesus of Nazareth and the Devil were conversing with each other at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

There is no historical evidence that anyone saw Jesus of Nazareth at any time anywhere in any century.

Jesus of Nazareth, God, the Holy Ghost, the Devil and the angel Gabriel, were always figures of belief -never ever history.

For starters Christianity has an actual ethics and morality system. There aren't mythical explanation for the causes of natural phenomena(Zeus) that make those other religions objectively ridiculous. You also don't sacrifice animals in Christianity. There's also a central book and two centuries worth of thinkers for breadth.

The Jesus cult Christian religion is just as ridiculous as any other religion.


In the Christian Bible it is claimed their Jesus was born of a Ghost and a virgin without a human father and was also the Creator but was crucified.

What absolute ridiculous nonsense!!!

God Creator, the son of a Ghost, was crucified by human beings!!

This is perhaps the most absurd religion known to mankind!!!