Historical Jesus

[pgwenthold]

But all three of those fall into the Jesus agnosticism par of the Christ Myth theory ie 'the story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the character described can be shown to be historical (in any meaningful way).

John Henry is in much the same spot.

Sure, that's the nature of a legend. That's why I think Legend is a better descriptor of Jesus than Myth.

If you have to clarify what you mean by Myth, or have subsets of different types of myths, it's ripe for confusion, or, even to the point of bait-and-switch (which is largely what happens).

So just call it a Legend, which means that "nothing about it including the very existence of the character described can be shown to be historical (in any meaningful way)."

 

[Chanakya]

There is an enduring myth of the young Jesus's penchant for adventure sports, a vestige of which legend is the phrase 'Jesus Christ on a pogo stick'.

Given that pogo sticks do exist, is it the view of experts that there may be some truth at the core of the Jesus myth after all?

 

[pgwenthold]

There is an enduring myth of the young Jesus's penchant for adventure sports, a vestige of which legend is the phrase 'Jesus Christ on a pogo stick'.

Given that pogo sticks do exist, is it the view of experts that there may be some truth at the core of the Jesus myth after all?

As I sign of how bad COVID isolation is, we watched pogo championships on ESPN a couple of days ago. I don't remember any competitors named Jesus, though.

 

[maximara]

Sure, that's the nature of a legend. That's why I think Legend is a better descriptor of Jesus than Myth.

If you have to clarify what you mean by Myth, or have subsets of different types of myths, it's ripe for confusion, or, even to the point of bait-and-switch (which is largely what happens).

So just call it a Legend, which means that "nothing about it including the very existence of the character described can be shown to be historical (in any meaningful way)."

Remburg (author of The Christ) had such definitions (pulled from David Strauss):

A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, are historical myths. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. “Nothing great has been established,” says Renan, “which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived.”

A Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the dress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and heroes of antiquity are pure myths. John Fiske refers to a myth as “a piece of unscientific philosophizing,” and this is a fairly good definition of the philosophical myth.

A Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks, and the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and foster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, belong to this class.

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?

==

Jesus falls into that historical and philosophical myth boundary and historical myth's "The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." is the real issue especially that "the narrative is essentially false" part.

A classic case is the "legend" of the Bermuda Triangle - thanks to distortion and omission of relevent facts. One could say that it does fit into the "myth" category very well as some incidence have no evidence as every happening.

 

[dejudge]

Remburg (author of The Christ) had such definitions (pulled from David Strauss):

A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, are historical myths. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. “Nothing great has been established,” says Renan, “which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived.”

A Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the dress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and heroes of antiquity are pure myths. John Fiske refers to a myth as “a piece of unscientific philosophizing,” and this is a fairly good definition of the philosophical myth.

A Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks, and the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and foster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, belong to this class.

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?

==

Jesus falls into that historical and philosophical myth boundary and historical myth's "The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." is the real issue especially that "the narrative is essentially false" part.

A classic case is the "legend" of the Bermuda Triangle - thanks to distortion and omission of relevent facts. One could say that it does fit into the "myth" category very well as some incidence have no evidence as every happening.

NT Jesus of Nazareth does not fall into the historical myth category at all since there is no historical evidence of his existence.

The historical myth can only refer to characters where historical evidence is known.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is a non-historical character like the Greek/Roman myth Romulus the founder of Rome, born of a phantom and a virgin.

See Plutarch Romulus.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

Pultarch Romulus

......... a virgin should give herself to the apparition, and that a son should be born of her, highly renowned, eminent for valour, good fortune, and strength of body. ......

See gLuke
Luke 1.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.....

NT Jesus is even in a far worse position than even Romulus since no well known writer of antiquity mentioned such a character when writing about events in the 1st century.


Even Christian writers admitted their Jesus was no different to Greek mythology.

See Justin's First Apology

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

Justin's First Apology XXI

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

NT Jesus is the perfect example of total imaginative fiction/mythology without a shred of reference in any historical writing up to at least 100 CE.

 

[maximara]

NT Jesus of Nazareth does not fall into the historical myth category at all since there is no historical evidence of his existence.

You are ignoring the "a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" part of Historical Myth.

If we got with he composite character hypothosis and look at Jospehus for our possible components (bolded ones with relevant parts are IMHO the most likely components):

* Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE).{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=26-30}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.57-59}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.273-277}}

* Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.271-272}}

* Matthias, son of Margalothus (during the time of Herod the Great){{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.147-150}} - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

* Athronges (c 3 CE) - who "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." {{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.278-284}}

* Judas of Galilee (6 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.1, 20.5.2}}<ref>{{bible|Acts|5|47}}</ref>

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.97-98}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting

* An anonymous prophet (59 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=20.188}}

* Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.433-434}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.442-448}}

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover sectionof "Mark" {{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

* Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE).

* John of Giscala (d c70 CE).<ref>appears periodically in Book IV, V, and VII of ''The Jewish War''.</ref>

* Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.26-32}}

* Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.437-450}}

for the TL;DR crowd that is: The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate; Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE) for the Jesus came out of Egypt and preached from the Mount of Olives, and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE)(in distorted form) for the Passover section of Mark.

Were any of these people born of a vergin? No, but neither were Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, and Plato and yet we know those were actual historical people. So the "a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" part of Historical Myth cannot be dismissed ergo the NT Jesus for all the supernatural nonsense and being a composite character is a historical myth in the same way Uncle Sam is a historical myth based on Samuel Wilson.

 

[dejudge]

You are ignoring the "a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" part of Historical Myth.`

What small residuum of truth remains? Where is it? Which book? Which manuscript?

There is no reference whatsoever to NT Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his disciples/apostles, Saul/Paul, Jews who worshipped a man as a `God in any non-apologetic extant writing about events up to at least 110 CE.

It is clear to me that your claim of "a small residuum of truth" about NT Jesus of Nazareth is rather baseless and derived from imagination.

The NT Jesus of Nazareth story is fiction fabricated by non-Jews who were not from ancient Judea and were not familiar with Jewish customs.

 

[maximara]

What small residuum of truth remains? Where is it? Which book? Which manuscript?

I clarified what I was doing in the very next line down from the one you quoted:

"If we got with he composite character hypothosis and look at Josephus for our possible components..."

I even provided a TL DR part as to what "small residuum of truth remains" refers to:

For the TL DR crowd that is: The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate; Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE) for the Jesus came out of Egypt and preached from the Mount of Olives, and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE)(in distorted form) for the Passover section of Mark.

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover sectionof "Mark" {{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

Those things in bold are called references. What you ask for was already provided.

There is no reference whatsoever to NT Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his disciples/apostles, Saul/Paul, Jews who worshipped a man as a `God in any non-apologetic extant writing about events up to at least 110 CE.

It is comments like this one that shows you seem to not fully understand the concept of a composite character when it comes to Jesus. As for Paul the rationalwioi article on him has this:

Moreover recent scholarship suggests Justin Martyr not only knew of Paul but used Paul's ideas and in some cases even quoted or paraphrased him.[17][18]

Similarly the John Frum movement shows just how asinine the idea of a fictional Paul is. Paul Raffaele's February 2006 Smithsonian article "In John They Trust"[19] talks about a schism in the John Frum movement with a Prophet Fred who Raffaele is told broke with the main leader, Chief Isaac, in 1999. Raffaele is also told by a man claiming to be Prophet Fred's brother-in-law that Prophet Fred “raised his wife from the dead two weeks ago.” Yet when Raffaele goes to the village Prophet Fred lives in he is told that Prophet Fred has gone to the island’s northern tip to preach. By the logic (if such a word can even be used for this argument) used by those saying Paul didn't exist then Prophet Fred can't exist:

*We only have believers in John Frum saying Prophet Fred existed just as we only have believers in Jesus saying Paul existed
*No non-believer in John Frum has actually met Prophet Fred just as no non-believer in Jesus had actually met Paul
*Seven epistles appear to be of one hand and based on internal evidence are earlier then other epistles under the name Paul while Prophet Fred as far as we know hasn't written a single thing.
So there is less evidence that Prophet Fred existed in 2005 than for Paul around 50-70 CE, but (and this is the important part) there is no one as far as we know who is claiming Prophet Fred didn't exist.

So where is the consistent logic in saying the Paul who is credited with being the author of seven epistles said to be written-dictated by him didn't exist? That Paul (opposed to the one in Acts which can be shown to be on par with 19th century fictional stories starring real people) doesn't have anything that indicates that any contemporary would notice him. Rather we get a person who is trying to take the movement in a certain direction just as what happened previously with Manehevi, Neloaig, and Iokaeye only Prophet Fred seems to take steps to avoid potential conflict (Raffaele's exact comment regarding Prophet Fred not being in the village he visits is "that he’s gone to the island’s northern tip to preach, most likely to avoid the celebrations")

Epistle Paul comes off as a 1st century John Ballou Newbrough with his effort in taking Christianity in a certain direction being on par with what the Oahspe movement was for its time: nothing more than a curiosity.
--
On a side the only reason anyone even gives a fig about John Ballou Newbrough and his Oahspe today is it is the earliest work to mention "spaceship". Heck, the only reason we even know John Ballou Newbrough actually existed is due to the meticulous record keeping that the printing press allowed and the Yellow Journalism attitude of the time. Otherwise he would likely be on par with John Henry.

Similarly, the only reason someone gave a fig leaf the John Watson in the list of casualties of the Boar War is that people who play The Game (assume Sherlock Holmes actually existed) a little too far use to "prove" Sherlock Holmes really existed.

 

[dejudge]

I clarified what I was doing in the very next line down from the one you quoted:

"If we got with he composite character hypothosis and look at Josephus for our possible components..."

I even provided a TL DR part as to what "small residuum of truth remains" refers to:

For the TL DR crowd that is: The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate; Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE) for the Jesus came out of Egypt and preached from the Mount of Olives, and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE)(in distorted form) for the Passover section of Mark.

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover sectionof "Mark" {{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

Those things in bold are called references. What you ask for was already provided.

You have not provided any residuum of truth for NT Jesus of Nazareth. You seem not to understand that a composite character is a fabrication.

In the NT Jesus of Nazareth was supposedly crucified under Pilate when Caiaphas was high priest or no later than 36 CE.

You have only shown that NT Jesus of Nazareth was manufactured by using events about characters who lived decades later.

It is comments like this one that shows you seem to not fully understand the concept of a composite character when it comes to Jesus. As for Paul the rationalwioi article on him has this:

Moreover recent scholarship suggests Justin Martyr not only knew of Paul but used Paul's ideas and in some cases even quoted or paraphrased him.[17][18]...

There is no evidence whatsoever that the writings attributed to Justin Martyr show any knowledge of NT Paul, NT Paul as a early evangelist, NT Pauline Epistles, or used his ideas.

In the extant works of Justin, the writer clearly stated that it was twelve illiterate from Jerusalem who preached the gospel to every race and that it was the books of the prophets and the memoirs of the apostles that were read in the churches - nothing at all about NT Paul, his preaching and his supposed Epistles.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

Justin's First Apology XXXIX

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God...

Justin's First Apology LXVII

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

NT Paul and Pauline Epistles must have or most likely were invented after the writings of Justin, at least after c 150 CE.

 

[maximara]

You have not provided any residuum of truth for NT Jesus of Nazareth. You seem not to understand that a composite character is a fabrication.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a composite character and a totally fictional character.

Cases in point are movies Hoffa (Bobby Ciaro was formed from Chuckie O'Brien and Bobby Holmes) and The Ghost and the Darkness (Charles Remington being a composite of many people Patterson worked with)

Then you have the issue of fictionalized characters such as Elizabeth I in Elizabeth and Elizabeth the Golden Age whose history is so changed around that she might as well be fictional.

