Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

Now, clearly Jesus was not a descendant of David, and I have stated that the genealogies that seek to establish this descent are gross fabrications.

Again, you discredit the NT. You have now admitted the genealogies are gross fabrications.

 

[Craig B]

Again, you discredit the NT. You have now admitted the genealogies are gross fabrications.

I have always asserted that the genealogies are false, and explained the significance of their composition. What your view of them is has always been unclear to me. I also say that Jesus never walked on water or rose from the dead. Wendy may be shocked at that. I'm sorry but there it is.

 

[tsig]

I couldn't comment without breaching the MA. Lovely weather we've been having...

Any time you feel like making an intelligent argument, feel free.

Or just keep making idiotic childish statements like that one.

The choice is yours.

I couldn't comment without breaching the MA.

Yep, that there is a real adult comment there.

You reckon you could learn me some of them manners so I can threaten other posters with unspeakable acts?

 

[Brainache]

I couldn't comment without breaching the MA.

Yep, that there is a real adult comment there.

You reckon you could learn me some of them manners so I can threaten other posters with unspeakable acts?

You think enforced politeness equals a threat?

You could try to learn what Historians say about the origins of Christianity if you want to start contributing to the debate, but since you haven't contributed anything apart from snark in all the years you've been posting here, I can't see it happening.

Oh well.

 

[Stone]

Let's review, shall we?

Yeah, let's:

Professional scholarly consensus today comes down on the side of the Paul letters being the earliest extant documentation on Jesus the teacher. A number of Pauline letters, though, are forged, meaning one must be as strict as possible in confining the Pauline letters to those that are most likely authentic. The consensus is that seven of them are. However, one view circumscribes that even further, to four only:

http://books.google.com/books?id=A5... Man and the Myth Paul authentic four&f=false

At this link, you can read up on a certain Morton from the '60s, who analysed the letters and found only these four surviving the "cut": Galatians, Romans, Corinthians 1, Corinthians 2.

Clearly, Morton's methods were strongly criticised by some. I only cite Morton as but one example of a few especially strict voices, merely to shew why it may be best to err on the side of too few authentic sources, rather than too many, for whatever reason. The four Paulines that even Morton accepts as genuine also have the relatively largest preponderance of references (among all the Paulines, genuine, doubtful and forged) to Jesus as a human with a human biography. This is a relatively preponderant characteristic they share with all seven of those Paulines which the dreaded consensus accepts as genuine: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and Romans. ...
The four Morton Paulines are typical of arguably the earliest written documentation we have on Jesus the teacher. At the same time, your examples of Tacitus and Antiqs. 20 (the account of James becoming a pulp) are probably the most disinterested. From both sets of documents emerge an historic human figure.

Only with these first as a working foundation does it make any sense to then apply the philological strata that modern academic scholarship has painstakingly assembled for the rest of the data, applied primarily to certain sayings in the Synoptics and in GThomas. Here is where "multiple attestation", as the academics behind the dreaded consensus term it, comes in. But even "multiple attestation" should be applied circumspectly.

For instance, since modern research appears to have achieved consensus that some written details in GMark, for instance, have been simply transcribed directly in GMatthew and GLuke, one can dismiss such details as purely reflective of one source, GMark, and not three. In such instances, "multiple attestation" is not relevant.

But on the other hand, if contexts for other passages/details in GMatthew and/or GLuke and/or both appear independent from GMark, then "multiple attestation" is more relevant, not in proving anything (again, this is dealing with ancient history, remember), but in rendering such details relatively more rather than less likely. A series of shared sayings falls in the latter independent category.

The dreaded consensus has now determined that a nexus of shared characteristics bears out a singularity of voice and style in a small "family" of sayings found in GMatthew, in GLuke -- and even in GThomas, even though the latter may be anywhere from as early as GMark to as late as the early 2nd century. That nexus of shared characteristics comprises, among other things, peculiarly Aramaic structures of speech, a highly colloquial way of framing certain statements, and/or a heavy dependence on the mundane details of living day-to-day in order to make a point.

