Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

What part of “group psychology” don’t you understand? The event happened, whereby a huge crowd gathered to view the predicted appearance of the virgin Mary and believed the sun danced around the sky. It’s well documented – Google it.

Nobody saw the virgin Mary in 1917. It is well documented propaganda.

Actually Paul, I believe, was having a frontal lobe epileptic seizure on the Damascus road when he had his seemingly divine revelation. Similar has been attributed to Muhammad as well.

Ok. Paul lived no earlier than the 2nd century and had a frontal lobe epileptic seizure and believed he was living in the time of Aretas. He believed he met Jesus and apostles who never existed. It is well documented.

 

[clayflingythingy]

You haven’t answered the question. “who, and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure" in this instance? Your response merely implies the Jesus myth theory, which takes the line that the entire story of Jesus is pure fiction (like Harry Potter) with no claims to historical fact of any sort. But, the likes of Bart Ehrman and the majority of biblical scholars consider the Jesus myth idea is a fringe theory, supported by very few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticized for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

May I suggest you read The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos? You may find some insights there regarding all those consensus New Testament scholars whose opinions you value. IIRC, Avalos professes agnosticism on HJ btw.

You should also read Did Jesus Exist by Ehrman. It is bad. Very bad. Ehrman not only fails to address MJ theory head on, he asserts that imaginary documents are evidence for HJ. No, I am not kidding. His book is really one of apologetics, not scholarship. If this is the best HJ supporters can do, then MJ wins.



Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

 

[dejudge]

Let me make my position clear.

The so-called HJ is a fiction character fabricated whole cloth from the fables of the NT.

Every so-called Scholar who argue for an HJ did precisely what the authors of NT did.

NT authors used Hebrew Scripture to fabricate a plausible fiction character that was accepted by people as a God.

Today, so-called Scholars are actively using the Canon of the Church, works of fiction, forgeries and false attribution to assemble plausible fiction characters which people today would accept as an historical man.

HJ is a direct product of fiction-not history.

 

[Delvo]

Why do you refuse to use the adjective "fictional"? Why do you keep replacing it with the noun "fiction" when clearly what your sentence unmistakably needs there is an adjective?

 

[dejudge]

Why do you refuse to use the adjective "fictional"? Why do you keep replacing it with the noun "fiction" when clearly what your sentence unmistakably needs there is an adjective?

Ok. I will do some changes.

The so-called HJ is fiction.

The so-called HJ never ever existed and is made up from whole cloth using dis-credited NT fables about a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost.

 

[Kapyong]

You haven’t answered the question. “who, and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure" in this instance?

In fact I answered with two separate posts where I pointed out :

1) We DON'T KNOW.

2) So what if we don't ?

You ignored that issue entirely.

I also asked you to clearly spell out your argument -

We don't know who, or why, they made up the mythical/fictional Gospel of Mark, therefore this means .... WHAT ?

Same thing for the example of Adam and Eve - we DON'T KNOW who made up Genesis - so what ?

We are similarly ignorant of the author's mind for almost every single ancient book ever written - so what ?

If you have an argument here, I cannot figure out what it is - please be clear

Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

You should also read Did Jesus Exist by Ehrman. It is bad. Very bad. Ehrman not only fails to address MJ theory head on, he asserts that imaginary documents are evidence for HJ. No, I am not kidding. His book is really one of apologetics, not scholarship. If this is the best HJ supporters can do, then MJ wins.

Yah, here is what Ehrman claims as sources in DJE? :
G.Mark
G.Luke
G.Matthew
G.John
G.Thomas
G.Peter
P.Eg.2

Then he doubles down further with another list (that doesn't quite match the seven gospels he named; note the {count} is by me) :

By Prof Ehrman

"In addition to Mark {1}, we have Q {1}, M (which is possibly made of multiple sources {1-2+}), L (also possibly multiple sources {1-2+}), two or more passion narratives {2+}, a signs source {1}, two discourse sources {2}, the kernel (or original) Gospel behind the Gospel of Thomas {1}, and possibly others {0-2+}."

Minimum ten books, possibly fourteen or more.

Plus five missed from above - G.Matthew, G.Luke, G.John, G.Peter, P.Egerton 2 - gives a grand-total of :

15 - 19+ sources for a historical Jesus, according to Prof Ehrman.