Robin Hood is likely the bast example of a character who fits between these two - there is Robert Hood of Yorkshire who's we have actual historical reports of in the 1226-1234 range with "Robehod" becoming a "stock name" for thieves by 1262. The Robin Hood we know is nearly entirely fictional and so disconnected from Robert Hood and the thieves who were called Robehod.

The point is NT Jesus of Nazareth likely had a historical core with elements of various other would be messiahs used to flesh him out as nobody really remember anything.

Remsburg said it best: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist"

Jesus of Bethlehem = NT Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[dejudge]

You don't seem to understand the difference between a composite character and a totally fictional character.

You don't understand that a composite character is actually a fictional character.

It is extremely absurd to suggest a character is a figure of history who is claimed to have died under Pilate but whose supposed life story was made up from events that happened decades later.
.

The point is NT Jesus of Nazareth likely had a historical core with elements of various other would be messiahs used to flesh him out as nobody really remember anything.

You have no point whatsoever. You are making baseless assumptions about NT Jesus of Nazareth.

There is no existing historical evidence to show that NT Jesus of Nazareth had an historical core.

Remsburg said it best: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist"

Remsburg's opinion is completely useless without historical evidence. There is no existing historical evidence to support any probability of an historical Jesus.

Jesus of Bethlehem = NT Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth was born of a ghost and a virgin in Bethlehem according to NT writers.

Jesus of Nazareth was an invented character manufactured in the 2nd century to explain the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho XVI

...... you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.' For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision. For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor fore-ordained his deserts for each one. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One...

Hippolytus Treatise Against the Jews

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf? Was it on account of the idolatry of the people? Was it for the blood of the prophets? Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel? By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father...

Jesus of Nazareth is a complete fictional character derived fundamentally from the Septuagint and the works of Josephus written as late as c 95 CE.

 

[maximara]

Jesus of Nazareth was born of a ghost and a virgin in Bethlehem according to NT writers.

Which are a bunch of cherry picked accounts by the one branch of the wildly fragmented Chrestianity cult.

As mentioned before Irenaeus' Against Heresies (c 180 CE) documents the existence of a sect of Christianity led by Cerinthus who "represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men." (Irenaeus (c 180 C) Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 26, Paragraph 1)

More over it has been suggested that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" as well as being an "attempt to explain an individual's superiority to other mortals. Generally Mediterranean peoples looked at one's birth or parentage to explain one's character and behavior" and "veneration of a benefactor." Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato were all stated as being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people—so the term 'born of a virgin' was never meant to be taken literally.

Nevermind there are hints that the version of Luke we have had the virgin birth added to make it more in line with the later Matthew. There are experts that hold the Gospel of Marcion is the original version and what we have is after the sect that won the battle for control of the cult. There is even the Marcion hypothesis where this Gospel is the source for all of the NT ones.

While all we can do is reconstruct this Gospel based on his detractors Marcion was in the Cerinthus camp ie his Jesus was a man born the normal way.

Jesus of Nazareth is a complete fictional character derived fundamentally from the Septuagint and the works of Josephus written as late as c 95 CE.

We don't know that. It is far more likely he was a barely remembered messiah with elements from others used to flesh his history out.

 

[dejudge]

Which are a bunch of cherry picked accounts by the one branch of the wildly fragmented Chrestianity cult.

The multiple contradictory fictional accounts of Jesus of Nazareth are nothing different to accounts of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Jewish and many other mythological characters.

Jesus of Nazareth had no actual history so people simply made stuff up just like people made stuff up about Romulus and Remus.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

Justin's First Apology XXI

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter..

Jesus of Nazareth was nothing but pure mythology.

....As mentioned before Irenaeus' Against Heresies (c 180 CE) documents the existence of a sect of Christianity led by Cerinthus who "represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men." (Irenaeus (c 180 C) Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 26, Paragraph 1) ...

When did Cerinthus live?

There is no historical evidence at all that the character called Cerinthus was a contemporary of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth. The belief or assumption that Jesus of Nazareth was really born of human parents is irrelevant without any historical evidence.

By the way, it is known that "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is a most corrupt source riddled with manipulation and bogus claims.

Virtually everything about the names of NT authors, dates of authorship and chronology in "Against Heresies" have been rejected.

Even the age of the supposed the Jesus of Nazareth at crucifixion in Against Heresies is contradicted by NT writers.

In effect, "Against Heresies" is not a credible source for even Christians.

....More over it has been suggested that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" as well as being an "attempt to explain an individual's superiority to other mortals. Generally Mediterranean peoples looked at one's birth or parentage to explain one's character and behavior" and "veneration of a benefactor." Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato were all stated as being born of virgins and we know they were actual historical people—so the term 'born of a virgin' was never meant to be taken literally.

Again, what we know about Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great and Plato have nothing whatsoever to do with the historicity/non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

You must know that Romulus and Remus were claimed to be born of a virgin and that they never ever existed.

It is absurd to assume that because an ancient character was claimed to be born of a virgin that such a character did really exist.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin..

Nevermind there are hints that the version of Luke we have had the virgin birth added to make it more in line with the later Matthew. There are experts that hold the Gospel of Marcion is the original version and what we have is after the sect that won the battle for control of the cult. There is even the Marcion hypothesis where this Gospel is the source for all of the NT ones.

What you say does not add up. Marcion was alive around c 150 CE and preached about another God and another son. Marcion's Savior was without birth and without flesh [a phantom].

Justin's First Apology

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us.....

On the Flesh of Christ

Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity...

While all we can do is reconstruct this Gospel based on his detractors Marcion was in the Cerinthus camp ie his Jesus was a man born the normal way.

Absolute nonsense!!. Marcion contradicted the teaching that Jesus was born.

Marcion's Savior had no human parents.

Marcion preached that his Savior came down from heaven directly into Capernaum.

Tertullian's Against Marcion IV

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum, of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own...

We don't know that. It is far more likely he was a barely remembered messiah with elements from others used to flesh his history out.

We know what the NT and the Christian Church writers state!!!

We know they stated that their Jesus had no human father and was a water-walking, transfiguring, son of a ghost that ascended in a cloud after eating bread and fish days when he resurrected on the third day.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

... As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Jesus of Nazareth was always a pure fictional character without any historical reference at all. None of his family, disciples/apostles and Paul have been mentioned in any historical writings when mentioning events in Judea up to c 110 CE.

Jesus of Nazareth was manufactured to explain the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish using so-called prophecies in the Septuagint and the writings of Josephus.

In effect, Jesus of Nazareth is the "son" [the product] of Josephus.

Jesus of Nazareth is a product of belief never ever a product of history.

 

[maximara]

By the way, it is known that "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is a most corrupt source riddled with manipulation and bogus claims.

It is still useful as an example of how Christians really didn't know their timeline and kept royally FUBARing it up...and the efforts to hide the fact they were FUBARing the timeline up is hysterical.

If one combines Irenaeus' Against Hearacies and Demonstration (74) he clearly has Jesus crusifiction between 42-44 CE and throws in Pontius Pilate so it matches the canonal Gospels. Throws out Paul's visions out on its ear as well.

Then there is " Book III, Chapter 21 Paragraph 3 of Against Heresies Irenaeus stated "for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus" (i.e. 14 CE) "

The tap dancing to get these claims to fit into the current narrative by modern apologists is a wonder to behold.

Virtually everything about the names of NT authors, dates of authorship and chronology in "Against Heresies" have been rejected. [/QUOTE

Because to accept it would show their timeline and claims of a unified Church are crock.

Again, what we know about Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great and Plato have nothing whatsoever to do with the historicity/non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is absurd to assume that because an ancient character was claimed to be born of a virgin that such a character did really exist.

You missed the comparative analysis here ie just because someone was claimed to be born of a virgin doesn't mean they did't exist which has been the point you have been banging on with all the enthusiasm of a Trump supporter claiming the 2020 election was "stolen".

What you say does not add up. Marcion was alive around c 150 CE and preached about another God and another son. Marcion's Savior was without birth and without flesh [a phantom].

Justin's First Apology

Come on. Haven't you ever heard of the Big Lie ie 'keep repeating a claim often enough and loud enough and they will believe'? Columbus sailing west to prove the Earth was round is a perfect modern example was was even taught as history for about a century.

Besides Marcion lived c. 85 – c. 160. and if Tertullian's reckoning in Adversus Marcionem Is to be believed was teaching his doctrine as early as 144 while are oldest copy of "our" Luke is Papyrus 75 (175 - 225 CE) and we know of a much longer version (Carrier talks about that version in his book)

We know what the NT and the Christian Church writers state!!!

As I said we have a cherry picking of what works went into the NT and what works Christian Church writers were preserved. When we can compare what they claimed to an actually surviving document it doesn't say what they claim it said (big surprise).

We know they stated that their Jesus had no human father and was a water-walking, transfiguring, son of a ghost that ascended in a cloud after eating bread and fish days when he resurrected on the third day.

Paul's Jesus was none of those things. Heck, Paul even expressly denies a virgin birth!

Romans 1:1-3 states that Jesus came "from the seed of David, according to the flesh" (the belief at the time was that women were the earth into which men planted their seed so here Paul expressly states that Jesus's link to David is through the male line: i.e. through Joseph)

Galatians 4:4 stated "God sent his Son, born of a woman" using the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin).

Mark (generally regarded as our oldest gospels) make no mention of a virgin birth.

Jesus of Nazareth was always a pure fictional character without any historical reference at all. None of his family, disciples/apostles and Paul have been mentioned in any historical writings when mentioning events in Judea up to c 110 CE.

Actually from the internal comments we know 1 Clement was written c 70 CE, for some insane reason the scholars want to ignore this (since at least 1913 and likely earlier). Which is weird because dating it easier better supports the existence of Paul: "By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. " (1Clem 5:5)

Jesus of Nazareth was manufactured to explain the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish using so-called prophecies in the Septuagint and the writings of Josephus..

The James of Josephus died ca. 62 CE by just stoning while Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all had James the Just dying ca. 70 CE by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen. (insert tasteless joke about dying a clean death here )

In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." but there are seven years and four High Priests between these two events if the Josephus passage is genuine so either we have one of the wonkiest definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world or these are two different James and the "him called Christ" phrase was added to make the connection. The later interpretation is supported by Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century who states James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone)

 

[dejudge]

It is still useful as an example of how Christians really didn't know their timeline and kept royally FUBARing it up...and the efforts to hide the fact they were FUBARing the timeline up is hysterical.

Christian writers knew they were writing fiction with respect to the supposed Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his disciples/apostles and Saul/Paul.

It must be noted that Christians writers knew the timeline for deaths of the Emperors of Rome yet could not remember when their own Jesus character died.

If one combines Irenaeus' Against Hearacies and Demonstration (74) he clearly has Jesus crusifiction between 42-44 CE and throws in Pontius Pilate so it matches the canonal Gospels. Throws out Paul's visions out on its ear as well.

"Against Heresies" and "Demonstration" do not clearly show anything other than they are forgeries, written by multiple authors and contradictory.

It is virtually impossible for the same author of "Against Heresies to have used gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles then claim the supposed Jesus was was crucified when he was about to be fifty years old.

In the NT Gospels the supposed Jesus of Nazareth, and even stated in "Against Heresies" was about to be 30 years old in the fifteenth year of Tiberius c 29-30 CE and was crucified under Pilate when Caiaphas was high priest.

Against Heresies" 3.XIV. 3

3. Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting, ] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance.................. the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.