Taking together the foundation of the least suspect Paulines, the scanty details in Tacitus/Antiqs. 20 and the shared sayings multiply attested in GMatthew, GLuke and GThomas, it is possible to extract an account of an eccentric rabbi who aroused the ire of the Roman authorities and got nailed.

Galatians 1:18:

Galatians 1:18-19
New International Version (NIV)
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

1 Corinthians 2:8:

1 Corinthians 2:8
English Standard Version (ESV)
8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 7:10:

1 Corinthians 7:10
English Standard Version (ESV)
10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband

1 Corinthians 9:5:

1 Corinthians 9:5
English Standard Version (ESV)
5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 9:14:

1 Corinthians 9:14
English Standard Version (ESV)
14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

1 Corinthians 11:23:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
New International Version (NIV)
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Romans 6:4:

Romans 6:4
New International Version (NIV)
4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Luke 11:21-2:

Luke 11:21–22
21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil.

Luke 11:33:

33 “No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light. 34 Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy,[a] your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness. 35 See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. 36 Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be just as full of light as when a lamp shines its light on you.”

Luke 12:2:

Luke 12:2-3
New International Version (NIV)
2 There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 3 What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

Luke 12:10:

Luke 12:10
New International Version (NIV)
10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Luke 13:18-9:

18 Then Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches.”

Luke 13:30:

Luke 13:30
New International Version (NIV)
30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

Luke 19:26:

Luke 19:26
New International Version (NIV)
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

Josephus: Antiquities, 20 -- "Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning."

Tacitus: Annals, 15:44 -- "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."



Now, these are only the basics from which the most likely biographical details can be reconstructed. Far more sophisticated work is then possible, once one has established the basics culled out here. Striking family resemblances are readily detectable between these basic cites and other related material that is also multiply attested -- in the stricter construction of that term. Chiefly, this involves the sayings: The Luke sayings cited here have similarities to additional sayings similarly shared between GMatthew and GLuke and bearing similar linguistic characteristics. Much in the GLuke Sermon On The Plain, for instance (the bulk of Luke, Chapter 6), seems cut from the identical cloth as the cites here, and since portions of it also appear in different contexts in GMatthew, it appears _likely_ (that dreaded word again) that the bulk of the GLuke Sermon On The Plain in Luke's Chapter 6 may be just as fully historical as the cites provided above.

Extrapolations of such a sort are highly useful in determining which aspects of the extant data are more or less likely to be related to all the cites provided above. But that is a complex exercise requiring intimate knowledge of the myriad idioms in Koine Greek, of a level that I cannot possibly pretend to have.
... Rather, it's the consilience of various pieces of data that, together, make Jesus of Nazareth's historicity more likely than not.

...

I will however ... take the risk of suggesting that there are two tiers of conclusions as to the Jesus-the-human-teacher bio: The top tier, based strictly on the cites provided above, concludes that Jesus was a victim of Roman jurisprudence, because he introduced a new kind of superstition of an uncertain nature, geared partly around social redress (see Luke 13:30). He had at least two brothers, one of whom was named James. The second tier takes all of that as a given, and then, extrapolating from further Aramaicisms and other similar stylistic ticks and textual patterns, enfolds the additional notion that Jesus called for a radically uniform even-handed approach to all people, enemies included, a call that didn't sit well with various demographics of all sorts, leaving him vulnerable to the very first trumped-up charge that might come along. ...

Stone

 

[Brainache]

Yeah, let's:

Professional scholarly consensus today comes down on the side of the Paul letters being the earliest extant documentation on Jesus the teacher. A number of Pauline letters, though, are forged, meaning one must be as strict as possible in confining the Pauline letters to those that are most likely authentic. The consensus is that seven of them are. However, one view circumscribes that even further, to four only:

http://books.google.com/books?id=A5... Man and the Myth Paul authentic four&f=false

At this link, you can read up on a certain Morton from the '60s, who analysed the letters and found only these four surviving the "cut": Galatians, Romans, Corinthians 1, Corinthians 2.

