Historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

That raises some interesting points.

Firstly, at the time the events of the NT were supposed to have happened, literacy levels were very low by our standards, and most of those who were fully literate were more likely to be among the elite who had some kind of advanced education available only to a privileged few. The region was under Roman control at the time, so its is more likely that Romans had the kind of education required for literacy. Your average peasants or itinerant goat herders of the time would very likely be totally illiterate, so the teachings of a peripatetic preacher would more likely to have relied on oral tradition to be spread. with followers passing on what they saw and heard by word of mouth.

We even have historical estimates there. For the Romans complete literacy was about 10%, partial literacy (as in, can work out what the sign at the market says) a bit higher. In a backwater province like Palestine, depending on who you believe, it is estimated to be anywhere between 1% and 3%, and at that mostly concentrated in the cities. There are rules over there which mention finding the guy who can read in a town, so, yeah...

 

[acbytesla]

We even have historical estimates there. For the Romans complete literacy was about 10%, partial literacy (as in, can work out what the sign at the market says) a bit higher. In a backwater province like Palestine, depending on who you believe, it is estimated to be anywhere between 1% and 3%, and at that mostly concentrated in the cities. There are rules over there which mention finding the guy who can read in a town, so, yeah...

I find it difficult to believe even in Rome that literacy was that high. The oportunity to even read a book was remote.

 

[dejudge]

Not even NT authors corroborate a single Epistle from Saul/Paul or mention a so-called Pauline Church.

That's nonsense, because only one book in the NT is concerned with Paul at all, without being by Paul: Acts.

You don't know what you talking about. Actually there are two NT books which mentioned a character called Paul which are Acts of the Apostles and 2 Peter.

Acts of the Apostles is considered useless fiction and 2 Peter is admitted to be a forgery even by Church writers.

Acts of the Apostles mentioned over 100 acts of the supposed Paul but never mentioned a single act of him writing a letter to anyone anywhere at anytime.

It must not be forgotten that the author of Acts claimed to have traveled with
his Paul, the fabricated convert, around the Roman Empire.

If there was one NT writing which should have mentioned the acts of writing letters to Churches it would be Acts of the Apostles.

The author did mention the acts of writing letters but as expected it was not Paul who wrote them it was the supposed Jerusalem Church who gave letters to Paul, the fabricated convert.

All the so-called Pauline Epistles, all of them, are fraudulent historically useless writings, falsely attributed to Saul/Paul of Acts, and manufactured sometime in the 2nd century or later.

For the gospels it's not even in the time frame they're writing about. So basically demanding that they write something about Paul or really the church 20 years after Jesus, is as bloody stonking stupid as demanding that War And Peace, whose epilogue ends in 1820, and whose main action ends even earlier, mentions the tsar's death in 1825. I mean, if Tolstoy knew that, he must have written that in the book, and if he didn't, it's proof that Alexander I is made up. That's the kind of nonsense logic you're applying.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about at all.

It is claimed by Jesus cult Christian writings that Paul, the fabricated convert, was killed under Nero who was Emperor up to c 68 CE.

If it is assumed all the NT Gospels were composed no earlier than c 70 CE then NT Gospel writers should have known of Paul and that he and the other apostles preached the Gospel to the world after their Jesus [born of a Ghost] resurrected and ascended to heaven.

And Acts being a novel, frankly, if you want to decide exactly what goes into it, then write your own novel. Presuming to know exactly which mundane details the author would or wouldn't include, without even knowing for sure who that author is or any context really, is just bloody stonking stupid.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Acts of the Apostles did mention letters written by the Jerusalem Church and given to Saul/Paul and even provided some details of the contents of the supposed letters.

Plus, generally, it's not the kind of thing that went into that kind of documents. If you read Josephus for example, hardly any letters are ever mentioned about ANY of the characters involved, even when realistically that would be the way they got some piece of information.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. You seem to have never read the works of Josephus.

For example, Antiquities of the Jews mentions a large amount of letters and even mentioned details of some the contents.

But generally, you didn't mention every time one of your characters went to the loo, or sat down and wrote something. Ancient books, especially novels, were NOT the modern kind of 200 page sprawl, where even the character stopping in front of a mirror or opening a book are mentioned as flavour details. That kind of sprawling, intertwined story only appeared after mass produced paper and the printing press made it be even viable at all. Acts has a total of 28 pages, for example, and only slightly over 12 of them are after Paul's vision in Acts 16. That's it. The whole story of Paul after his conversion is a mere slightly over 12 pages. By modern standards it wouldn't even be a novel, but a rather compressed short story. They just didn't have the SPACE to include every arbitrary detail you can think up.

There are many many characters mentioned in the writings attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius who do not have a single word about them in any other writing.

The supposed Paul should have traveled around the Roman Empire, attempting to convert Roman Governors, Kings of the Jews and people in the Roman Empire to worship a crucified man[ who died like a dog] as a God and to abolish the sacrifice of animals.

Philo and Josephus wrote about madmen but yet wrote nothing about the supposed Paul the founder of a new Christian cult.

Philo wrote about a madman called Carabbas . See Philo's Flaccus.

Josephus wrote about a madman called Jesus the son of Ananus. See Wars of the Jews 6.5.3.

If Saul/Paul did exist and was such a significant evangelist of the new Christian cult then it would be expected that some writers would mention him.

It is clear that there was no known Jesus cult Christians in the time of Philo, Josephus, Pliny the elder, Tacitus and Suetonius so some of their writings were manipulated and forged.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Jesus the Galilean is found only in fiction, forgeries or falsely attributed writings and his birth and death are without historical corroboration by any independent source.

Wait. Are you saying that there are no actual existing archeological documents that mention Jesus that have been scientifically dated to the time of Jesus? Well, that changes everything!

 

[smartcooky]

Wait. Are you saying that there are no actual existing archeological documents that mention Jesus that have been scientifically dated to the time of Jesus? Well, that changes everything!

 

[HansMustermann]

It must not be forgotten that the author of Acts claimed to have traveled with his Paul, the fabricated convert, around the Roman Empire.

AGAIN, that part is a later forgery. And the fact that you can't comprehend that even after being told, and act as if verily the whole NT is a coherent whole, just tells me you're utterly unqualified to even be having this discussion.

If there was one NT writing which should have mentioned the acts of writing letters to Churches it would be Acts of the Apostles.

No. It's the only one which COULD, given its scope, but there is no SHOULD. Again, if you want a novel to say what you want it to say, write your own. It's plain delusional to decide what someone else SHOULD write in their own novel.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about at all.

It is claimed by Jesus cult Christian writings that Paul, the fabricated convert, was killed under Nero who was Emperor up to c 68 CE.

No. It just shows that YOU don't know WTH you're talking about, and are making a hash of what was actually in those books, what was forged later, and what's not even in there. The claim that Paul was killed under Nero is the last kind. It's just some later church tradition, from when they started making up the whole martyrdom porn about every name they could find and associate with Xianity.

But anyway, as scholarship goes, what you're doing is barely CT level. And that's being generous.

If it is assumed all the NT Gospels were composed no earlier than c 70 CE then NT Gospel writers should have known of Paul and that he and the other apostles preached the Gospel to the world after their Jesus [born of a Ghost] resurrected and ascended to heaven.

You have produced no evidence that they didn't. In fact, you go against direct evidence that they did, seein' as the same guy who wrote Luke is also the one who wrote a whole novel about Paul, a.k.a., Acts. That's not scholarship, that's the textbook definition of a delusion: holding beliefs in spite of evidence that they're wrong.

As for the gospels themselves, you just have that nonsense idea that a book should include something that happened 10 years after its end, and which is fully outside its scope. Just because you arbitrarily said so. It's like asking that War And Peace should include the November Uprising of 1830, if the latter weren't made up.

What you're doing really is THAT kind of CT-level nonsense.

It is clear that there was no known Jesus cult Christians in the time of Philo, Josephus, Pliny the elder, Tacitus and Suetonius so some of their writings were manipulated and forged.

Keyword being: known. Actually a better keyword being: noteworthy.

But that's common among all the mystery cults. The cult of Mithras for example also is first mentioned in a poem in the 90's AD, and the first manuscript we actually have of that poem is from the 8'th to 9'th century. Then it skips straight to Plutarch and Justin Martyr for the first mention at all of what that cult was about. Even though there's both archaeological evidence and Plutarch's word that it was practiced in the 1st century BC. Effectively we have nearly 200 years of the cult not being mentioned at all.

When you have groups that consist of a dozen people meeting around someone's dining room, there is no reason to assume that everyone would even know WTH that's about, much less feel some obligation to write about it.

 

[HansMustermann]

I find it difficult to believe even in Rome that literacy was that high. The oportunity to even read a book was remote.

Yes, well, it IS high for the ancient world. I mean for example in pre-Hellenic Egypt full literacy is estimated at a whopping 0.5%. And that was the land associated with papyrus and scribes.

That said, the Romans did have another use for writing. They had wax covered tablets that you could take notes on, and then erase, so you could do SOMETHING with writing without needing to afford a book. It also brought down the price of education a lot, since basically you could learn the letters if you wanted to, without wasting the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars in today's money just for the paper to practice on.

 

[David Mo]

I find it difficult to believe even in Rome that literacy was that high. The oportunity to even read a book was remote.

Harris determined 5-10% here: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674033818

Variable according cities-rural world, Rome- provinces, among different provinces...
.

Neither the Greeks nor the Romans came anywhere near to completing the transition to a modern kind of written culture. They relied more heavily on oral communication than has generally been imagined.

 

[David Mo]

Your diversion tactics won't work anymore!!!

I didn't expect anything else from you.

 

[Tassman]

It is virtually impossible to date any NT writing to a specific year using only the Epistles.

Again, biblical scholarship uses historical-critical method (i.e. higher criticism) which includes paleography, but is not limited to it.

So-called Bible Scholars use Acts of the Apostles, known useless fiction, as a credible historical account for Saul/Paul in their bogus attempt to date Epistles

Very few scholars regard Luke/Acts as reliable history. The authentic Pauline epistles are comparatively more reliable (being authored by the claimant and relatively early).

NT Jesus was never a figure of history from conception to ascension.

The Jesus that supposedly was conceived by a virgin and supposedly ascended to heaven is certainly not a real figure of history. This sort of thing just doesn’t happen to real historical figures – but this sort of magical nonsense belief was not uncommon in the superstitious era of 2,000 years ago.

Once you understand that Jesus never existed then his so-called disciples and the supposed Paul are all fiction characters of the NT Jesus fables.

There is an intermediate position which your “all or nothing” stance has ignored. Namely that an historical figure called Jesus - a peripatetic, charismatic, slightly bonkers preacher existed and attracted a group of peasants around him who thought he was just fabulous. And, when he got himself killed, they clothed their hero with magical qualities that grew in the telling until they were set down some 40 to 70 years later by believers based upon tradition and hearsay.

Paul is a different argument as previously discussed.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Your statement is highly illogical.

Your diversion tactics won't work anymore!!!

 

[dejudge]

Wait. Are you saying that there are no actual existing archeological documents that mention Jesus that have been scientifically dated to the time of Jesus? Well, that changes everything!

There are no existing contemporary archaeological documents that mention Jesus that have been scientifically dated to the time of Jesus.

 

[HansMustermann]

There also aren't any writings about Alexander The Great dated to his time. And I don't just mean having a copy dated to his lifetime, but we don't have the primary sources at all, period.

Thing is, as you've been told repeatedly, that's not how history works. Paleography is one tool, but not the only one. It's not even the main one. Hell, it's not even that high up the list.

Yes, there is still a problem with the sources for Jesus specifically, but paleography isn't even the main problem there, much less the alpha and omega. Hammering on the idea that paleography is THE thing that makes or breaks something is... uninformed, to put it mildly.

Edit: in fact, here's another reason why it's complete nonsense to hammer on that. As you've been told, the currently estimated margin of error of paleography is about +/-50 years. The average life expectancy at the time was 48 years. More for the rich, obviously, but conversely less for some random peasant from Palestine. For most people who ever lived, paleography fundamentally CAN'T guarantee that any document actually falls within their lifetime. So insisting that someone was made up unless you can positively identify a document to a date within their lifetime is fundamentally nonsense. The VAST majority of people who ever lived would fail that made up test.

Edit 2: In fact, they'd have to live over 100 years to have even a sliver of a time window where the error margin wouldn't allow for that document to be, in extremis, written either before their supposed birth or after their death. Not only most ancient people would fail that requirement, but even the VAST majority of modern people would fail it, because even nowadays most people don't live that long. Furthermore, if someone lived to the age of 101 yeas old, a document would have to be written exactly between their 50'th and 51'st birthday for the whole possible interval of +/-50 years to be guaranteed to be within their lifetime. That's slightly less than 1% of that lifetime where they could possibly pass that made up requirement of yours.

 

[dejudge]

Again, biblical scholarship uses historical-critical method (i.e. higher criticism) which includes paleography, but is not limited to it.

Bible Scholars use Acts of the Apostles, useless fiction, to date the Epistles to the 50's.

Very few scholars regard Luke/Acts as reliable history. The authentic Pauline epistles are comparatively more reliable (being authored by the claimant and relatively early).

Many Scholars use Acts as a credible historical source for Saul/Paul's travels around the Roman Empire.

For example, the dating of the Epistle to the Romans by some Scholars is directly based on the claims in Acts that Paul was to go to Rome for trial when Festus was Governor c 59-62.

The Jesus that supposedly was conceived by a virgin and supposedly ascended to heaven is certainly not a real figure of history. This sort of thing just doesn’t happen to real historical figures – but this sort of magical nonsense belief was not uncommon in the superstitious era of 2,000 years ago.

Jesus was not a real figure of history that is precisely why NT authors claimed he was born of a ghost. There were never any documents of his birth and life at any time.

Up to the 1st century people in the Roman Empire believed Ghosts or Phantoms could impregnate Virgins.

Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were born of a Ghost [ an apparition] and a Virgin.

Plutarch Romulus

There was an oracle of Tethys in Tuscany which Tarchetius consulted, and received an answer that 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.

The holy ghost conception of NT Jesus is similar to the conception of Romulus and Remus.

There is an intermediate position which your “all or nothing” stance has ignored. Namely that an historical figure called Jesus - a peripatetic, charismatic, slightly bonkers preacher existed and attracted a group of peasants around him who thought he was just fabulous. And, when he got himself killed, they clothed their hero with magical qualities that grew in the telling until they were set down some 40 to 70 years later by believers based upon tradition and hearsay.

Your imaginative Jesus story is complete fiction and without historical corroboration.

It is just total nonsense that people in the Roman Empire would worship as a God a known false prophet and dead crucified criminal who died like a dog in Jerusalem.

People in the Roman Empire worshiped the great magician like Simon Magus as a God while he was alive.

Paul is a different argument as previously discussed.

NT Paul, the fabricated convert, is just as fictitious as Jesus and the disciples.

 

[clayflingythingy]

Robert Price is one biblical scholar who asserts the Pauline epistles are 2nd century forgeries. It has been a while since I read the Amazing Colossal Apostle so please forgive if I get a detail wrong.

Price asserts the 2nd century Catholic church mostly ignored Paul, with Turtullian referring to Paul as the "apostle to the heretics". The Catholic church did make some use of Corinthians as an anti heretic tract according to Price.

Price believes the epistles were penned by Marcionite and gnostic circles. He gives credit to Marcion himself for writing Galatians.

Acts was the Catholic church's attempt to show Paul as subordinate to the Jerusalem church and to bring the marcionites and gnostics into the fold. Price believes the epistles have been heavily redacted with Catholic overlays to cancel the heretical passages.

To my mind Price jumped the shark when he tried to make the case that Paul was Simon Magus.

By the time I finished Price's book I was unconvinced. It seems to me more likely that Paul existed and really was in conflict with the Jerusalem Pillars. That Galatians was really written by Marcion to explain his rejection by the Roman church I find a bit of a stretch.

However, we really cannot know with certitude, same as with HJ (who I think most likely did not exist).

Price's book was an interesting read even if I do not agree with the conclusions reached.

Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

 

[dejudge]

By the time I finished Price's book I was unconvinced. It seems to me more likely that Paul existed and really was in conflict with the Jerusalem Pillars. That Galatians was really written by Marcion to explain his rejection by the Roman church I find a bit of a stretch.

There were real "Jerusalem Pillars"??? It is most bizarre that you would accept claims in the NT Epistles as historically credible.

There is simply no historical corroboration for any claim in the Epistles about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

 

[HansMustermann]

It is just total nonsense that people in the Roman Empire would worship as a God a known false prophet and dead crucified criminal who died like a dog in Jerusalem.

Yet, again, those who joined the Xians were exactly those who believed the story the Xians were telling. Namely that yes, Jesus got nailed and 'died like a dog'. Regardless of whether it was actually true or not, (or for that matter whether they believed it happened in Jerusalem or in heavens like Carrier has it,) but nevertheless those who joined are those who believed exactly that claim to be true: that Jesus got captured, nailed, and 'died like a dog', and yet he's the kind that can give you eternal life. In fact, to this day, provably that is exactly what missionaries are telling potential converts. Go to some church and ask some priest who's this Jesus guy and why should you start worshipping him, and that's exactly what he'll ask you to believe. And anyone who joins is believing exactly that.

So just proclaiming that no, they wouldn't, is pretty much claiming that you can deny reality just because you said so.

 

[dejudge]

Yet, again, those who joined the Xians were exactly those who believed the story the Xians were telling. Namely that yes, Jesus got nailed and 'died like a dog'. Regardless of whether it was actually true or not, (or for that matter whether they believed it happened in Jerusalem or in heavens like Carrier has it,) but nevertheless those who joined are those who believed exactly that claim to be true: that Jesus got captured, nailed, and 'died like a dog', and yet he's the kind that can give you eternal life. In fact, to this day, provably that is exactly what missionaries are telling potential converts. Go to some church and ask some priest who's this Jesus guy and why should you start worshipping him, and that's exactly what he'll ask you to believe. And anyone who joins is believing exactly that.

So just proclaiming that no, they wouldn't, is pretty much claiming that you can deny reality just because you said so.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The NT Jesus story claims he resurrected on the third day.

NT authors claimed their Jesus born of a Ghost conquered death.

Mark 9:31

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

.

Mark 16:6

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

1 Corinthians 15:17

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

The Jesus cult Christians believed their Jesus born of a Ghost was crucified but he resurrected on third day.


Acts 4:33

And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Romans 1:4

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Philippians 3:10

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.

1 Corinthians 15:15

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

The NT Gospels and Epistles are a compilation by fraudsters who claimed their Jesus, born of a Ghost, resurrected and that there were witnesses that God raised him from the dead.

The entire NT is a complete fraudulent historically useless document based on total fiction.

 

[smartcooky]

You don't know what you are talking about.

The NT Jesus story claims he resurrected on the third day.

NT authors claimed their Jesus born of a Ghost conquered death.

Mark 9:31 .

Mark 16:6

1 Corinthians 15:17

The Jesus cult Christians believed their Jesus born of a Ghost was crucified but he resurrected on third day.


Acts 4:33

Romans 1:4
Philippians 3:10

1 Corinthians 15:15

The NT Gospels and Epistles are a compilation by fraudsters who claimed their Jesus, born of a Ghost, resurrected and that there were witnesses that God raised him from the dead.

The entire NT is a complete fraudulent historically useless document based on total fiction.

Blah, blah, blah. The record's stuck!
Blah, blah, blah. The record's stuck!
Blah, blah, blah. The record's stuck!

You entirely missed the point Hans made in the post you were replying to. Let me repeat it for you somewhat enhanced so you have better chance of actually READING what he said

HansMustermann said
"those who joined the Xians were exactly those who believed the story the Xians were telling. Regardless of whether it was actually true or not, but nevertheless those who joined are those who believed exactly that claim to be true: that Jesus got captured, nailed, and 'died like a dog', and yet he's the kind that can give you eternal life."

It didn't really matter whether or not what the NT said was true, or partially true, or partially fiction or mostly fiction or all fiction. what matters is that THE EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVED IT WAS TRUE!!! That is how Christianity started - hell, that's how ANY specific religion usually gets started, by people implicitly believing what is being preached!

 

[dejudge]

Blah, blah, blah. The record's stuck!
Blah, blah, blah. The record's stuck!
Blah, blah, blah. The record's stuck!

You entirely missed the point Hans made in the post you were replying to. Let me repeat it for you somewhat enhanced so you have better chance of actually READING what he said

HansMustermann said
"those who joined the Xians were exactly those who believed the story the Xians were telling. Regardless of whether it was actually true or not, but nevertheless those who joined are those who believed exactly that claim to be true: that Jesus got captured, nailed, and 'died like a dog', and yet he's the kind that can give you eternal life."

It didn't really matter whether or not what the NT said was true, or partially true, or partially fiction or mostly fiction or all fiction. what matters is that THE EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVED IT WAS TRUE!!! That is how Christianity started - hell, that's how ANY specific religion usually gets started, by people implicitly believing what is being preached!

You don't know what you are talking about.

You lack the basic understanding of the beliefs of the Jesus cult or is deliberately omitting the belief that their Jesus resurrected.

NT authors claimed that their Jesus was born was God Creator, that he was crucified, that he died and then resurrected.

The Jesus cult believe their Jesus conquered death.

CEB

We know that Christ has been raised from the dead and he will never die again. Death no longer has power over him.

Jesus cult christians do not worship men as Gods.

Romans 1

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

The Jesus cult believed their Jesus lives and sits on the right hand of God.

NT Jesus was God.

NT Jesus resurrected.

NT Jesus was never born, never died like a dog, never resurrected and never ascended into heaven.

NT Jesus is fiction.