Historical Jesus

[Delvo]

Armed with this information you must be able to offer the time period this occurred.

Reopening my notes, I see that I left a detail out, although it's one that might not sound significant to the average Jew, Christian, or Muslim: the Egyptians wrote that the primary god of the Hyksos was not the sun god but the storm god. That makes the Hyksos sound more Canaanite/Hebrew because Canaanites/Hebrews always treated storms, not sunlight, as the main demonstration of a god's greatness.

Anyway, here's the timeline, in years BCE:

• 1800/1720: immigration of people from the Canaan area (which was under Egyptian rule at the time) to what we now call eastern Egypt
• 1700s-1100s: Egypt's Canaanite vassal states complain to Egypt about ʕabiru, which meant something like "raiders" or "outlaws" and included people with both Semitic and Khorian names.
• 1700-1650: Hyksos, presumably from within that general immigrant population, conquer part of Egypt; their rule is the 15th Dynasty, simultaneous with the 16th Dynasty in parts of Egypt that they didn't conquer.
• 1600s: Thera/Santorini: ecological effects inspiring 10 plagues story?
• 1500s: Hyksos rulers (possibly just a few once-powerful families, not a whole vast population) are expelled. (There are probably still Semitic people left behind, although not as rulers or as slaves.)
• 1500s-1400s: Pharoahs have a bunch of Canaanite cities destroyed.
• 1420: Pharoah Amenhotep III records the capture of 3600 ʕabiru prisoners of war.
• 1300s: Nomads southeast of Israel (east of the Aravah; Edom?) are called the "nomads of Yahweh" in Egypt. (It's not marked as a name of a god; Is it a place? Is it a tribal king?)
• 1300s-1200s: Ugaritic texts (in which ʔelohim is clearly the plural referring to all gods, not an alternative name for ʔel the king of the gods, and ʔel and Yahweh are clearly two separate characters, with ʔel and living in a mansion on a mountain to the north and Yahweh living in a tent to the south; ʔel divides the world and its tribes up among 70 other gods and assigns each one of them as the god of a certain place or people, and Yahweh's assignment is the southern nomads)
• 1300s: Akhenaten forbids worshipping, or making idols of, any other god than sunlight (Aten)
• 1200s: earliest potential composition of Exodus 15: "Song Of The Sea" (about the Red Sea Crossing)
• 1200s: Rameses II has cities/forts named Pithom & Rameses built; Exodus says Israelites built them. (not pyramids!)
• 1200s-1100s: Booming population in highlands of Canaan ("Proto-Israelites")
• 1203: Merneptah says he wiped out an ethnic group (still not a country) called "Israel".
• 1100s: Bronze Age Collapse; Egyptians withdraw from Canaan but say they thwart invasions by "Sea Peoples", driving out the survivors, including the "PLST" who Egypt says resettle in coastal Canaan
• 1100s: Phillistines show up in Canaan.
• 1000s: Latest signs that there are still Semitic people in Egypt (but not as rulers or as slaves)
• 1000s: lowland cities of Canaan start recovering from, or being reoccupied after, the Bronze Age Collapse, but with signs that highland culture, which hadn't been hit as hard by the collapse, has come down to occupy them
• 1000s: The name "David" appears in inscriptions.
• 800s: "Israel" shows up in Egyptian inscriptions again for the first time since 1203.

General overall conclusion; the nation of Israel, or nations of Israel and Judea, which had not existed during the Bronze Age, emerged from the Bronze Age Collapse. This looks like a combination of the spread of previously confined Canaanite highlanders into the valleys, and immigration & settlement by previously nomadic southern tribes from outside that area (who were still closely related and spoke nearly the same language), the latter of which seems as if it had already incorporated descendants of the Hyksos rulers by then.