In truth it is ONE : G.Mark.


Kapyong

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But just on that highlighted part about history describing other well known human people as gods … if you are thinking of historical figures such as various Roman Emperors or other well known rulers being described as gods,

No, I am thinking of cult leaders who claimed to be, and/or were believed to be by their followers. The most famous in modern times would probably be Sun Myung Moon. Some other names you might recognize include Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Haile Selassie.

List of people claimed to be Jesus

But in the case of Jesus it's entirely the other way around.

I agree. It seems that 'the Christ' started out as a fully supernatural being, then was given a back-story that could have described the life of a human religious figure. This was a smart move by the early Christian Church because it made him seem more real, an actual person that people could relate to.

Compared to other gods, Jesus's 'miracles' were little more than party tricks - much easier for the people of the time to accept without evidence - and the rest of his 'biography' is quite believable even to atheists (until you examine it more closely). This Historical Jesus narrative countered suggestions that he was no more than a myth. Detractors could claim that he wasn't a god, but couldn't hand wave away the 'historical' bits. It worked so well that we are still debating the subject today.

 

[dejudge]

No, I am thinking of cult leaders who claimed to be, and/or were believed to be by their followers. The most famous in modern times would probably be Sun Myung Moon. Some other names you might recognize include Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Haile Selassie.

You must not forget that the Jews and the Jesus cult do not worship men as Gods. If Jesus did actually exist as a man then he would not have been worshiped as a God.

Jesus cult christians worship their God Creator Jesus, not the created.

Romans 1

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

List of people claimed to be Jesus

People of antiquity who worship Bible Jesus as a God did not worship men who claim to be Jesus. A Human Jesus could not walk on water, transfigure, resurrect, appear to their followers and ascend to heaven.

I agree. It seems that 'the Christ' started out as a fully supernatural being, then was given a back-story that could have described the life of a human religious figure. This was a smart move by the early Christian Church because it made him seem more real, an actual person that people could relate to.

There is no 'back story about Jesus as a known human being.

The stories of Saul/Paul and Epistles are at least after gLuke was already written.

The stories of Jesus got more and more supernatural with time which is evident in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.

In the NT early version of the Jesus story [ gMark] he was a water walking ,transfiguring and resurrecting being.

Next in gMatthew, gLuke and Acts Jesus is born of a Ghost and ascended in a cloud.

After that in gJohn and the Epistles, Jesus is God's own Son, God Creator from the beginning, the Lord God and Saviour.

Compared to other gods, Jesus's 'miracles' were little more than party tricks - much easier for the people of the time to accept without evidence - and the rest of his 'biography' is quite believable even to atheists (until you examine it more closely). This Historical Jesus narrative countered suggestions that he was no more than a myth. Detractors could claim that he wasn't a god, but couldn't hand wave away the 'historical' bits. It worked so well that we are still debating the subject today.

Jesus was God Creator in the NT. That is not 'little more than party tricks'.

Now, 'what historical bits' are you talking about? Nothing in the NT about Jesus, the disciples and Paul have been corroborated by any historical source of antiquity.

There are no known 'historical bits" in the NT with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You must not forget that the Jews and the Jesus cult do not worship men as Gods. If Jesus did actually exist as a man then he would not have been worshiped as a God.

And according to the Bible he wasn't. Not only did the Jews not worship Jesus, they killed him!

There is no 'back story about Jesus as a known human being.

But there is, in the Bible. An invented one perhaps, but that's what a backstory usually is.

The stories of Jesus got more and more supernatural with time which is evident in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.

In the NT early version of the Jesus story [ gMark] he was a water walking ,transfiguring and resurrecting being.

Next in gMatthew, gLuke and Acts Jesus is born of a Ghost and ascended in a cloud.

After that in gJohn and the Epistles, Jesus is God's own Son, God Creator from the beginning, the Lord God and Saviour.

You are arguing for a Jesus who initially was just a man who did 'magic tricks', and was only elevated to 'god' status after death. Walking on water, turning water in wine, healing the sick etc. are the kinds of tricks that you would expect from a cult leader, not a god. Even the resurrection was a trick (which he had performed before on another man). No doubt there were numerous cult leaders and other shysters doing similar things at the time, just as they do today. Of course the 'magic tricks' were just that, not supernatural events. But the important thing is that they could have been performed by an ordinary man - a historical person.