Clearly, Morton's methods were strongly criticised by some. I only cite Morton as but one example of a few especially strict voices, merely to shew why it may be best to err on the side of too few authentic sources, rather than too many, for whatever reason. The four Paulines that even Morton accepts as genuine also have the relatively largest preponderance of references (among all the Paulines, genuine, doubtful and forged) to Jesus as a human with a human biography. This is a relatively preponderant characteristic they share with all seven of those Paulines which the dreaded consensus accepts as genuine: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and Romans. ...
The four Morton Paulines are typical of arguably the earliest written documentation we have on Jesus the teacher. At the same time, your examples of Tacitus and Antiqs. 20 (the account of James becoming a pulp) are probably the most disinterested. From both sets of documents emerge an historic human figure.

Only with these first as a working foundation does it make any sense to then apply the philological strata that modern academic scholarship has painstakingly assembled for the rest of the data, applied primarily to certain sayings in the Synoptics and in GThomas. Here is where "multiple attestation", as the academics behind the dreaded consensus term it, comes in. But even "multiple attestation" should be applied circumspectly.

For instance, since modern research appears to have achieved consensus that some written details in GMark, for instance, have been simply transcribed directly in GMatthew and GLuke, one can dismiss such details as purely reflective of one source, GMark, and not three. In such instances, "multiple attestation" is not relevant.

But on the other hand, if contexts for other passages/details in GMatthew and/or GLuke and/or both appear independent from GMark, then "multiple attestation" is more relevant, not in proving anything (again, this is dealing with ancient history, remember), but in rendering such details relatively more rather than less likely. A series of shared sayings falls in the latter independent category.

The dreaded consensus has now determined that a nexus of shared characteristics bears out a singularity of voice and style in a small "family" of sayings found in GMatthew, in GLuke -- and even in GThomas, even though the latter may be anywhere from as early as GMark to as late as the early 2nd century. That nexus of shared characteristics comprises, among other things, peculiarly Aramaic structures of speech, a highly colloquial way of framing certain statements, and/or a heavy dependence on the mundane details of living day-to-day in order to make a point.

Taking together the foundation of the least suspect Paulines, the scanty details in Tacitus/Antiqs. 20 and the shared sayings multiply attested in GMatthew, GLuke and GThomas, it is possible to extract an account of an eccentric rabbi who aroused the ire of the Roman authorities and got nailed.

Galatians 1:18:

1 Corinthians 2:8:

1 Corinthians 7:10:

1 Corinthians 9:5:

1 Corinthians 9:14:

1 Corinthians 11:23:

Romans 6:4:

Luke 11:21-2:

Luke 11:33:

Luke 12:2:

Luke 12:10:

Luke 13:18-9:

Luke 13:30:

Luke 19:26:

Josephus: Antiquities, 20 -- "Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning."

Tacitus: Annals, 15:44 -- "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."



Now, these are only the basics from which the most likely biographical details can be reconstructed. Far more sophisticated work is then possible, once one has established the basics culled out here. Striking family resemblances are readily detectable between these basic cites and other related material that is also multiply attested -- in the stricter construction of that term. Chiefly, this involves the sayings: The Luke sayings cited here have similarities to additional sayings similarly shared between GMatthew and GLuke and bearing similar linguistic characteristics. Much in the GLuke Sermon On The Plain, for instance (the bulk of Luke, Chapter 6), seems cut from the identical cloth as the cites here, and since portions of it also appear in different contexts in GMatthew, it appears _likely_ (that dreaded word again) that the bulk of the GLuke Sermon On The Plain in Luke's Chapter 6 may be just as fully historical as the cites provided above.

Extrapolations of such a sort are highly useful in determining which aspects of the extant data are more or less likely to be related to all the cites provided above. But that is a complex exercise requiring intimate knowledge of the myriad idioms in Koine Greek, of a level that I cannot possibly pretend to have.
... Rather, it's the consilience of various pieces of data that, together, make Jesus of Nazareth's historicity more likely than not.

...

I will however ... take the risk of suggesting that there are two tiers of conclusions as to the Jesus-the-human-teacher bio: The top tier, based strictly on the cites provided above, concludes that Jesus was a victim of Roman jurisprudence, because he introduced a new kind of superstition of an uncertain nature, geared partly around social redress (see Luke 13:30). He had at least two brothers, one of whom was named James. The second tier takes all of that as a given, and then, extrapolating from further Aramaicisms and other similar stylistic ticks and textual patterns, enfolds the additional notion that Jesus called for a radically uniform even-handed approach to all people, enemies included, a call that didn't sit well with various demographics of all sorts, leaving him vulnerable to the very first trumped-up charge that might come along. ...