The former Hyksos brought with them memories of life in Egypt followed by suffering in the wilderness. The nomads brought with them the worship of Yahweh the tent-dwelling nomad-god and the idea of meeting god(s) or having other religious experiences out in the wilderness (plus maybe a dislike of pigs, since herders don't usually herd pigs?). The Canaanite highlanders kept the original local worship of ʔel as the civilized, mansion-occupying, throne-sitting king of the gods, and a dislike of the lowlanders they were replacing and a compulsion to emphasize whatever cultural distinctions they could find from them. ("We're not like those seafood-eaters & linen-wearers down there; we're good people who eat land-meat and wear wool!") The fact that this happened during & immediately after the Bronze Age Collapse explains why most of the Old Testament after the first few books is war stories.

Henotheism and then monotheism would gradually develop over the next few centuries, with southern henotheists/monotheists saying the best or one true god was Yahweh and their northern counterparts saying it was ʔel (and the plural ʔelohim really meant just him), until they finally ended up agreeing that if there's only one then those must be two separate names for him. (I don't buy the Akhenaten connection that some propose, despite the conspicuously coincidental similarity of a ban on idols appearing along with monotheism in both cases. Akhenaten came along centuries after the Hyksos left and was forgotten & left behind more centuries before anybody speaking a Semitic language got anywhere near monotheist.)

 

[dejudge]

What's behind your obsession with repeating that over & over again? You know that's not in dispute. Bringing it up at all, especially so much (it's literally every single post isn't it?) equals acting as if anybody were disputing it, but you know that nobody is. Some of us are just disputing other things around that.

You seem to suffer from amnesia or is being dishonest.

I must make my position clear repeatedly so that you do not mis-represent my argument and sources

For example, you previously claimed after you went through my sources none of them , except Josephus were expected to mention Jesus which was totally false

My sources are the writings of antiquity like those attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.

The last time I went through a list of sources like that, it turned out that not a single one of them other than Josephus (see below) would have been expected to talk about Jesus even if Jesus were real, so the fact that they didn't means nothing. It's like saying a certain principle in aircraft engineering must not be real because a certain group of marine biologists never mentioned it.

If you have any this time for whom talking about Jesus would actually be expected, and not doing so would actually be conspicuous/strange, which are they?

This is the blatant level of amnesia or dishonesty that I have to deal with on a constant basis.

 

[Senex]

Reopening my notes, ....

That explains all the archaeological evidence.

One problem with using a timeline is it will certainly put you at odds with many biblical scholars because none of them agree.

 

[Kapyong]

Whoops, I forgot the last section, which brings the total to 94 :

Lost Works Which Apparently Did Not Mention Jesus
27

Emperor Claudius (10BCE - 54CE) Wrote several history books, little survives.

Atilicinus (1st C.) A Roman jurist.

Statius the Elder ( - c.83) Publius Papirius Statius wrote several works.

Menodotus of Nicomedia (early 2nd C.) A writer mentioned by Galen.

Favorinus (early 2nd C.) Favorinus wrote many works, only fragments survive.

Pompeius Saturninus (early 2nd C.) A historian and a poet.

Archigenes (1st - 2nd C.) A physician who wrote influential works, e.g. on the pulse.

Criton of Heraclea (early 2nd C.) Wrote several books but nothing survives.

Titus Aristo (early 2nd C.) A writer mentioned by Pliny, his works are lost.

Onasandros (1st C.) A philosopher, little of his work survives.

Moderatus of Gades (1st C.) Wrote about Pythagoras, little survives.

Aelius Cornelius Celsus (1st C.) He wrote many works in Rome.

Sulpicia (late 1st C.) Wrote love poems, almost all lost.

Damocrates (1st C.) Servilius Damocrates wrote several books.

Alexander of Aegae (1st C.) Alexander was a philosopher in Rome during the 1st C.

Verginius Flavus (mid 1st C.) A Roman writer, nothing survives.

Ammonius of Athens (1st C.) The mentor of Plutarch, who said he wrote about religion and sacred rites.

Gnaeus Domitius Afer (mid 1st C.) Afer wrote in the 1st century - little survives.

Pamphila (c.60) Pamphila of Epidaurus write a 33 volume Historical Notes up to her time of c.60.

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus (early 1st C.) He wrote poems, little survives.

Pomponius Secundus (1st C.) He wrote many tragedies, very little survives.

Chaeremon of Alexandria (mid 1st C.) He wrote several works, little survives.