Against Heresies 2. XXII. 5

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify...

"Against Heresies" is clearly a contradictory source compiled by multiple authors.

Then there is " Book III, Chapter 21 Paragraph 3 of Against Heresies Irenaeus stated "for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus" (i.e. 14 CE) "

This contradicts your own claim that "Against Heresies" and "Demonstration" clearly has Jesus crusifiction between 42-44 CE.

If the supposed Jesus was born c 14 CE and was crucified around 50 years of age then he would have been killed c 64 CE.

You missed the comparative analysis here ie just because someone was claimed to be born of a virgin doesn't mean they did't exist which has been the point you have been banging on with all the enthusiasm of a Trump supporter claiming the 2020 election was "stolen".

Just because the supposed Jesus of Nazareth was claimed to be born of a virgin doesn't mean the character existed. Romulus and Remus were born of a virgin but did not exist.

I do not accept that NT Jesus of Nazareth, the water-walking, transfiguring, son of ghost who resurrected and ascended in a cloud was a figure of history based on the existing evidence.

By the way, I have never ever claimed anywhere at anytime that the 2020 election was stolen. I regard the POTUS as the world's greatest conman.

As I predicted a pathological liar could never make America great he could only make it worse than ever.

Come on. Haven't you ever heard of the Big Lie ie 'keep repeating a claim often enough and loud enough and they will believe'? Columbus sailing west to prove the Earth was round is a perfect modern example was was even taught as history for about a century.

What a coincidence. The Church is a big supporter of a pathological liar.

As I said we have a cherry picking of what works went into the NT and what works Christian Church writers were preserved. When we can compare what they claimed to an actually surviving document it doesn't say what they claim it said (big surprise).

People make conclusions on existing evidence not on what they imagine may or may not be missing.

We can compare what is found in Christian writings with what is found in non-apologetic sources.

Non-apologetic sources of antiquity wrote nothing about Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his teachings, his disciples/apostles and Saul/Paul.

All we have are forgeries or falsely attributed Christian writings loaded with fiction and implausibility.

Jesus of Nazareth was nothing but belief-never ever history.

Paul's Jesus was none of those things. Heck, Paul even expressly denies a virgin birth!

The Pauline Epistles do not deny the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus

The Lord Jesus in the Epistles was the firstborn of the dead, God's own son, the creator a Spirit.

Colossians 1:18--And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

1 Corinthians 15:45---And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.

Romans 1:1-3 states that Jesus came "from the seed of David, according to the flesh" (the belief at the time was that women were the earth into which men planted their seed so here Paul expressly states that Jesus's link to David is through the male line: i.e. through Joseph)

What nonsense!! Christian writers and the Church admit their Jesus had no human father. In addition, it is simply absurd to assume that only a male could be of the seed of David.

Galatians 4:4 stated "God sent his Son, born of a woman" using the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin).

Mark (generally regarded as our oldest gospels) make no mention of a virgin birth.

Cain and Abel were not born of a virgin. Noah was not born of a virgin.

They are all fiction characters.

It is most ridiculous to assume that gMark's water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting son of a god was human because there is no virgin birth.

Actually from the internal comments we know 1 Clement was written c 70 CE, for some insane reason the scholars want to ignore this (since at least 1913 and likely earlier). Which is weird because dating it easier better supports the existence of Paul: "By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. " (1Clem 5:5)

What!!!?? Based on your bizarre reasoning the Paul/Seneca letters must be authentic because they mention Paul.

By the way, how could 1 Clement be written c 70 when it is claimed by some that he was bishop of Rome c 95 CE and that it was written to the Church of Corinth when there was a great dissension???

Eusebius' Church History 3

In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years.

1 Clement is evidence of the vast amount of forgeries and false attribution in Christian writings and that bishops were manufactured to invent a history of the Church.

Up to at least c 400 CE, virtually every Christian writer who mentioned Clement invented their own time period and order for his bishopric of Rome.