Stone

An excellent and informative post. Thank you for all that work, Stone.

I don't know if it's as convincing as dejudge's "Its all a fake hoax forgery" theory, but I guess it will have to do.

Oops, there I go "guessing" again...

 

[IanS]

ETA Example: Now, clearly Jesus was not a descendant of David, and I have stated that the genealogies that seek to establish this descent are gross fabrications. The descent from David, like the birth in Bethlehem, is derived from the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. Evidently he wasn't because that is an imaginary category of being.

Afaik many scholars now think that King David probably never existed. So that would be an even more obvious reason why neither Jesus nor anyone else could have been a family descendent.

So to ask, if Jesus was a descendant of David, how could he walk on the sea? is an utterly fatuous and meaningless question. To Christians, he could do these things because he was God, and had magic powers.

But doesn’t the bible describe how his disciples were in a boat on the sea and actually saw Jesus walking towards them on the water? And then, Jesus actually gets into the boat with them!

The disciples in the boat and the gospel writers did not say they merely believed that because they were Christians and thought God had magic powers. The gospel writers said all the disciples in the boat had been there and witnessed it directly.

How does that happen, unless the stories are just being invented?

 

[dejudge]

For instance, since modern research appears to have achieved consensus that some written details in GMark, for instance, have been simply transcribed directly in GMatthew and GLuke, one can dismiss such details as purely reflective of one source, GMark, and not three. In such instances, "multiple attestation" is not relevant.

Well, well, well!! Thank you very much!! What words of wisdom!!

Let us now dismantle the story of Jesus. It is fundamentally from ONE source.

Attestation is irrelevant.

1. The Baptism of Jesus in gMark has been simply transcribed into gMatthew and gLuke.

2. The fracas at the Temple by Jesus in gMark has been simply transcribed into gMatthew and gLuke.

3. The trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin in gMark has been simply transcribed into gMatthew and gLuke.

4. The crucifixion of Jesus in gMark has been simply transcribed into gMatthew and gLuke.

The supposed core story of Jesus in the NT is WITHOUT attestation--they were from ONE source--gMark.

The HJ argument is fatally flawed--without logic, without contemporary evidence and without attestation.

 

[Craig B]

Well, well, well!! Thank you very much!! What words of wisdom!!

Let us now dismantle the story of Jesus. It is fundamentally from ONE source.

Attestation is irrelevant.

1. The Baptism of Jesus in gMark has been simply transcribed into gMatthew and gLuke.

2. The fracas at the Temple by Jesus in gMark has been simply transcribed into gMatthew and gLuke.

3. The trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin in gMark has been simply transcribed into gMatthew and gLuke.

4. The crucifixion of Jesus in gMark has been simply transcribed into gMatthew and gLuke.

The supposed core story of Jesus in the NT is WITHOUT attestation--they were from ONE source--gMark.

The HJ argument is fatally flawed--without logic, without contemporary evidence and without attestation.

Where's the Virgin-impregnating Ghost? You have told us that Jesus was nothing other than the product of a Virgin and a Ghost. Now you say the supposed core story is from ONE source gMark. Therefore either the ghost story is not part of the core story of Jesus (but you've been telling us the opposite for hundreds of pages) or the ghost story is in Mark, the only source.

So quote it please.

 

[proudfootz]

Professional scholarly consensus today comes down on the side of the Paul letters being the earliest extant documentation on Jesus the teacher. A number of Pauline letters, though, are forged, meaning one must be as strict as possible in confining the Pauline letters to those that are most likely authentic. The consensus is that seven of them are. However, one view circumscribes that even further, to four only:

http://books.google.com/books?id=A5... Man and the Myth Paul authentic four&f=false

At this link, you can read up on a certain Morton from the '60s, who analysed the letters and found only these four surviving the "cut": Galatians, Romans, Corinthians 1, Corinthians 2.