Saleius Bassus (late 1st C.) Bassus was a poet.

Bassus ( - c.60) Aufidius Bassus wrote a history up to at least the year 31.

Julia Agrippina (c.59) Julia Agrippina wrote her memoirs, which does not survive.

Cluvius Rufus (mid 1st C.) Cluvius Rufus wrote a detailed history from the year 37 until 69.

Nonianus (2 BCE - 59 CE) Marcus Servilius Nonianus wrote a history of the 1st century up to at least the year 41.

Kapyong

 

[Delvo]

What do you think we have as actual genuine evidence that supports the belief that Jesus was real, or most probably real? Because the evidence showing that the stories were impossible invention is enormous.

Now would be a good time to show how the latter fact proves that the former can not be.

The idea that people to whom supernatural traits or deeds have been ascribed can not have existed is clearly wrong. I could ascribe something supernatural to you right now, and you wouldn't poof out of existence. I could even ascribe something supernatural to a universally acknowledged fictional character like Jason Bourne or Speed Racer or Horatio Hornblower, and even though they didn't exist, my supernatural claim about them would not be proof that they didn't. Anybody looking to establish that they didn't would need to look elsewhere.

Whoops, I forgot the last section, which brings the total to 94

94 of what, though? I've skimmed through it and saw fluff that doesn't matter one way or the other. Don't try to impress people with long lists of mostly irrelevancies; boil it down to whatever items might be hiding somewhere in there that would actually matter to the subject. (I tried to get dejudge to spell out his case instead of just pouring out a bucket of names too, but all I got from that was a crazy tirade about how my response to a different list he'd posted earlier didn't apply to his new more recent list that I hadn't claimed it would apply to.)

 

[dejudge]

Now would be a good time to show how the latter fact proves that the former can not be.

The idea that people to whom supernatural traits or deeds have been ascribed can not have existed is clearly wrong. I could ascribe something supernatural to you right now, and you wouldn't poof out of existence. I could even ascribe something supernatural to a universally acknowledged fictional character like Jason Bourne or Speed Racer or Horatio Hornblower, and even though they didn't exist, my supernatural claim about them would not be proof that they didn't. Anybody looking to establish that they didn't would need to look elsewhere.

There are characters to whom supernatural traits or deeds have been ascribed that have been deemed to be non-historical.

There are characters to whom no supernatural traits or deed that have been ascribed that have been declared to be non-historical.

Not all fiction characters are ascribed supernatural traits or deeds.

There are thousands upon thousands of fiction characters in novels where there is no mention whatsoever of any supernatural acts.

There is simply no corroborative historical evidence at all that any of the NT accounts of Jesus actually occurred.

I cannot argue for an historical Jesus when the very Jesus cult believers admitted their Jesus was born of a ghost and had no human father.

Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Ignatius to the Ephesians

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

NT Jesus never had any history at all.

That is why Marcion could argue that Jesus was an apparition which came down directly from heaven into Capernaum.

Against Marcion

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

Every childhood story of Jesus is complete fiction.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancythomas-a-roberts.html

Since the Jesus cult had no credible historical account of their own Jesus where would his history come from?

From orifices!!!

...... (I tried to get dejudge to spell out his case instead of just pouring out a bucket of names too, but all I got from that was a crazy tirade about how my response to a different list he'd posted earlier didn't apply to his new more recent list that I hadn't claimed it would apply to.)

Again, you present buckets of amnesia or dishonesty.

 

[IanS]

Now would be a good time to show how the latter fact proves that the former can not be.

The idea that people to whom supernatural traits or deeds have been ascribed can not have existed is clearly wrong. I could ascribe something supernatural to you right now, and you wouldn't poof out of existence. I could even ascribe something supernatural to a universally acknowledged fictional character like Jason Bourne or Speed Racer or Horatio Hornblower, and even though they didn't exist, my supernatural claim about them would not be proof that they didn't. Anybody looking to establish that they didn't would need to look elsewhere.

Well now you are doing precisely what I warned against earlier - you are mixing up the need for valid evidence with a demand for actual proof!