Later writings would be expected to have more 'magic' in them as the writers embellished the stories more and incorporated others. So we could take the 'biography' of Jesus in the Bible, consider the virgin birth and miracles etc. to just be the expected tall tales that such figures attract, and poof! - a Historical Jesus!

Now, 'what historical bits' are you talking about? Nothing in the NT about Jesus, the disciples and Paul have been corroborated by any historical source of antiquity.

Did I say there were any? No. What I meant was that the Bible itself was attempting to provide the history. You may argue that since the Bible is full of obvious lies and inventions that it is not a reliable source, but absent evidence of absence from other sources it is still evidence for it.

There are no known 'historical bits" in the NT with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

This is your claim, but you have to do more than just asserting it to convince us. The Bible itself is definitely historical. You admit that there is no other historical evidence for or against the existence of a historical Jesus. That means the biblical evidence, however weak, is still positive evidence for the existence of a man by the name of Jesus being the originator of Christianity. You can rightfully reject all the supernatural bits about Jesus in the Bible out of hand, but the 'historical' bits cannot be dismissed so easily.

In your attempt to refute the argument you think I was making, you have argued against your own one. If you want to continue your crusade to convince us that Jesus definitely did not exist, you had better change tack fast!

 

[dejudge]

And according to the Bible he wasn't. Not only did the Jews not worship Jesus, they killed him!

That is only part of the story.

In the NT it is claimed that thousands of Jews were converted sometimes as much as 5000 in a day.

Acts 2

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 4.

4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Acts 21

:20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law

In the NT, after the Jews killed or caused the death of Jesus thousands of them repented of their sins and became believers.

But there is, in the Bible. An invented one perhaps, but that's what a backstory usually is.

There is no back story in the NT about Jesus. The NT is all fiction with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul with the Epistles being the last writings- not the first.

You are arguing for a Jesus who initially was just a man who did 'magic tricks', and was only elevated to 'god' status after death. Walking on water, turning water in wine, healing the sick etc. are the kinds of tricks that you would expect from a cult leader, not a god. Even the resurrection was a trick (which he had performed before on another man). No doubt there were numerous cult leaders and other shysters doing similar things at the time, just as they do today. Of course the 'magic tricks' were just that, not supernatural events. But the important thing is that they could have been performed by an ordinary man - a historical person.

I have never argued that Jesus was initially just a man.

Please, I am arguing that Jesus, the disciples and Paul never ever existed and that their stories are fiction.

The earliest version of the Jesus depicts him as a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting being. Such a being is not human. Later writers added more fiction claiming that he was God's own Son, the Creator and was born of a Ghost before he ascended to heaven.

You cannot present any historical evidence that another man was resurrected after being dead for at least four days.

Later writings would be expected to have more 'magic' in them as the writers embellished the stories more and incorporated others. So we could take the 'biography' of Jesus in the Bible, consider the virgin birth and miracles etc. to just be the expected tall tales that such figures attract, and poof! - a Historical Jesus!

So, since the earliest stories claimed Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring and resurrecting character he magically becomes historical because later stories add more fiction to a fictitious character.

Such an argument makes no sense.

Did I say there were any? No. What I meant was that the Bible itself was attempting to provide the history. You may argue that since the Bible is full of obvious lies and inventions that it is not a reliable source, but absent evidence of absence from other sources it is still evidence for it.

So, you do see the obvious fiction and lies in the Bible about Jesus? Lies and fiction is evidence of non-historicity.

Are you arguing that obvious lies and inventions are evidence that Jesus existed?

This is your claim, but you have to do more than just asserting it to convince us. The Bible itself is definitely historical. You admit that there is no other historical evidence for or against the existence of a historical Jesus. That means the biblical evidence, however weak, is still positive evidence for the existence of a man by the name of Jesus being the originator of Christianity. You can rightfully reject all the supernatural bits about Jesus in the Bible out of hand, but the 'historical' bits cannot be dismissed so easily.

Whether or not you want to be convinced means nothing at all to me.

My position cannot be contradicted at all. There is no historical evidence anywhere that can contradict my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul never ever existed.

In your attempt to refute the argument you think I was making, you have argued against your own one. If you want to continue your crusade to convince us that Jesus definitely did not exist, you had better change tack fast!