Clearly, Morton's methods were strongly criticised by some. I only cite Morton as but one example of a few especially strict voices, merely to shew why it may be best to err on the side of too few authentic sources, rather than too many, for whatever reason. The four Paulines that even Morton accepts as genuine also have the relatively largest preponderance of references (among all the Paulines, genuine, doubtful and forged) to Jesus as a human with a human biography. This is a relatively preponderant characteristic they share with all seven of those Paulines which the dreaded consensus accepts as genuine: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and Romans. ...

It's true some believe there are a few isolated words and phrases found in the Pauline corpus which can be construed as speaking of Jesus as human.

However recent scholarship shows such an interpretation is not the only way to interpret these phrases. Ehrman, for example, argues that Paul's Jesus is an angel - a cosmic being who somehow took on the likeness of a human.

The four Morton Paulines are typical of arguably the earliest written documentation we have on Jesus the teacher. At the same time, your examples of Tacitus and Antiqs. 20 (the account of James becoming a pulp) are probably the most disinterested. From both sets of documents emerge an historic human figure.

If by a 'human figure' we mean an angel disguised as a human.

Only with these first as a working foundation does it make any sense to then apply the philological strata that modern academic scholarship has painstakingly assembled for the rest of the data, applied primarily to certain sayings in the Synoptics and in GThomas. Here is where "multiple attestation", as the academics behind the dreaded consensus term it, comes in. But even "multiple attestation" should be applied circumspectly.

For instance, since modern research appears to have achieved consensus that some written details in GMark, for instance, have been simply transcribed directly in GMatthew and GLuke, one can dismiss such details as purely reflective of one source, GMark, and not three. In such instances, "multiple attestation" is not relevant.

But on the other hand, if contexts for other passages/details in GMatthew and/or GLuke and/or both appear independent from GMark, then "multiple attestation" is more relevant, not in proving anything (again, this is dealing with ancient history, remember), but in rendering such details relatively more rather than less likely. A series of shared sayings falls in the latter independent category.

The dreaded consensus has now determined that a nexus of shared characteristics bears out a singularity of voice and style in a small "family" of sayings found in GMatthew, in GLuke -- and even in GThomas, even though the latter may be anywhere from as early as GMark to as late as the early 2nd century. That nexus of shared characteristics comprises, among other things, peculiarly Aramaic structures of speech, a highly colloquial way of framing certain statements, and/or a heavy dependence on the mundane details of living day-to-day in order to make a point.

Taking together the foundation of the least suspect Paulines, the scanty details in Tacitus/Antiqs. 20 and the shared sayings multiply attested in GMatthew, GLuke and GThomas, it is possible to extract an account of an eccentric rabbi who aroused the ire of the Roman authorities and got nailed.

Naturally if we attempt to harmonize disparate texts we can create a new version of the gospel narratives.

But the presumably early cosmic Jesus of Paul is hardly a clear image of an eccentric rabbi.

Josephus: Antiquities, 20 -- "Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning."

It appears this quote has been scrambled: in the received text the bit about Jesus is awkwardly situated in a different place in this story:

"Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrin and brought before them the brother of Jesus, (the one) called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou], James by name, together with some others and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned."

Which has clued some scholars in that this may well be an accidental inclusion into the text of a marginal note.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm#Ant20

Tacitus: Annals, 15:44 -- "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Even if Tacitus wrote this in the 2nd century, it seems clear the source for the beliefs of christians would be christians.

Now, these are only the basics from which the most likely biographical details can be reconstructed. Far more sophisticated work is then possible, once one has established the basics culled out here. Striking family resemblances are readily detectable between these basic cites and other related material that is also multiply attested -- in the stricter construction of that term. Chiefly, this involves the sayings: The Luke sayings cited here have similarities to additional sayings similarly shared between GMatthew and GLuke and bearing similar linguistic characteristics. Much in the GLuke Sermon On The Plain, for instance (the bulk of Luke, Chapter 6), seems cut from the identical cloth as the cites here, and since portions of it also appear in different contexts in GMatthew, it appears _likely_ (that dreaded word again) that the bulk of the GLuke Sermon On The Plain in Luke's Chapter 6 may be just as fully historical as the cites provided above.

It does indeed seem that in the 2nd century there is more abundant materials about Jesus as a teacher than was available to the authors of the epistles (some of whom are supposed to be actual disciples of an earthly Jesus if not his blood kin).

Extrapolations of such a sort are highly useful in determining which aspects of the extant data are more or less likely to be related to all the cites provided above. But that is a complex exercise requiring intimate knowledge of the myriad idioms in Koine Greek, of a level that I cannot possibly pretend to have.

... Rather, it's the consilience of various pieces of data that, together, make Jesus of Nazareth's historicity more likely than not.

It's true skillful rewriting and editing of the texts can make them appear to provide more consistency than they have in fact.

I will however ... take the risk of suggesting that there are two tiers of conclusions as to the Jesus-the-human-teacher bio: The top tier, based strictly on the cites provided above, concludes that Jesus was a victim of Roman jurisprudence, because he introduced a new kind of superstition of an uncertain nature, geared partly around social redress (see Luke 13:30). He had at least two brothers, one of whom was named James. The second tier takes all of that as a given, and then, extrapolating from further Aramaicisms and other similar stylistic ticks and textual patterns, enfolds the additional notion that Jesus called for a radically uniform even-handed approach to all people, enemies included, a call that didn't sit well with various demographics of all sorts, leaving him vulnerable to the very first trumped-up charge that might come along. ...

The progressive humanization of the figure of Jesus is a process which continues to our own day.

 

[proudfootz]

Afaik many scholars now think that King David probably never existed. So that would be an even more obvious reason why neither Jesus nor anyone else could have been a family descendant.

But doesn’t the bible describe how his disciples were in a boat on the sea and actually saw Jesus walking towards them on the water? And then, Jesus actually gets into the boat with them!

The disciples in the boat and the gospel writers did not say they merely believed that because they were Christians and thought God had magic powers. The gospel writers said all the disciples in the boat had been there and witnessed it directly.

How does that happen, unless the stories are just being invented?

That is where the difficulty lies with the use of these texts as materials presumably depicting real events - the authors do seem to have an alarming tendency to create new characters and situations as the need arises.

For this reason it is important to go beyond the mere 'plausibility criteria' and get some corroboration outside of the mythos.

Is it possible some factual material is contained in the early christian writings? I think it is possible. However, it's not apparent the authors or the generations of redactors and editors who followed knew the difference.

 

[Craig B]

The progressive humanization of the figure of Jesus is a process which continues to our own day.

The successive gospels travel in the opposite direction. Jesus is human in Mark, superhuman in the later Synoptics, and quasi-divine in John. By the days of the younger Pliny, Christians are singing hymns to the Messiah, as to a god.

 

[proudfootz]

I do not presume to impugn dejudge's motives, merely the character and quality of his arguments.

That's cool. Stone seems to think 'there are other factors' that are decisive.

ETA Example: Now, clearly Jesus was not a descendant of David, and I have stated that the genealogies that seek to establish this descent are gross fabrications. The descent from David, like the birth in Bethlehem, is derived from the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. Evidently he wasn't because that is an imaginary category of being. So to ask, if Jesus was a descendant of David, how could he walk on the sea? is an utterly fatuous and meaningless question. To Christians, he could do these things because he was God, and had magic powers. To atheists, including those (very probably a majority) who think he probably existed as a non-supernatural person, these stories are mythical embellishments, like Alexander being son of a god or building a wall to keep out Gog and Magog, or the equally tall tales told of other figures from King Arthur to George Washington.

Trying to establish the supposed 'human credentials' of the figure of Jesus based on what you remind us are the 'gross fabrications' of religious writers who seem more interested in loading the character with ever more proofs of a messiah would seem to be the fatuous mistake.

dejudge's remarks are on point - there is no consilience between the character imagined by the early christians and the character created by 18th century writers.

 

[proudfootz]

The successive gospels travel in the opposite direction. Jesus is human in Mark, superhuman in the later Synoptics, and quasi-divine in John. By the days of the younger Pliny, Christians are singing hymns to the Messiah, as to a god.

If Paul is early, then we see Jesus is depicted as divine.

In the christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 (thought by scholars to be Paul quoting even older tradition) we find Jesus as being the same form or nature as a god who disguises himself as a human.

It is the 2nd century craze for gospel tales that introduces the theme of an earthly ministry complete with disciples.

 

[dejudge]

If Paul is early, then we see Jesus is depicted as divine.

The Pauline writings are not early. There is no evidence that they were early. Where is the evidence to assume the Pauline writings were early when even the Church do not know what Paul wrote, when he wrote them and when he really lived?

The Pauline writer wrote about his Revelations from the Resurrected Jesus--NOT a heavenly Jesus.

Paul claimed the JEWS Killed Jesus, God's own Son, the Last Adam made of a Spirit.

In the christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 (thought by scholars to be Paul quoting even older tradition) we find Jesus as being the same form or nature as a god who disguises himself as a human.

It is the 2nd century craze for gospel tales that introduces the theme of an earthly ministry complete with disciples.

It is not what Scholars think but what Christians of antiquity, the Witnesses of antiquity, wrote.

The Pauline Corpus was introduced AFTER the story of Jesus was fabricated.

All Apologetic writers who mentioned the Pauline Corpus KNEW a story of Jesus but ALL Apologetic writers who knew a story of Jesus did NOT know the Pauline writings and Paul.

In the 2nd century or later Paul and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN.

In the NT Paul was a Persecutor of those who believed the Jesus story so it is virtually impossible that the Persecutor is the originator of the Jesus story.

The Pauline letters were supposedly written to BELIEVERS of the Jesus stories.

The supposed Pauline letters were addressed to Churches.

The Churches existed BEFORE the Pauline letters.

The letters to the Churches of Ephesians, Thessalonians and Colossians are considered to have been written AFTER the Gospels were composed yet they do NOT mention the Life and miracles of Jesus.

The discovery or deduction that the letters to the Ephesians, Thessalonians and Colossians were forgeries and most likely composed after the Gospels is evidence that all Pauline writings could have been written AFTER the Gospels WITHOUT mentioning the life and miracles of Jesus.

In fact, virtually all Epistles, in or out the Bible, have virtually NOTHING about the Life and miracles of Jesus even those supposedly written by the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Epistles are NOT biographical accounts of Jesus---they are doctrinal.

The Pauline writer NOT only knew the stories of Jesus but he claimed that he stayed with the Apostle Peter for fifteen days and met James the Apostle.

The Apostles Peter and James were fictional characters in the myth fables of Jesus the Son of God.

The story of Jesus PREDATED the Entire Pauline Corpus.

 

[Brainache]

The Pauline writings are not early. There is no evidence that they were early. Where is the evidence to assume the Pauline writings were early when even the Church do not know what Paul wrote, when he wrote them and when he really lived?

The Pauline writer wrote about his Revelations from the Resurrected Jesus--NOT a heavenly Jesus.

Paul claimed the JEWS Killed Jesus, God's own Son, the Last Adam made of a Spirit.



It is not what Scholars think but what Christians of antiquity, the Witnesses of antiquity, wrote.

The Pauline Corpus was introduced AFTER the story of Jesus was fabricated.

All Apologetic writers who mentioned the Pauline Corpus KNEW a story of Jesus but ALL Apologetic writers who knew a story of Jesus did NOT know the Pauline writings and Paul.

In the 2nd century or later Paul and the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN.

In the NT Paul was a Persecutor of those who believed the Jesus story so it is virtually impossible that the Persecutor is the originator of the Jesus story.

The Pauline letters were supposedly written to BELIEVERS of the Jesus stories.

The supposed Pauline letters were addressed to Churches.

The Churches existed BEFORE the Pauline letters.

The letters to the Churches of Ephesians, Thessalonians and Colossians are considered to have been written AFTER the Gospels were composed yet they do NOT mention the Life and miracles of Jesus.

The discovery or deduction that the letters to the Ephesians, Thessalonians and Colossians were forgeries and most likely composed after the Gospels is evidence that all Pauline writings could have been written AFTER the Gospels WITHOUT mentioning the life and miracles of Jesus.