I have not claimed that we have "proof" to show that Jesus must have been no more than fictional myth. Sceptics here are not claiming anything as absolute and total as a "proof" that no such person could ever have existed. On the contrary I have said very clearly in most of my posts that he might have existed, but that there is really no good evidence for that.

And yet above your reply immediately starts with the strawman of a rebuttal which says The idea that people to whom supernatural traits or deeds have been ascribed can not have existed is clearly wrong. ... but we are not claiming that he "can not" have existed ... the sceptical claim here is only that (1) the evidence of his existence is lacking (there really is no evidence of him known to anyone as a real person), and that (2) the contrary evidence that we have now (21st century) is actually enormous ...

... the evidence we have now is that -

(1) all the biblical descriptions of what Jesus did, are quite clearly untrue fiction riddled with constant claims of impossible miracles.

(2) the biblical writers who gave those descriptions are therefore very seriously unreliable and themselves completely discredited as a source by all of their constant claims of events that surely could never have happened.

(3) we now know, eg from Randel Helms book Gospel Fictions (do read that if you have not already done so), that the gospel writers were certainly using OT prophecies that were written centuries before, as a source for stories that they later created for Jesus.

 

[Sherman Bay]

(2) the biblical writers who gave those descriptions are therefore very seriously unreliable and themselves completely discredited as a source by all of their constant claims of events that surely could never have happened.

To look at this another way, I call this the 13th strike rule:

"If a clock strikes 13, it not only is false, but it casts doubt on the other 12."

 

[Kapyong]

Gday IanS and all

(3) we now know, eg from Randel Helms book Gospel Fictions (do read that if you have not already done so), that the gospel writers were certainly using OT prophecies that were written centuries before, as a source for stories that they later created for Jesus.

Neil Godfrey at Vridar is doing a series about that right now :

Gospels Cut from Jewish Scriptures
(much based on Nanine Charbonnel’s Jésus-Christ, sublime figure de paper.)

https://vridar.org/2020/05/12/gospels-cut-from-jewish-scriptures-1/

https://vridar.org/2020/05/16/gospels-cut-from-jewish-scriptures-2/

https://vridar.org/2020/05/23/gospels-cut-from-jewish-scriptures-3/

 

[Tassman]

... so just to be really clear on that - on that point of mass delusion, the biblical writers could quite easily have been suffering from mass delusion or reporting on other peoples mass delusions ... which is precisely the sort of delusion that we have seen all throughout the history of every religion where the followers are so committed to a fanatical faith that the slightest little incidental and quite irrelevant thing will cause them to claim that they witnessed all manner of fantastic florid elaborate displays confirming their faith beliefs.

Yes, I agree. This reminds me of the “holy gourd of the lord” the fanatical crowd got hysterical about in The Life of Brian.

 

[IanS]

To look at this another way, I call this the 13th strike rule:

"If a clock strikes 13, it not only is false, but it casts doubt on the other 12."

In the biblical case what that clock is doing is striking 13, and then striking every other number except 1 to 12! ... it never strikes anything correctly ... and, yes, that would cast doubt on claims that said the clock (which was never produced, and only ever anonymously claimed) was absolutely perfect and always struck every hour 1 to 12 precisely correct to 100% “certainty”!

 

[Delvo]

Well now you are doing precisely what I warned against earlier - you are mixing up the need for valid evidence with a demand for actual proof!

That's just using semantics to avoid the actual subject, but OK, I'll play along...

The same statement still works with "evidence" just as well.

I could ascribe something supernatural to you right now, and you wouldn't poof out of existence. I could even ascribe something supernatural to a universally acknowledged fictional character like Jason Bourne or Speed Racer or Horatio Hornblower, and even though they didn't exist, my supernatural claim about them would not be evidence that they didn't. Anybody looking to argue that they didn't would need to look elsewhere.

The word dance has no effect on the principle.

 

[dejudge]

That's just using semantics to avoid the actual subject, but OK, I'll play along...

The same statement still works with "evidence" just as well.

