Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.

One must take a very good notice of what is claimed in the Epistle to the Corinthians.

The writer claimed over 500 persons simultaneously [at once] saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

1 Corinthians 15:6

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep

It simply false that over 500 persons could have seen the resurrected Jesus at the same time.

The so-called Pauline writings do not represent historical accounts of their supposed resurrected Jesus- they are just a pack of lies.

 

[Tassman]

Just as I expected you will never provide any historical evidence for your Jesus. All you will always do is just list names of people who believe their Jesus lived.

You seem to be confusing the probable existence of a failed prophet called Jesus with the mythical god/man of the New Testament who most probably didn’t.

Bart Ehrman, Dr. James D G Dunn and Dr. Michael Grant have never ever presented any historical corroborative evidence for their Jesus. Never ever.

They have all provided good reason to believe the man Jesus existed – i.e. the peripatetic prophet. On the basis of what expertise do you rebut the professional consensus of eminent scholars? Merely sneering at them is not sufficient.

Ehrman is most absurd in his argument for an HJ.


Now, look at Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? page 74.

Ehrman declares

He admitted that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus and were falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but yet stated that they should be treated as historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth.

How completely ridiculous!!!

Ehrman is not supporting the historical truth of the gospels. He’s an atheist!!! As a scholar he is using their material as the basis of historical-critical methodology. Namely, the investigation of the origins of the ancient texts. His intention is to understand the world behind the texts so as to reconstruct the true nature of the events (as far as possible) that the texts describe.

On this basis he is able to conclude that the man Jesus “certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". A minority of competent scholars such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier disagree but their opinion, whilst interesting, is considered a fringe position.

There is simply no historical evidence anywhere at all for an HJ so please stop wasting time.

HJ is derived from fiction in the NT.

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure? It is reasonable to believe that in a gullible era of magic and miracles a man called Jesus attracted a band of followers, who later passed down tales, which grew in the telling, and ultimately recorded in literary form. Conversely it is not reasonable to think they are true.

 

[Tassman]

One must take a very good notice of what is claimed in the Epistle to the Corinthians.

The writer claimed over 500 persons simultaneously [at once] saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

1 Corinthians 15:6

It simply false that over 500 persons could have seen the resurrected Jesus at the same time.

The so-called Pauline writings do not represent historical accounts of their supposed resurrected Jesus-

It happens. Group psychology makes it possible. We’ve seen examples of such phenomena in modern times such as the so-called Miracle of Fatima in 1917. A huge crowd gathered to view the predicted appearance of the BVM (blessed virgin Mary) and the sun danced around the sky and careened towards earth. Obviously, in reality, there was no such occurrence but tens of thousands believed there was.

 

[ahhell]

Who said that Jerusalem doesn't exist? You just said that, but who else ever said that?

Just because Jerusalem exists, that is zero evidence that Jesus existed.

What do you think exists as actual evidence (anything at all) of anyone ever making a credible claim to say that they had met or seen Jesus?

If nobody ever wrote to make a credible claim of meeting Jesus, then all you have as "evidence" is the anonymously written hearsay in “copies” produced centuries later ... and that is just not credible as reliable evidence, and especially not when all of that anonymous hearsay was filled from end-to-end with accounts of miracles & the supernatural, which at that time everyone was only too willing to accept as certain fact (because it was deeply religious & claimed to derive ultimately from the word of God himself), but which 2000 years later is now known to be almost certainly & very clearly, mere religious fanatical invention.

Are gospel stories like that “evidence”? Well they are evidence of how gullible and superstitious people were 2000 years ago. But that's about all. It is clearly not credible as evidence of any real Jesus ever known to anyone.

Pardon ?
If that's some sort of bizarre joke, then I don't get it.

Jerusalem obviously DID exist, and STILL exists.
I never claimed otherwise, and I have never seen anyone claim Jerusalem didn't exist.




In fact I clearly explained that covers the period from the 30s when the alleged Jesus was active, to the 150s (or 170s) when the Gospels became known to the wider Christian community (and then pagan critics a little later.)
Was that explanation too complex for you ?




Bizarre. No connection to my post at all. Obviously Antioch and Alexandria DID exist. Did you read my post in a hurry with your eyes closed ?