 

[searchengineguy]

I have noticed that throughout the threads about the Jesus Myth, members are referring to a "Jesus" or a "Christ". There have been lots of people known as Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Lord etc, but there was only one Jesus of Nazareth character. It seems to be the most rational and secular name for the "Historical" Jesus of the NT. He even calls himself that in Acts 22:8

New International Version

8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.



“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied."



Yet, apart from the NT, no-one mentions the moniker "Jesus of Nazareth" for at least 1,000 years after his supposed death. Not even Josephus or Tacitus mentions this moniker! I realise that this is an Argument from Silence, but it's a very strong argument from Silence.

 

[searchengineguy]

This shuts down the historical Jesus argument. The most historical name the Jesus had and pinpoints EXACTLY who we are talking about is completely unknown external to the NT for over a thousand years. Josephus didn't mention this moniker and it wasn't recorded in any Jewish text.

To the person that was the most important Jewish historian of the era and location and identified other less important people known as Jesus, he wasn't known at all.

 

[Brainache]

This shuts down the historical Jesus argument. The most historical name the Jesus had and pinpoints EXACTLY who we are talking about is completely unknown external to the NT for over a thousand years. Josephus didn't mention this moniker and it wasn't recorded in any Jewish text.

To the person that was the most important Jewish historian of the era and location and identified other less important people known as Jesus, he wasn't known at all.

Welcome to the forum searchengineguy, always good to see another Aussie around. Please be aware that these HJ threads have been going for years, so good luck in bringing anything new to the debate.

Personally I think it is far more likely that Jesus was known as a "Nazarene" (Nasorean) which was a category of Jewish Holy Man. It is the origin of "Nosrim" which is what Christians are called in Rabbinic literature and Islam.

It doesn't mean "from Nazareth" it means someone who separates himself from the corruption of the secular world. The followers of Paul's theology didn't like to think of Jesus as a fundamentalist militant Jewish rebel against Rome and the original meaning was lost.

Look up his brother James and the other original Jewish followers - "Ebionites" to see just how far away from Jesus' teachings Pauls letters are.

If you're interested, I have a couple of threads on Paul and how he distorted things:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=345423

 

[searchengineguy]

Welcome to the forum searchengineguy, always good to see another Aussie around. Please be aware that these HJ threads have been going for years, so good luck in bringing anything new to the debate.

Personally I think it is far more likely that Jesus was known as a "Nazarene" (Nasorean) which was a category of Jewish Holy Man. It is the origin of "Nosrim" which is what Christians are called in Rabbinic literature and Islam.

It doesn't mean "from Nazareth" it means someone who separates himself from the corruption of the secular world. The followers of Paul's theology didn't like to think of Jesus as a fundamentalist militant Jewish rebel against Rome and the original meaning was lost.

Look up his brother James and the other original Jewish followers - "Ebionites" to see just how far away from Jesus' teachings Pauls letters are.

Thanks for the welcome Brainache. What convinces me that "Jesus of Nazareth" was the name that the character was commonly known as is that it was mentioned as such 17 times, including him referring to himself by that moniker. See:
"1. Matthew 26:71
Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
2. Mark 1:24
“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
3. Mark 10:47
When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
4. Luke 4:34
“Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
5. Luke 18:37
They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.”
6. Luke 24:19
“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.
7. John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
8. John 18:5
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)
9. John 18:7
Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
10. John 19:19
Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
11. Acts 2:22
“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
12. Acts 3:6
Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”
13. Acts 4:10
then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
14. Acts 6:14
For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
15. Acts 10:38
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
16. Acts 22:8
“‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.
17. Acts 26:9
“I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth."

 

[searchengineguy]

The above argument stands alone as the last word on the historicity of Jesus, without going down any more rabbit holes. If Christians acknowledge that from their OWN texts that the most secular and most probable name of their hero was what was mentioned 17 times therein, including what he referred to as his own name, then they must also acknowledge why no-one external to their story book mentioned him for over 1,000 years.