Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Again - and this is the last time I'll waste energy telling you this - there is little in Tacitus to use as a proof that Jesus was anything special, unlike the TF, which claims he was the Messiah.

What did you say?? You are the very one whose argument for HJ relies on Tacitus Annals with Christus! Tacitus' Annals does not even mention the name Jesus yet you rely on it.

I'm inclined to believe there was a historic person, an apocalyptic rabbi and messianic pretender named Jesus, about whom we have only two non-Christian references, both of which are passing allusions. These are the material on the execution of James by Josephus in the Antiquites and the mention of Christ by Tacitus in the Annals. We've brought up a number of reasons in this thread why the first is somewhat suspect.

You reject the TF.

You think Tacitus' Annals with Christus is bettter evidence than the TF for the HJ argument

If Tacitus' Annals with Christus is good for you why was it not good enough for Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Sulpitius Severus.

The answer is exceedingly simple---Tacitus' Annals was interpolated perhaps as late as 850 CE.

No Christian writer who mentioned the writings of Tacitus up to the end of the 4th century claimed Tacitus mentioned a character called Christus.

That is exactly what I expected.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a very very late forgery.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) . . . Let us deal with the evidence. . . . (snip) . . .

Fine. Why don't you deal with this evidence: Somehow, the Christian religion latched onto Jewish prophecy and Jewish apocalypticism. If Christianity was begun in Egypt in the second century by people who had nothing to do with Jewish religious belief, how and why did the practitioners of this cult go out of their way to identify their Christos with Jesus? Why did the gospel writers see having him fulfill Jewish messianic prophecies as being so important?

I have repeatedly asked you these questions. You have yet to answer.

 

[TimCallahan]

What did you say?? You are the very one whose argument for HJ relies on Tacitus Annals with Christus! Tacitus' Annals does not even mention the name Jesus yet you rely on it.




You reject the TF.

You think Tacitus' Annals with Christus is bettter evidence than the TF for the HJ argument

If Tacitus' Annals with Christus is good for you why was it not good enough for Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Sulpitius Severus.

The answer is exceedingly simple---Tacitus' Annals was interpolated perhaps as late as 850 CE.

No Christian writer who mentioned the writings of Tacitus up to the end of the 4th century claimed Tacitus mentioned a character called Christus.

That is exactly what I expected.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a very very late forgery.

Once again, the TF says that Jesus worked miracles, was the Christ, rose from the dead, etc. Naturally, Christian writers would use the TF as a support for their position. Tacitus calls the Christians (or Chrestians) "hateful to the human race" (odio humani generis). All he says of Christ is that Pontius Plate put him to death. He refers to Christianity as a "dangerous superstition." And you're wondering why Christian writers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Sulpitius Severus didn't use Tacitus as a source for proclaiming Jesus, but did use the TF. Am I missing anything?

 

[dejudge]

Fine. Why don't you deal with this evidence: Somehow, the Christian religion latched onto Jewish prophecy and Jewish apocalypticism. If Christianity was begun in Egypt in the second century by people who had nothing to do with Jewish religious belief, how and why did the practitioners of this cult go out of their way to identify their Christos with Jesus? Why did the gospel writers see having him fulfill Jewish messianic prophecies as being so important?

I have repeatedly asked you these questions. You have yet to answer.

I have repeatedly answered you.

Here is the answer again.

Non Jews used the Septuagint to promote the propaganda that the Jews killed the Son of God and that was the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

See the writings of Aristides, Justin, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

Non-Jews used the Septuagint to show that the Jews were Evil.

In gJohn, Jesus is depicted as God Creator and this God claimed the Father of the Jews was the Devil, a Murderer and a Liar.

The Jesus story is a product of Non-Jews.

 

[TimCallahan]

I have repeatedly answered you.

Here is the answer again.

Non Jews used the Septuagint to promote the propaganda that the Jews killed the Son of God and that was the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Non-Jews used the Septuagint to show that the Jews were Evil.

In gJohn, Jesus is depicted as God Creator and this God claimed the Father of the Jews was the Devil, a Murderer and a Liar.

The Jesus story is a product of Non-Jews.