Are you feeling OK ?
Perhaps you need a nice cup of tea and a lie down

Kapyong

Are you guys missing the point on purpose? The argument that dejudge is making is basically, parts of the gospels are not true therefore they are all false and Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles could not have existed. The obvious extension of that would be that nothing else mentioned in them could have existed either. A lesson I keep relearning, you can't use analogy or metaphor on the internet. It is basically the equivalent of, the Gallic Wars by Caesar has known inaccuracies, so Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus could not have existed as there was no mention of them elsewhere.

The clearly have some truth and some falsehood. Jerusalem existed, Herod existed etc. The question is how much truth and how much falsehood. Regardless of how fantastic and late they are, the gospels are evidence that Jesus existed. That anyone bothered to right a biography about him suggests he was real. That is by no means definitive, so sure, we can't actually know if there was such a character or how closely he matches the non-fantastic elements in the gospels or not. It is no more certain that there was not a Jesus who preached reform in Judea around 2000 years ago or that there was not. That you or anyone else thinks is probably didn't exist isn't really the issue, that point is debatable. The claim that he definitely did not, that's not really debatable. We can't actually know.

That is a different claim from, if there was such preacher named Jesus, he was not really the same person as described in the gospels. Which, is like your opinion man, but not something that I would argue strenuously against as I am against the notion that there was definitely never any such preacher.

I really don't see why the lack of contemporary writing about Jesus is so compelling to folks. The majority of folks were illiterate at the time and most of the evidence indicates that the christianity was a pretty minor presence for a century or so.

 

[dejudge]

You seem to be confusing the probable existence of a failed prophet called Jesus with the mythical god/man of the New Testament who most probably didn’t.

Which book mentions your failed prophet? The NT mentions a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost called Jesus.

In the fables of the NT Jesus predicted he would resurrect and he did.

It simply false that the NT claimed Jesus was a failed prophet.


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 15:3-4

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

Your failed prophet is a recent fiction story manufactured from the NT fables.

They have all provided good reason to believe the man Jesus existed – i.e. the peripatetic prophet. On the basis of what expertise do you rebut the professional consensus of eminent scholars? Merely sneering at them is not sufficient.

They all have no historical evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Ehrman is not supporting the historical truth of the gospels. He’s an atheist!!! As a scholar he is using their material as the basis of historical-critical methodology. Namely, the investigation of the origins of the ancient texts. His intention is to understand the world behind the texts so as to reconstruct the true nature of the events (as far as possible) that the texts describe.

Ehrman admits that even the non-miraculous events regarding Jesus were also most likely implausible like the census where Joseph had to travel to Jerusalem, the triumphant entry, the exchange of Barabbas and Jesus.

On this basis he is able to conclude that the man Jesus “certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". A minority of competent scholars such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier disagree but their opinion, whilst interesting, is considered a fringe position.

Ehrman claims historians do not deal with certainties but then still argued he was certain his Jesus was in Jerusalem.

In any event, no person, historian or not, has ever presented any historical evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure? It is reasonable to believe that in a gullible era of magic and miracles a man called Jesus attracted a band of followers, who later passed down tales, which grew in the telling, and ultimately recorded in literary form. Conversely it is not reasonable to think they are true.

Your Jesus is a recent fiction character manufactured from the fables of the NT.

Your Jesus never ever existed.

Your Jesus is completely unknown in all historical writings from the time of Herod the Great to President Trump.

 

[IanS]

Are you guys missing the point on purpose? The argument that dejudge is making is basically, parts of the gospels are not true therefore they are all false and Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles could not have existed. The obvious extension of that would be that nothing else mentioned in them could have existed either.

That's not an "obvious extension" at all though is it. No it's not. I am not responsible for whatever Dejudge says here (he can speak for himself). But just because some of us are pointing out that the evidence might now (21st century) show that Jesus did not exist, that says absolutely zero from any of us about Jerusalem not existing!

Lets keep it simple here (because it is simple) - there is all the evidence that anyone could ever want for the existence of Jerusalem. But just because a gospel mentions the name of a real place such as Jerusalem, or the name of a real person such as Pontius Pilate, that is absolutely NOT evidence that what was said about Jesus in those gospels was true ... and in fact, on the contrary, all evidence now known from 21st century education shows that the gospel stories of Jesus were certainly being created as religious myths.