In fact, virtually all Epistles, in or out the Bible, have virtually NOTHING about the Life and miracles of Jesus even those supposedly written by the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

Epistles are NOT biographical accounts of Jesus---they are doctrinal.

The Pauline writer NOT only knew the stories of Jesus but he claimed that he stayed with the Apostle Peter for fifteen days and met James the Apostle.

The Apostles Peter and James were fictional characters in the myth fables of Jesus the Son of God.

The story of Jesus PREDATED the Entire Pauline Corpus.

There was a cult following Jesus' teachings. They had a leader called James. Paul came along, persecuted them for a while, then had his "vision" and started preaching a different Jesus to the original one.

Paul's "Christ Jesus" was supposedly the resurrected spirit of the dead Jesus. The Jesus who died had a whole bunch of sayings that James and Co. were following. Paul's teaching was different to theirs. They had conflicts.

The Ebionites called Paul their enemy. His teachings were anathema to them.

 

[dejudge]

Where's the Virgin-impregnating Ghost? You have told us that Jesus was nothing other than the product of a Virgin and a Ghost. Now you say the supposed core story is from ONE source gMark. Therefore either the ghost story is not part of the core story of Jesus (but you've been telling us the opposite for hundreds of pages) or the ghost story is in Mark, the only source.

So quote it please.

You have been discrediting your sources while you simultaneously use them for the history of your Jesus.

Now, the author of gMatthew used almost all of gMark and admitted Jesus was born of a Ghost.

If Jesus was born of a Ghost, then gMatthew's Jesus was a Myth.

If Jesus was NOT born of a Ghost then gMatthew is a myth fable.

If Jesus in gMark WALKED on the Sea he was a myth.

If Jesus in gMark did NOT walk on the sea gMark is a myth fable.

 

[dejudge]

There was a cult following Jesus' teachings. They had a leader called James. Paul came along, persecuted them for a while, then had his "vision" and started preaching a different Jesus to the original one.

Well, well, well!!! You take the Bible at face value.
Please, just go and do some proper research. There is no evidence for what you say.

Paul's "Christ Jesus" was supposedly the resurrected spirit of the dead Jesus. The Jesus who died had a whole bunch of sayings that James and Co. were following. Paul's teaching was different to theirs. They had conflicts.

What?? Where do you get your stories from? There are no manuscripts, Codices or Apologetic writings which state what you wrote.

You made it up.

Jesus had NO bunch of sayings or else the authors of the Gospels would have written them.

Name the Bunch of Sayings of Jesus in gMark?

May I remind you that in gMark Jesus spoke a BUNCH of PARABLES so that people would NOT understand him and REMAIN in Sin.

The Ebionites called Paul their enemy. His teachings were anathema to them.

Which Paul are you talking about? You call Paul a Liar in the 21st century but that doesn't mean Paul existed in the 1st century.

 

[Brainache]

Well, well, well!!! You take the Bible at face value.
Please, just go and do some proper research. There is no evidence for what you say.



What?? Where do you get your stories from? There are no manuscripts, Codices or Apologetic writings which state what you wrote.

You made it up.

Jesus had NO bunch of sayings or else the authors of the Gospels would have written them.

Name the Bunch of Sayings of Jesus in gMark?

May I remind you that in gMark Jesus spoke a BUNCH of PARABLES so that people would NOT understand him and REMAIN in Sin.



Which Paul are you talking about? You call Paul a Liar in the 21st century but that doesn't mean Paul existed in the 1st century.

Do you imagine that these things you write are in any way a refutation of the idea that the HJ was a Jewish teacher who was killed by the Romans?

I'm puzzled.

 

[dejudge]

Do you imagine that these things you write are in any way a refutation of the idea that the HJ was a Jewish teacher who was killed by the Romans?

I'm puzzled.

You made up your story.

You imagine that your HJ was a Jewish teacher who was killed by the Romans.

You must have a vivid imagination because you have no evidence of such a story.

Please, if you don't mind, when did your imagined story happen?

What sources are you using?

The Bible?

Just because Galatians 1.19 is in the Bible does not mean it is true.