Nonsense. Why would a totally non-Jewish sect even care about the Septuagint or the Jews in any way? Also, your explanation does not explain the Christian religion adopting the Jewish scriptures as an Old Testament. Further, there would be no reason and no need for a totally non-Jewsish sect to situate their Christos in Judea and have the Jews kill him.

You constantly mention John as being particularly antagonistic to the Jews. Mark is much less so. Mark is demonstrably the earliest, while John is the latest of the four canonical gospels. If the cult began as completely non-Jewish and antagonistic toward the Jews, we wouldn't expect an increasingly
antagonistic stance in the later gospels.

Finally, there would be no reason for a non-Jewish cult to adopt Jewish apocalyptic belief. Yet, the Christian religious texts are full of apocalypticism. How do you explain that?

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge:
The entire reason for choosing Judaism to create a new religion from over Zoroastrianism was that "they" needed to blame the Jews for the destruction of Judea?

 

[The Norseman]

Neither are arguments like these:



Why expect a higher standard from one side than the other?

The reasoning on display is childish.

In this instance I'm ultimately not talking about sides. Moderators must be held to a higher standard; they are official representatives of JREF after all.

 

[JaysonR]

Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed, ...?

Nope.

 

[TimCallahan]

Dejudge:
The entire reason for choosing Judaism to create a new religion from over Zoroastrianism was that "they" needed to blame the Jews for the destruction of Judea?

Here's something else that doesn't fit dejudge's scheme, the existence of the Ebionites (from the site, bolding added):

Little information exists on the Ebionites, and the surviving accounts are subject to considerable debate, since they are uniformly derived from the Ebionites’ opponents. The first mention of the sect is in the works of the Christian theologian St. Irenaeus, notably in his Adversus haereses (Against Heresies; c. 180); other sources include the writings of Origen and St. Epiphanius of Constantia. The Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (ad 70). Its members evidently left Palestine to avoid persecution and settled in Transjordan (notably at Pella) and Syria and were later known to be in Asia Minor and Egypt. The sect seems to have existed into the 4th century.

Here's what Irenaeus says of them(from the site):

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

So, how is it that at ca. 180 there existed a sect of Christians in Judea who followed the Gospel of Matthew and practiced Jewish law if the entire thrust of the new Christian cult was totally Gentile in origin and totall antagonistic toward the Jews?

 

[maximara]

I am sorry if I misattributed a position to you.

If by "the biblical Jesus of Nazareth could not have existed as a real human" dejudge means that Jesus didn't walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, or feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish, I'll agree with him. There's plenty of patent nonsense in the New Testament.

However, I think it is entirely plausible, in fact likely, that an itinerant Jewish preacher named Jesus existed, and that this preacher got himself crucified for sedition. He wouldn't have been the first, or the last for that matter. What separated him from the others was his loyal little band of followers who took it on themselves to preach in his name.

You have to remember that the Christ Myth has a ridiculous range:

* Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community.

* Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58)(Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

* Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE. (Mead, G. R. S. [http://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch8 ''The Talmum 100 Years B.C. Story of Jesus"], "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?", 1903.)(Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) ''The Historical Jesus: Five Views''. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65)

* The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism. (Grant, Michael. ''Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels''. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199)

* The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.(Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

* Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.(Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

* The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this.(Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review) Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier (Carrier, Richard (2006) Did Jesus Even Exist? Stanford University presentation May 30, 2006) and Eddy-Boyd.(Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24)

* Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."(Robertson, Archibald (1946) ''Jesus: Myth Or History'') A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify.

* "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."(''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J'' 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley) There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

* Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."(Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40)

As you can see only the first one throws the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[dejudge]

Nonsense. Why would a totally non-Jewish sect even care about the Septuagint or the Jews in any way? Also, your explanation does not explain the Christian religion adopting the Jewish scriptures as an Old Testament. Further, there would be no reason and no need for a totally non-Jewsish sect to situate their Christos in Judea and have the Jews kill him.

Again, please identify a single Jew that was a member of a Jesus cult ouside the Bible who claimed Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and son of God since the time of Pilate. You keep spouting the same nonsense but never, ever, ever named a single Jewish writer who accepted the story of Jesus as the Christ.