A lesson I keep relearning, you can't use analogy or metaphor on the internet. It is basically the equivalent of, the Gallic Wars by Caesar has known inaccuracies, so Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus could not have existed as there was no mention of them elsewhere.

The clearly have some truth and some falsehood. Jerusalem existed, Herod existed etc. The question is how much truth and how much falsehood.

No that is most definitely NOT the question!

The question is - what genuine evidence is there to show that Jesus was ever known to any of those authors, or known to anyone else at the time, as a real person? And the answer is - precisely none! ... i.e. no credible evidence of anyone ever meeting a real living Jesus.

Regardless of how fantastic and late they are, the gospels are evidence that Jesus existed.

No! No, the gospels are NOT evidence to show Jesus existed. What they are evidence of, is religious writers of that time recording their beliefs about a supernatural messiah that none of them had ever actually known! That's their evidence ... it's evidence of unsupported belief in the supernatural ... it's not evidence that Jesus was ever real.

That anyone bothered to right a biography about him suggests he was real. That is by no means definitive, so sure, we can't actually know if there was such a character or how closely he matches the non-fantastic elements in the gospels or not. It is no more certain that there was not a Jesus who preached reform in Judea around 2000 years ago or that there was not. That you or anyone else thinks is probably didn't exist isn't really the issue, that point is debatable. The claim that he definitely did not, that's not really debatable. We can't actually know.

The gospels (and the letters) are not a "biography". A "biography" is a detailed account of someone's life. And a significant feature of those gospels and letters is that they tell us almost no incidental details of the ordinary life of Jesus. Instead all they provide are individual snapshot accounts of impossible miracles ... that's not a "biography".

That is a different claim from, if there was such preacher named Jesus, he was not really the same person as described in the gospels. Which, is like your opinion man, but not something that I would argue strenuously against as I am against the notion that there was definitely never any such preacher.

Well, I have said here literally 100 times or more (across all these HJ threads), that I am not of the "opinion" that he could not have existed. And it's not really a mere "opinion" to point out that almost everything said about Jesus in the gospels & letters is a story of the supernatural, and that whilst at that time almost everyone believed that the supernatural and miracles were absolute fact, today we know that tales of the supernatural and the miraculous are almost certainly pure mythical invention.

I really don't see why the lack of contemporary writing about Jesus is so compelling to folks. The majority of folks were illiterate at the time and most of the evidence indicates that the christianity was a pretty minor presence for a century or so.

The reason it is compelling is the same reason why it's so compelling in any legal case. Namely that it has be shown innumerable times in law, that when there is a lapse of many years between the claimed event and a witness claiming to accurately recount the facts of the event, it turns out that the witness is often hopelessly unreliable ... but in the biblical case it's much worse than that, because the witness is writing several centuries later as an anonymous source and claiming that impossible miracles kept happening! ... and that is about as far as you can get from having a reliable or accurate witness.

 

[ahhell]

I think I know what bothers me about this. The case against the existence of a guy name Jesus that is the basis of the mythical Jesus is essentially attempting to prove a negative. Anything beyond, "probably" is just not a reasonable claim. There is quite literally no evidence that he did not exist, no such evidence can really exist(aside from a an actual confession from the creator of the stories.) Those that claim that the explanation that best fits the evidence is that no Jesus existed, should explain why those that study the history and region almost all agree, Jesus probably was a real person. Not just christian and muslims, atheists do to. Its not dissimilar from denying AGW. The vast majority of relevant experts agree, but it snowed last month so I don't believe them.

Those that insist the burden of proof is on those that think he existed, ok, I guess but the burden isn't that high if the claim is just, "there was probably a wandering preacher named Jesus around 2000 years ago." There clearly were guys named Jesus, there were clearly a number of similar preachers, so what's so hard to believe that there was a wandering preacher named Jesus who said stuff similar to what Jesus is alleged to have said? The Jefferson Bible was a thing. Basically the Gospels stripped of the supper natural and most everything but the things Jesus supposedly said.

The basic narrative just isn't that extraordinary. A guy started preaching a message that pissed of the powers that be and they had him killed. His followers were all a bit surprised that it all ended so ignominiously and made up a very convoluted story to justify their continued belief. It was a time when real mortal people were occasionally deified, so that's not all that out of the ordinary. It was a time when almost nobody could read and write, lack of records isn't all that out of the ordinary. Its not all that different from the 7 day adventists. Its a church that remains after a preacher's end time prediction failed.

This version isn't pulled out of nowhere, its the version that exists in the Gospels once the supernatural is removed.

The reason it is compelling is the same reason why it's so compelling in any legal case. Namely that it has be shown innumerable times in law, that when there is a lapse of many years between the claimed event and a witness claiming to accurately recount the facts of the event, it turns out that the witness is often hopelessly unreliable ... but in the biblical case it's much worse than that, because the witness is writing several centuries later as an anonymous source and claiming that impossible miracles kept happening! ... and that is about as far as you can get from having a reliable or accurate witness.

Meh. If I say I was mugged 10 years ago, that's not so hard to believe. I f I say I was mugged 10 years ago by that guy over there. Well, nobody would convict that guy over there, but not many folks would say that was evidence that I was never mugged, even if I said that guy was a wizard who mugged me using magic, especially if I live in a culture where lots of folks believe in wizards.

 

[Kapyong]

Are you guys missing the point on purpose? The argument that dejudge is making is basically...

Are you ignoring these points on purpose ?
My posts have nothing to do with dejudge's idiocy.
I answered YOU, and some others.

Instead I have posted on some issues such as your claim that someone would have protested that Jesus didn't exist. I showed there could be no such person. You ignored that completely.

I pointed out there is no evidence against faeries and leprachauns. That was ignored.

I pointed out there was almost no tradition of scepticism about wild stories from those times. Ignored.

I pointed out how not one single Christian out of the dozens of early believers ever claimed to have met Jesus. You ignored that too.

I pointed out that everything we know about the alleged historical Jesus comes from the gospels - which were not mentioned by any early writer until mid 2nd century, over a century after the alleged events. You also ignored that.

You ignore critical evidence, but keep repeating faithful, but false, claims - like the gospels being biographies.

Not so.
Actual biographies (e.g. like Plutarch from the same period) :

• tell who the author was,
• tell us his sources,
• and DESCRIBE the person in subject sections - i.e. his birth and parents and childhood, his education, his career, major events.

The Gospels are NOT biographies at all, as anyone who has read a Life of Plutarch would easily see. They do NOT describe the life of Jesus.

In fact, the Gospels are narratives which tell a STORY - a central character, with followers, progressing through several episodes until a grand climax.

No idea who the authors were, no sources, no description - but a STORY.

Nothing like a biography at all.

But we can be sure this faithful false claim of the Gospels being biographies will be endlessly repeated by the faithful.

Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Another quick point, that IanS has mentioned IIRC :

The gospel stories in G.Mark (the source for the alleged historical Jesus) can be traced back to the Old Testament - the NT episodes are a re-telling of stories from the Tanakh.

An excellent analysis of that can be found here :
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

E.g. much of the crucifixion story is adapted from Psalm 22.
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark15.html#15.p.21.32

Kapyong

 

[dejudge]

I think I know what bothers me about this. The case against the existence of a guy name Jesus that is the basis of the mythical Jesus is essentially attempting to prove a negative. Anything beyond, "probably" is just not a reasonable claim. There is quite literally no evidence that he did not exist, no such evidence can really exist(aside from a an actual confession from the creator of the stories.)

Your position is quite absurd.

The author of Genesis did not confess that his creation story did not happen yet people still claim the Jewish God does not exist and did not create the universe.

When did the author of Gebnesis ever confess that Adam and Eve did not exist?

When did the author Genesis admit the story of Noah was completely fabricated?

Your argument is total nonsense.

Those that claim that the explanation that best fits the evidence is that no Jesus existed, should explain why those that study the history and region almost all agree, Jesus probably was a real person. Not just christian and muslims, atheists do to. Its not dissimilar from denying AGW. The vast majority of relevant experts agree, but it snowed last month so I don't believe them.

Your argument is still absurd. There is no historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. Non-existence matches no evidence. All characters which have been deemed to be non-existent do not ever have any evidence.