You don't know what you are talking about. It is you who claimed there were historical bits in the NT about Jesus when no such historical bits exist anywhere.

You seem to have no idea that fictitious events in the NT do not have to be supernatural.

 

[Tassman]

In fact I answered with two separate posts where I pointed out :

1) We DON'T KNOW.

2) So what if we don't ?

I see. So, you don’t actually know by whom nor for what purpose Jesus was made up from whole-cloth. But you nonetheless just KNOW that he was a totally fictional figure. Well, that’s convincing.

We don't know who, or why, they made up the mythical/fictional Gospel of Mark, therefore this means .... WHAT ?

It means that you don’t have an argument, merely an assumption. Just because many aspects of the Jesus story are obviously highly embellished crap, doesn't mean that the whole shebang is totally fictional.

Same thing for the example of Adam and Eve - we DON'T KNOW who made up Genesis - so what ?

No, it’s NOT the same thing for Adam and Eve and the rest of the ancient OT myths. They form part of the creation narratives common to all religions. A great many of them in the OT derive from Mesopotamian legends - especially the flood. Whereas, in all likelihood the mythical aspects that coalesced around the man Jesus – miracles, resurrection etc. - were simply anecdotal stories that kept growing in the telling.

 

[IanS]

You haven’t answered the question. “who, and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure" in this instance? Your response merely implies the Jesus myth theory, which takes the line that the entire story of Jesus is pure fiction (like Harry Potter) with no claims to historical fact of any sort. But, the likes of Bart Ehrman and the majority of biblical scholars consider the Jesus myth idea is a fringe theory, supported by very few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticized for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

First of all, that highlighted question is the well known fallacy of an "argument from incredulity" otherwise known as the "argument from ignorance". It means that just because you personally cannot imagine how something could happen, that does not mean that the thing is untrue .... IOW - it's a case you claiming to be incredulous and uncomprehending of how it could be possible for anyone in the 1st century to have told untrue stories about a promised supernatural messiah from God.

However, that is an untenable and and frankly disingenuous attempt at an argument from people who frequently make that "argument from ignorance/incredulity". Because you must know very well that all throughout mankind's history, people have made claims to witness countless different gods, deities, angels, demons etc. doing all sorts of things. There have been hundreds if not thousands of such religions and deities, with countless thousands of completely untrue invented witness accounts of how people had seen all those deities doing all sorts of things … but now in an educated 21st century we “know” that all of those witness stories were untrue fanatical superstitious inventions – none of the those deities were ever real, and none of what the followers claimed to witness ever happened … the stories, all the many thousands of them, were complete inventions.

Why did people do that hundreds and thousands of years ago? They did it because at the time almost everyone ignorantly believed in countless ancient superstitions and religions that claimed supernatural answers for everything in the world all around them. People were strongly disposed to endorse all those beliefs by fanatical claims to having witnessed all sorts of quite detailed experiences of encountering the various deities.

But none of those countless witness stories were ever true for any of those hundreds of different religions and their thousands of different deities.

If the stories were true for Jesus then he would be the one-&-only exception to all of that. He alone would be the one deity that really had been witnessed by all the people who told the stories about him … but keep in mind that all those Jesus stories have also turned to be impossible untrue fictional invention!

Put all that another way - if you think that you cannot understand how people would have invented untrue religious mythical accounts of Jesus, then you are in fact claiming that you also cannot understand or believe that people would have invented untrue stories for all the thousands of witness accounts claimed for all the other supernatural deities throughout human history.

 

[Kapyong]

No, it’s NOT the same thing for Adam and Eve and the rest of the ancient OT myths. They form part of the creation narratives common to all religions. A great many of them in the OT derive from Mesopotamian legends - especially the flood. Whereas, in all likelihood the mythical aspects that coalesced around the man Jesus – miracles, resurrection etc. - were simply anecdotal stories that kept growing in the telling.

Then G.Mark was written to explain why Jerusalem fell.

Look - the question is ambiguous :

In the sense :

"what motivations and/or thoughts and emotions drove the author to write this ?"​

then the answer is obviously :
we don't know, how could we ?

But in the sense :

"what moral, conclusion, or point do we think the author was expressing ?"​

THEN
we can form a conclusion, more or less tentatively.