You constantly mention John as being particularly antagonistic to the Jews. Mark is much less so. Mark is demonstrably the earliest, while John is the latest of the four canonical gospels. If the cult began as completely non-Jewish and antagonistic toward the Jews, we wouldn't expect an increasingly
antagonistic stance in the later gospels.

Again, you either have not read gMark or do not understand it.

In gMark 4, Jesus boasted secretly to his disciples that he deliberately spoke in parables so that the Jewish populace would not uderstand him and would not be converted but remain in sin.

In gMark 6, Jesus is rejected in his hometown Nazareth.

In gMark 8, Jesus taught his disciples that the Jews would deliver him up to be killed.

In gMark 9, Jesus taught his disciples that the Jews would deliver him up to be killed.


In gMark 10, Jesus taught his disciples that the Jews would deliver him up to be killed.

In gMark 14, the Jews are plotting to have Jesus arrested and killed.

In gMark 14, Judas agrees to betray Jesus.

In gMark 14, the Jews brought false witnesses against Jesus.

In gMark 14, Jesus is found guilty of death by the SANHEDRIN of the Jews for claiming to be the Christ and Son of God.

In gMark 15, the Jews demanded that Jesus be crucified even though Pilate did not know what he did wrong.

In gMark 15, the Jews accepted the release of a criminal so that Jesus would be crucified.


In gMark 15, Jesus was delivered by the Jews and killed just as was predicted.

The Jesus story in gMark is an anti-Jewish propaganda portraying the Jews as Evil and Killing their own Messiah and Son of God.

 

[Brainache]

Oops, sorry dejudge I was wrong. You did reply:


I was not satisfied by your curt dismissal, given that I had supported my assertion with sources and links.

So I posted this:



In case you were thinking of the usual carbon dating issue which is often brought up regarding this topic.

Are you going to address these points, or ignore them, because I think it is a better idea about the origins of Christianity than yours. Can you convince me otherwise?

Go on, give it a try. Look at my evidence and tell me what is wrong with it.

Debunk away!

I'm going to have to declare victory if you don't start debunking me soon dejudge. You wouldn't want that.

I can claim victory because I provided sources and you didn't, so I win.

You have 24 hours from now to start debunking me. If you don't, I will know you have conceded defeat and that you will no longer be spewing your "It's all forged" nonsense here.

OK?

The clock is ticking dejudge. Google is your friend...

 

[TimCallahan]

Again, please identify a single Jew that was a member of a Jesus cult ouside the Bible who claimed Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ since the time of Pilate. You keep spouting the same nonsense but never, ever, ever named a single Jewish writer who accepted the story of Jesus as the Christ.

I could say Paul, but why bother going over that argument again? However, according Ito Irenaeus, there were Jewish Christians in his time, the Ebionites - about whom you have yet to explain.

Again, you either have not read gMark or do not understand it.

In gMark 4, Jesus boasted secretly to his disciples that he deliberately spoke in parables so that the Jewish populace would not uderstand him and would not be converted but remain in sin.

Actually he said "those outside," meaning anybody not in his select group. He doesn't specify that they are to be excluded because they are Jews. That it's directed at the Jews specifically is just your assumption.

In gMark 6, Jesus is rejected in his hometown Nazareth.

As was Dionysus in his hometown of Thebes. This is one of those tropes from Greek literature. Remember also that Odysseus returning home must do so in disguise. You might try reading, in this regard, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis MacDonald

In gMark 8, Jesus taught his disciples that the Jews would deliver him up to be killed.

The actual verse, Mk. 8:31, says (bolding added):

And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and scribes and be killed and after three days rise again.

The elders, chief priests and scribes did not constitute the Jewish people, but the establishment.

In gMark 9, Jesus taught his disciples that the Jews would deliver him up to be killed.

Here's the verse (Mk. 9:31, bolding added):

For he taught his disciples and said to them. The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and after he is killed, he shall rise on the third day.

Where do you see the word "Jews"? It says "men".

In gMark 10, Jesus taught his disciples that the Jews would deliver him up to be killed.

Here is the verse in question (Mk. 10:33, bolding added):

. . . "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes and they shall condemn him to death and shall deliver him to the Gentiles;

Again, it's not the entire Jewish people, but the establishment.

In gMark 14, the Jews are plotting to have Jesus arrested and killed.

Again, it's the chief priests, not the Jews in general.

In gMark 14, Judas agrees to betray Jesus.

Which is irrelevant. Judas is only one person.

In gMark 14, the Jews brought false witnesses against Jesus.

In gMark 14, Jesus is found guilty of death by the SANHEDRIN of the Jews for claiming to be the Christ and Son of God.

Again, this is the Jewish establishment, not the entirety of the Jews.

In gMark 15, the Jews demanded that Jesus be crucified even though Pilate did not know what he did wrong.

In gMark 15, the Jews accepted the release of a criminal so that Jesus would be crucified.

In gMark 15, Jesus was delivered by the Jews and killed just as was predicted.

Yes, here, finally, a Jerusalem mob, moved by the chief priests (Mk. 15:11) demands his death.

The Jesus story in gMark is an anti-Jewish propaganda portraying the Jews as Evil and Killing their own Messiah and Son of God.

As I said, the antagonism toward the Jews grows the later the gospel. I did not say it was entirely lacking in Mark. Now consider what Jesus tells Pilate in Jn. 18:36 (bolding added):

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not of this world.

You can see that the antagonism toward the Jews is much more open and pointed here in John.

 

[Brainache]

Hi Tim. Great post. I just have one slight quibble. This bit:

...

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
In gMark 6, Jesus is rejected in his hometown Nazareth.

As was Dionysus in his hometown of Thebes. This is one of those tropes from Greek literature. Remember also that Odysseus returning home must do so in disguise. You might try reading, in this regard, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis MacDonald
...

Might that not also just be normal human behaviour? How popular was Elvis in Mississippi during his lifetime? I bet he was banned from the radio, at least in the early days.

Or think of any famous people you knew when they were growing up. Jesus supposedly came from a small town, so everybody knew him.

I bet there are "Tough Guys" who went to High School with little Brucey "Schpringenstein" who joke about him being in that dweeby kid in the choir or something to this very day. Born in the USA indeed.

 

[dejudge]

I could say Paul, but why bother going over that argument again? However, according Ito Irenaeus, there were Jewish Christians in his time, the Ebionites - about whom you have yet to explain.

You could not say Paul. I asked for Jews outside the Bible.

Now, now, Irenaeus also claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate the governor of Claudius.

The Ebionites are first mentioned c 180 CE by Irenaeus. There is no evidence that the Jesus cult started with the Ebionites.

Actually he said "those outside," meaning anybody not in his select group. He doesn't specify that they are to be excluded because they are Jews. That it's directed at the Jews specifically is just your assumption.

In gMark, Jesus spoke the parables to the Jews in Galilee so it must be logical that it was the very Jews whom he did not want to understand him and those whom he wanted to remain in sin.

The actual verse, Mk. 8:31, says (bolding added):

And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and scribes and be killed and after three days rise again.

The elders, chief priests and scribes did not constitute the Jewish people, but the establishment.

The Jewish establihment in Galilee, the elders, chief priests and scribes are Jews. It should be obvious that they were not Romans.

But why would you say such a thing when you are aguing that the Jesus cult started with Hellenized Jews. You have nothing to show a single Hellenized Jew argued that your messianic pretender did actually exist.

Here's the verse (Mk. 9:31, bolding added):

For he taught his disciples and said to them. The Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and after he is killed, he shall rise on the third day.

Where do you see the word "Jews"? It says "men".



Here is the verse in question (Mk. 10:33, bolding added):

. . . "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and unto the scribes and they shall condemn him to death and shall deliver him to the Gentiles;

Again, it's not the entire Jewish people, but the establishment.

Do you see the phrase "shall deliver him to the Gentiles"?

Well, if you do then you now understand that the chief priests and scribes were Jews--Not Gentiles.

Yes, here, finally, a Jerusalem mob, moved by the chief priests (Mk. 15:11) demands his death.

Finally, you get the picture. The Jews delivered Jesus to the Gentiles and he was Killed.