Those that insist the burden of proof is on those that think he existed, ok, I guess but the burden isn't that high if the claim is just, "there was probably a wandering preacher named Jesus around 2000 years ago." There clearly were guys named Jesus, there were clearly a number of similar preachers, so what's so hard to believe that there was a wandering preacher named Jesus who said stuff similar to what Jesus is alleged to have said? The Jefferson Bible was a thing. Basically the Gospels stripped of the supper natural and most everything but the things Jesus supposedly said.

Again, you spout more logical fallacies!!!

You want people to believe your made up Jesus existed without any historical evidence.

If you strip some of the fiction from a fictitious character you are still left with fiction.

The basic narrative just isn't that extraordinary. A guy started preaching a message that pissed of the powers that be and they had him killed. His followers were all a bit surprised that it all ended so ignominiously and made up a very convoluted story to justify their continued belief. It was a time when real mortal people were occasionally deified, so that's not all that out of the ordinary. It was a time when almost nobody could read and write, lack of records isn't all that out of the ordinary. Its not all that different from the 7 day adventists. Its a church that remains after a preacher's end time prediction failed.

Your story is fiction and derived from the fables in the NT. You have no historical evidence whatsoever to support your made up Jesus.

Your Jesus is far worse than NT Jesus.

This version isn't pulled out of nowhere, its the version that exists in the Gospels once the supernatural is removed.

Your Jesus is fake fabricated whole cloth from known NT fables.

Meh. If I say I was mugged 10 years ago, that's not so hard to believe. I f I say I was mugged 10 years ago by that guy over there. Well, nobody would convict that guy over there, but not many folks would say that was evidence that I was never mugged, even if I said that guy was a wizard who mugged me using magic, especially if I live in a culture where lots of folks believe in wizards.

If you claimed you were mugged and had no evidence then people may believe you were lying and convict you of obstruction of justice.

 

[Tassman]

Which book mentions your failed prophet? The NT mentions a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost called Jesus.

In the fables of the NT Jesus predicted he would resurrect and he did.

It simply false that the NT claimed Jesus was a failed prophet.

Jesus supposedly said: “...there are some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. “— Matt 16:28.

AND: Jesus was reported to have told his disciples,

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

— Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32

He was wrong, wasn’t he? In short, a failed prophet as I said.

Ehrman claims historians do not deal with certainties but then still argued he was certain his Jesus was in Jerusalem.

In any event, no person, historian or not, has ever presented any historical evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that people believed in the existence of Jesus and Paul. And re the latter there are seven epistles attributed to him. So, it’s untrue to say there’s nothing.

Your Jesus is a recent fiction character manufactured from the fables of the NT.

Your Jesus never ever existed.

The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”

So, what is your answer?

 

[Craig B]

I've often encountered arguments against my opinion Jesus never really walked the earth. It's surprising the animosity I have had by people who I do not believe are religious. It's odd.

That shouldn't seem odd. The question of whether Jesus was a human being who "really walked the earth" is not a religious one, but is purely an issue of historical evidence. You say the evidence is not convincing but most other people believe it is quite plausible. Whether Jesus was a manifestation of God in human flesh is the religious issue, but nobody is making that assertion as far as I can see.

 

[Darat]

Jesus supposedly said: “...there are some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. “— Matt 16:28.



AND: Jesus was reported to have told his disciples,



"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."



— Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32



He was wrong, wasn’t he? In short, a failed prophet as I said.







Nevertheless, there is evidence that people believed in the existence of Jesus and Paul. And re the latter there are seven epistles attributed to him. So, it’s untrue to say there’s nothing.







The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”



So, what is your answer?

Scientology is a well documented recent one, foundational teachings entirely pulled out of Hubbard's arse.

 

[dejudge]

Jesus supposedly said: “...there are some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. “— Matt 16:28.

AND: Jesus was reported to have told his disciples,

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

— Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32

When did your Jesus actually tell real disciples those things?

You seem not to understand the difference between fiction and historical accounts.

The claim by NT writers that Jesus predicted that he would be killed and resurrect on the third day has nothing whatsoever to do with history it is just a fable that people believed was true.

1 Corinthians 15:17

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

The belief that Jesus resurrected was fundamental for the salvation of Jesus cult Christians.

By the way, people today still expect Jesus to return to earth.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that people believed in the existence of Jesus and Paul. And re the latter there are seven epistles attributed to him. So, it’s untrue to say there’s nothing.

I asked you to present historical evidence for Jesus and Paul not for belief.

Authors of the Epistles also believed Satan, angels, the God of the Jews and Adam existed.

2 Corinthians 2:11

Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Romans 3:29

Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Thessalonians 4:16

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first

The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”

So, what is your answer?

You seem to be not aware of the multiple fiction stories of Jesus or Christ that were made up from whole cloth.

Examine "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book1.html

1. Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.]

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.

By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

The NT was not the only writings riddled with lies, vain genealogies and falsification of Hebrew Scripture.

The Jesus story is a product of "craftily-constructed plausibilities" - never history.

 

[Craig B]

Scientology is a well documented recent one, foundational teachings entirely pulled out of Hubbard's arse.

Very true, but Hubbard's orifice exists, and therefore so does Hubbard. If Christianity was pulled out of the orifices of Jesus or Paul, and it exists, then probably these persons existed as well. Like Scientology, Mormonism is suspected of being a scam designed by a charlatan, but Joseph Smith did exist, and his religion, whether sincere or fraudulent, is testimony to that fact.

 

[dejudge]

That shouldn't seem odd. The question of whether Jesus was a human being who "really walked the earth" is not a religious one, but is purely an issue of historical evidence. You say the evidence is not convincing but most other people believe it is quite plausible. Whether Jesus was a manifestation of God in human flesh is the religious issue, but nobody is making that assertion as far as I can see.

1.People believe it is not plausible that there was an HJ.
2. There is no historical evidence whatsoever of a human character who was worshiped as a God by Jews in the time of Pilate or at anytime up to the 2nd century.
3. The Jesus character was fabricated.

 

[dejudge]

Very true, but Hubbard's orifice exists, and therefore so does Hubbard. If Christianity was pulled out of the orifices of Jesus or Paul, and it exists, then probably these persons existed as well. Like Scientology, Mormonism is suspected of being a scam designed by a charlatan, but Joseph Smith did exist, and his religion, whether sincere or fraudulent, is testimony to that fact.

If it was not pulled out of Jesus and Paul's orifices then what??

Paul persecuted what was pulled from his own orifice??

1 Corinthians 15:9

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

You seem not to understand what fiction, forgeries and false attribution are.

The stories of Jesus and Paul are fiction as clearly seen in the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles and the authors are all anonymous or falsely attributed.

 

[Kapyong]

The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Adam and Eve ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Noah ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Samson ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Moses ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Solomon ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Harry Potter ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Bacchus / Dionysus ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Zeus and friends ...

Human beings write fiction, for all sorts of reasons.
Surely you know that ?


Kapyong

 

[dejudge]

It happens. Group psychology makes it possible. We’ve seen examples of such phenomena in modern times such as the so-called Miracle of Fatima in 1917. A huge crowd gathered to view the predicted appearance of the BVM (blessed virgin Mary) and the sun danced around the sky and careened towards earth. Obviously, in reality, there was no such occurrence but tens of thousands believed there was.

So, now you admit that you believe in miracles.

The so-called miracle of Fatima must be propaganda it could never have happened.

Nobody who lived in 1917 could have identified a character called the Blessed Virgin Mary who supposedly lived in the time of Pilate.

How can you be so gullible???

Was Paul looking in the sun when he met Peter and James? He was blinded by a bright light when he heard a voice but saw no-one.

 

[Kapyong]

... some further thoughts on that :
"Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?"

The answer is : we don't know.
So what ?

We will (almost certainly) never know who wrote those ancient stories, nor why they wrote them. But so what ?

What's the argument ?
That we don't know who wrote a fictional Jesus, nor why - therefore Jesus cannot be fictional ?

Makes no sense does it ?

We do not know who wrote the original Adam and Eve story, nor why.
We will never know.

But that has no bearing at all on the story being true history, does it ?

So too -
we have no idea who wrote the seminal Gospel of Mark, nor why. Which has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

What we DO know, and what DOES bear upon its truthfulness is :

• the gospel episodes are crafted from previous Tanakh stories,
• G.Mark shows structures of literature like chiasms,
• it is a religious story about a divine being,
• it has no sources and no witnesses,
• it appeared long after the alleged events, and far away,
• its author is unknown.

Clear and significant points AGAINST it being biographical history.

While the arguments FOR it being biographical history amount to little more than tradition, faith, and belief.


Kapyong