In this case there seems to be a fairly clear point to the story - the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans was punishment to the Jews for crucifying Jesus.

Kapyong

 

[Tassman]

First of all, that highlighted question is the well known fallacy of an "argument from incredulity" otherwise known as the "argument from ignorance". It means that just because you personally cannot imagine how something could happen, that does not mean that the thing is untrue .... IOW - it's a case you claiming to be incredulous and uncomprehending of how it could be possible for anyone in the 1st century to have told untrue stories about a promised supernatural messiah from God.

No, it's not an Argument from Ignorance. It's merely asking for an explanation to the unevidenced assertion that the entire Jesus story is completely invented from start to finish.

I am not doubting for one moment that the story comprises many invented, embellishments and factual inaccuracies. My only point is that more likely than not there is a core fact to the story. Namely that a man - probably some sort of peripatetic, charismatic preacher - existed upon which to hang the supposed miracles and wondrous events that we find in the gospels.

In short, I'm arguing that Jesus was merely a man, not a miracle-working man/god.

 

[Tassman]

Look - the question is ambiguous :

In the sense :

"what motivations and/or thoughts and emotions drove the author to write this ?"​

then the answer is obviously :
we don't know, how could we ?

If you don't know then why make the unevidenced claim that the entire Jesus story is fiction without a single kernel of fact?

 

[Tassman]

Nobody saw the virgin Mary in 1917. It is well documented propaganda.

What is well documented is that a huge crowd assembled in 1917 at Fatima to view a predicted appearance of the virgin Mary and claim they saw sun dance around the sky. Obviously, they didn’t really see this but they believed they did which is the point. It’s an example of group psychology and mass hysteria and a possible explanation of the 500 to whom Jesus supposedly appeared according to Paul in 1 Cor 15. And which you dismissed as an impossibility.

 

[Darat]

No, it's not an Argument from Ignorance. It's merely asking for an explanation to the unevidenced assertion that the entire Jesus story is completely invented from start to finish.



I am not doubting for one moment that the story comprises many invented, embellishments and factual inaccuracies. My only point is that more likely than not there is a core fact to the story. Namely that a man - probably some sort of peripatetic, charismatic preacher - existed upon which to hang the supposed miracles and wondrous events that we find in the gospels.



In short, I'm arguing that Jesus was merely a man, not a miracle-working man/god.

Is scientology entirely invented fro start to finish?

 

[dejudge]

What is well documented is that a huge crowd assembled in 1917 at Fatima to view a predicted appearance of the virgin Mary and claim they saw sun dance around the sky. Obviously, they didn’t really see this but they believed they did which is the point. It’s an example of group psychology and mass hysteria and a possible explanation of the 500 to whom Jesus supposedly appeared according to Paul in 1 Cor 15. And which you dismissed as an impossibility.

What contradictory nonsense you post repeatedly. You have already admit they saw nothing in 1917. The sighting of the Blessed Virgin Mary is total fiction.

You seem to have forgotten that you believe Paul had a frontal lobe epileptic seizure.

The sighting of the resurrected Jesus by over 500 people at once is total fiction if Paul had a frontal lobe epileptic seizure.

Why are you dismissing the facts?

 

[clayflingythingy]

My only point is that more likely than not there is a core fact to the story. Namely that a man - probably some sort of peripatetic, charismatic preacher - existed upon which to hang the supposed miracles and wondrous events that we find in the gospels.



In short, I'm arguing that Jesus was merely a man, not a miracle-working man/god.

What is your evidence that this holy man, rabbi, wandering prophet actually existed?

Doherty makes a compelling argument that Christ Jesus was known only from scripture and revelation among the earliest Xians. The early epistles and Xian documents are lacking references to the earthly Christ Jesus even when we would expect them to help make a point. This is acknowledged by mainstream scholars.

I am aware of only two recent books that have defended the HJ position. Bart Ehrman failed bigley with DJE? If this is the best a renowned biblical scholar can do, then HJ loses and MJ wins in a landslide. The book really is that bad.

I have not read Maurice Casey's defense of HJ. From reviews, he went off the deep end and wrote a book that was worse than DJE?

So where are the biblical scholars who have tackled the Doherty thesis head on and refuted it convincingly?


Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk