Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Again, the Christian Canon is not an historical source regardless of when it was written.

It does not have to be an historically accurate source for it to be the basis of the Jesus sect. And it existed two centuries before Constantine adopted Xianity, which is when you erroneously claim that Constantine began it.

What you say does not make sense. Once the Christian Canon is not historically credible then it cannot be used to determine the history of the Christian cult.

It is simply fiction that there was a son of a Ghost born of a Virgin without a human father who had 12 disciples in the time of Pilate.

Certainly, it is full of gross embellishments. The Hebrew scriptures are similarly filled with fanciful mythology - your point?

The Christian Canon is also fancilful mythology and derived from sources of mythology.

The New Testament however does mention Jews who were adherents of Jesus – including a Pharisee, Paul.

The New Testament also mention that Jesus of Nazareth was conversing with the Devil at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and an angel Gabriel was talking to Mary about she would have a child for a Ghost.

The Epistles also mention that Jesus was God Creator, the firstborn of the dead.

In the New Testament Saul/Paul conversion is total fiction.

Paul is a fabricated convert.

No such convert ever existed

The New Testament is indeed fanciful mythology and fiction.

Early Christianity inevitably absorbed many of the shared religious, cultural, and intellectual traditions of the Greco-Roman world but it did not start with the intention of starting a new pagan religion. It began with a peripatetic preacher who was executed and ultimately surrounded by fanciful stories and deified.

You story is made up. It was derived from fanciful mythology.

Philo, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger did not mention any Jewish peripatetic preacher called Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his disciples, apostles or Saul/Paul.

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...

Jesus is pure mythology -born of a holy ghost.

 

[Jerrymander]

You are also criticising scientists, and/or people here taking a more scientific approach, but unless you have been living under a rock all of your life, you must surely know by now that in educated nations science is the way that we/society determine what is likely to be true vs what is less likely to be true.

And you are talking about historians and the difficulty of determining anything with much confidence from ancient damaged incomplete documents etc. But the so-called experts that people here are citing, and citing them via the well known fallacy of “appeal to authority”, are not “historians” ... they are not employed as “historians” ... they are biblical studies teachers, and that is their job title in their employment. This is a field of study which is absolutely drowning in Christian religious belief … and that is not even remotely a neutral unbiased position from the very start.

Frankly, in this field of biblical studies, it would be a big improvement if those "scholars" did take a far more objective scientific approach to what they regard as reliable evidence ... it would improve the field greatly if they, and their pro-HJ claimants on the internet who constantly make that empty appeal to bible-studies authority, did have a proper scientific education.

I have to bring back this. Historians are different from scientists in that they can't do experiments to prove that a historical event happened. That can't go back in time and observe an event happening. They can only work with what is left behind.

 

[dejudge]

I have to bring back this. Historians are different from scientists in that they can't do experiments to prove that a historical event happened. That can't go back in time and observe an event happening. They can only work with what is left behind.

Historians do employ the assistance of scientists or scientific data to help them in re-constructing the past.

For example, the results of scientific carbon dating are used to date ancient writings.

Science is extremely helpful to historians.

Scientific findings about the universe played a very significant role in rejecting the Christian Bible as an historical source.

 

[Tassman]

What you say does not make sense. Once the Christian Canon is not historically credible then it cannot be used to determine the history of the Christian cult.

The Xtian Canon does not have to be “historically credible” to actually exist. And we DO know that it existed and predated Constantine by a couple of centuries. This puts the lie your claim that Constantine created the Xtian religion out of whole-cloth. He merely legitimized the existing Xtian Church and hierarchy.

The Christian Canon is also fancilful mythology and derived from sources of mythology.

Indeed. So is the Hebrew Cannon – deriving a lot of its mythology, legends and “history” via Mesopotamian influences. This doesn’t alter the fact that the Hebrew scriptures exist in their own right - as does the New Testament.

 

[dejudge]

The Xtian Canon does not have to be “historically credible” to actually exist. And we DO know that it existed and predated Constantine by a couple of centuries. This puts the lie your claim that Constantine created the Xtian religion out of whole-cloth. He merely legitimized the existing Xtian Church and hierarchy.

The existence of a non-historical Christian Canon does not mean that Jesus and a Jesus cult existed in the time of Pilate.

In addition, I never ever ever stated anywhere that Constantine created the Christian religion.

There is no historical source which mention any Jew who was a Jesus cult Christian up to at least the 4th century.

Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Lucian, Celsus, Philostratus, Hierocles, Porphyry and Julian did not identify any Jew who was a Jesus cult Christian in their existing writings.

Indeed. So is the Hebrew Cannon – deriving a lot of its mythology, legends and “history” via Mesopotamian influences. This doesn’t alter the fact that the Hebrew scriptures exist in their own right - as does the New Testament.

The existence of a Christian Canon does not mean the deities in them really existed. The God of the Jews is a myth character and so also is his transfiguring son Jesus born of a Ghost without a human father.

 

[Jerrymander]

Historians do employ the assistance of scientists or scientific data to help them in re-constructing the past.

For example, the results of scientific carbon dating are used to date ancient writings.

Science is extremely helpful to historians.

Doesn't disprove my point at all.

 

[dejudge]

I have to bring back this. Historians are different from scientists in that they can't do experiments to prove that a historical event happened. That can't go back in time and observe an event happening. They can only work with what is left behind.

Historians do employ the assistance of scientists or scientific data to help them in re-constructing the past.

For example, the results of scientific carbon dating are used to date ancient writings.

Science is extremely helpful to historians.

Doesn't disprove my point at all.

You never had any point in the first place.

Historians don't simply work with what is left behind - For hundreds of years Scientists and historians have been working together to re-create the past.

For example, Pliny the younger wrote about the eruption of Mount Vesuvius c 79 CE which event has been corroborated through Science.

 

[Jerrymander]

You never had any point in the first place.

Historians don't simply work with what is left behind - For hundreds of years Scientists and historians have been working together to re-create the past.

For example, Pliny the younger wrote about the eruption of Mount Vesuvius c 79 CE which event has been corroborated through Science.

You're just giving examples of history and science interacting. Can you show scientifically that Caligula made this horse a senator?

 

[dejudge]

You're just giving examples of history and science interacting. Can you show scientifically that Caligula made this horse a senator?

Which horse are you talking about?

 

[whatsthedreamnow]

You're just giving examples of history and science interacting. Can you show scientifically that Caligula made this horse a senator?

He's got you there. not your best point dejudge.

 

[dejudge]

He's got you there. not your best point dejudge.

Jerrymander cannot get me.

 

[Brainache]

Jerrymander cannot get me.

Refusing to admit that you are wrong is not the same as being right.

 

[Elagabalus]

You never had any point in the first place.

Historians don't simply work with what is left behind - For hundreds of years Scientists and historians have been working together to re-create the past.

For example, Pliny the younger wrote about the eruption of Mount Vesuvius c 79 CE which event has been corroborated through Science.

Do you know what else he wrote about? Torturing Christians!! Gotcha!!!

 

[dejudge]

Do you know what else he wrote about? Torturing Christians!! Gotcha!!!

Please, you seem to have no idea that people called Christians did not have to be believers of the Jesus stories.

There were multiple cults of Christians in antiquity

Followers of Simon Magus, Menader, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcus, Justinus, Marcion, and Carpocrates were called Christians.

In antiquity a Christian cult did not require an historical Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Please, you seem to have no idea that people called Christians did not have to be believers of the Jesus stories.

There were multiple cults of Christians in antiquity

Followers of Simon Magus, Menader, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcus, Justinus, Marcion, and Carpocrates were called Christians.

In antiquity a Christian cult did not require an historical Jesus.

How do you know those people weren't preaching about Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

How do you know those people weren't preaching about Jesus?

What a ridiculous question!!

Please read "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus, Prescription Against the Herestics attributed to Tertullian, First Apology attributed to Justin Martyr, and Against Marcion attributed to Ephraem.

 

[Brainache]

What a ridiculous question!!

Please read "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus, Prescription Against the Herestics attributed to Tertullian, First Apology attributed to Justin Martyr, and Against Marcion attributed to Ephraem.

So, if they were heretical, they must have been talking about Jesus. It's just that they were saying things about him that other people didn't like, otherwise it wouldn't have been heretical.

 

[dejudge]

So, if they were heretical, they must have been talking about Jesus. It's just that they were saying things about him that other people didn't like, otherwise it wouldn't have been heretical.

Your statement now is far more absurd than previously thought.

You must first read the writings of antiquity before you make such hopelessly ridiculous arguments.

You seem to have no idea that the followers of Simon Magus were called Christians and worshiped him [Simon] as a God.

Justin's First Apology"XXVI

There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god...............All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians

 

[Brainache]

Your statement now is far more absurd than previously thought.

You must first read the writings of antiquity before you make such hopelessly ridiculous arguments.

You seem to have no idea that the followers of Simon Magus were called Christians and worshiped him [Simon] as a God.

Justin's First Apology"XXVI

That doesn't prove that Simon Magus wasn't also teaching about Jesus. He just claimed to be a god, just like Jesus...

Again, if it had nothing at all to do with Christ, it would have been a different religion, not heresy.

Do you know what "heresy" means?

 

[dejudge]

That doesn't prove that Simon Magus wasn't also teaching about Jesus. He just claimed to be a god, just like Jesus...

Again, if it had nothing at all to do with Christ, it would have been a different religion, not heresy.

Do you know what "heresy" means?

Your statements are getting worse with every post.

You seem to have no idea what "heresy" means and no idea it is written that Simon Magus the heretic called himself a God and was worshiped as a God by his followers who were called Christians.