As I said, the antagonism toward the Jews grows the later the gospel. I did not say it was entirely lacking in Mark. Now consider what Jesus tells Pilate in Jn. 18:36 (bolding added):

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not of this world.

You can see that the antagonism toward the Jews is much more open and pointed here in John.

Well, you have utterly failed to show that the Jesus story and religion was a product of Hellenzed Jews.

All the Gospels show antagonism towards the Jews.

 

[jhunter1163]

In this instance I'm ultimately not talking about sides. Moderators must be held to a higher standard; they are official representatives of JREF after all.

Moderators and administrators are still members of the forum, and are allowed to participate in discussions like any other members. Under the terms of the Moderator Agreement, however, mods and admins are not allowed to take moderation action in any threads in which they are participating as members, in order to avoid any appearance of favoring one position over another.

So I can say "Trvthers" all day long; that is my opinion as a member. I could not, however, give dejudge a yellow card for incivility or edit any of his posts. The most I could do is report him; one of the other mods would rule on the report. And, for the record, I have not reported any posts from this thread (or either of the two similar threads).

Lastly, I am bound by the Membership Agreement, just like any other member; if you feel that a post of mine has breached the MA, you can report it. Another mod will review the report and take appropriate action. And yes, mods and admins can be infracted for rule breaches (I got my only infraction after I became a mod).

 

[The Norseman]

Moderators and administrators are still members of the forum, and are allowed to participate in discussions like any other members. Under the terms of the Moderator Agreement, however, mods and admins are not allowed to take moderation action in any threads in which they are participating as members, in order to avoid any appearance of favoring one position over another.

So I can say "Trvthers" all day long; that is my opinion as a member. I could not, however, give dejudge a yellow card for incivility or edit any of his posts. The most I could do is report him; one of the other mods would rule on the report. And, for the record, I have not reported any posts from this thread (or either of the two similar threads).

Lastly, I am bound by the Membership Agreement, just like any other member; if you feel that a post of mine has breached the MA, you can report it. Another mod will review the report and take appropriate action. And yes, mods and admins can be infracted for rule breaches (I got my only infraction after I became a mod).

Yes, I'm quite aware that I may report any member but is it that difficult to modify your behavior without having to be reported?

At any rate, it's a ridiculous comparison. There is no consensus as to the HJ and I have shown support for this. I'm happy to provide more when I'm at an actual computer (typing this from my tablet is slow and quite error-prone) and can access this information.

 

[jhunter1163]

At any rate, it's a ridiculous comparison. There is no consensus as to the HJ and I have shown support for this. I'm happy to provide more when I'm at an actual computer (typing this from my tablet is slow and quite error-prone) and can access this information.

Really? From Wiki:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][2][3][8][9][10] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[27][28] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I'll concede the point that there is a great deal of disagreement about just what the hell this minor first-century religious figure was talking about, but whether or not he existed is simply not debated. He did exist.

And as far as my behavior vis-a-vis that of the Trvthers, something about motes and beams comes to mind.

 

[dejudge]

I'll concede the point that there is a great deal of disagreement about just what the hell this minor first-century religious figure was talking about, but whether or not he existed is simply not debated. He did exist.

This is just like the Flat earth argument. Flat earthers did not debate the Flat earth whether the earth is flat or not.

It is all over for the HJ argument when HJers cannot show the evidence for their massive imagined consensus but must rely on a show of hands.

HJ is a myth propagated mostly by Christians under the guise of Scholars and Historians.

Christians do not debate their Faith--their Jesus must exist.

Wiki is now the undisputed truth for HJers.

Some here do not even know that it has already been established that Jesus of Nazareth in the NT is a figure of Faith and that is precisely why HJers are looking for their HJ which they will never find.

There is only one Jesus of Nazareth--his conception and birth is documented. He was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, God Creator who transfigured after he walked on sea water.

HJ has no birth narrative. He must have come down from heaven like Marcion's Phantom because there is no evidence for his existence.

 

[Brainache]

This is just like the Flat earth argument. Flat earthers did not debate the Flat earth whether the earth is flat or not.

It is all over for the HJ argument when HJers cannot show the evidence for their massive imagined consensus but must rely on a show of hands.

...

What do you think a consensus is?