I could ascribe something supernatural to you right now, and you wouldn't poof out of existence. I could even ascribe something supernatural to a universally acknowledged fictional character like Jason Bourne or Speed Racer or Horatio Hornblower, and even though they didn't exist, my supernatural claim about them would not be evidence that they didn't. Anybody looking to argue that they didn't would need to look elsewhere.

The word dance has no effect on the principle.

If it is already established that anything exist then adding or substracting supernatural traits have no effect on its established historicity.

If is already established that anything is fictional then adding or substracting supernatural traits have no effect on the already established fictional character.

With regards to Jesus, there is no where to look for evidence to establish his historicity.

The so-called HJ was fabricated from the orificies of the very same NT authors who established Jesus was water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

The so-called HJ is an orifice of established fiction, forgery and false attribution.

 

[IanS]

That's just using semantics to avoid the actual subject, but OK, I'll play along...

The same statement still works with "evidence" just as well.

I could ascribe something supernatural to you right now, and you wouldn't poof out of existence. I could even ascribe something supernatural to a universally acknowledged fictional character like Jason Bourne or Speed Racer or Horatio Hornblower, and even though they didn't exist, my supernatural claim about them would not be evidence that they didn't. Anybody looking to argue that they didn't would need to look elsewhere.

The word dance has no effect on the principle.

OK, well you have such a convoluted sentence there (above) with so many double-negatives in it, that it's very difficult to untangle what it is that you are actually trying to say. However, as it happens you have made you own claim completely redundant from the very start, by first actually defining your figure a definitely "Fictional"! ... you begin by asking us to consider "a fictional character like Speed Racer ..." !! ...

... as soon as you tell us that your figure is defined as fictional from the very start, then all need for evidence or proof is completely redundant ... the argument is over from it's beginning in that case because you have already said the figure definitely is Fictional lol!


You could have done yourself a favour by avoiding that mistake of defining your figure as fictional from the outset. And that would have been more appropriate here, because in the case of Jesus he is not defined as fictional to begin with, and the question here is whether he was actually fictional or whether he was real. And the only reliable way to decide the likelihood either way is by using honest genuine relevant evidence.

So the the question is -

Q1 - what is the genuine honest & relevant evidence to show that Jesus was most probably real? And afaik, the answer to that is - there is no genuine evidence of Jesus as a real person ever known to anyone at all.

Does that "prove" he doesn't exist? Answer - no. No that's not a "proof that he does not exist". A proof like that is actualy impossible for anything.

Does that lack of evidence itself become evidence that he did not exist? Answer - no, not really. Not directly. But that lack of genuine evidence is not what the sceptics are actually counting as specific actual or "direct" evidence of his non-existence. However ...

... what does count as evidence against the existence of Jesus is all the knowledge that we have since gained from studies like science, which have now convinced all educated people that what was claimed in virtually every biblical mention of Jesus (i.e. in the gospels and letters) is in fact impossible by virtue of constantly claiming the supernatural.

So just to summarise that last sentence - what actually IS evidence against the reality of Jesus, is the fact that we now know that what was written about him was invented as untrue fiction in almost every single enterprise that he was said to have engaged in.

And in addition to that, as I have said several times in this thread - authors such as Randel Helms (see his book Gospel Fictions) have traced many of the gospels stories of Jesus back to what had been written centuries before as messiah prophecy in the Old Testament. So that is a very clear and inescapable demonstration of where the gospel writers were getting their Jesus stories from. And that is clearly evidence to show that the stories were being invented from far more ancient OT traditions of divine prophecy.


Just to be really clear on why that IS evidence against the existence of Jesus … what we actually have for Jesus, is only what was said in the gospels and letters of the bible. We do not actually have anything from Jesus himself … we do not have any writing that is credibly claimed to be from Jesus, and we do not have any artefacts that are genuinely from Jesus himself (despite all sorts of claims about crucifixion nails and the Turin Shroud and countless other such fake objects). So when any of us ask for evidence (whether we are sceptics or whether we are believers in a real HJ), all that we can ever evaluate as evidence is whatever shows the veracity or otherwise of that biblical writing … that is the only evidence possible, i.e. with the question – Q1 – is this gospel writing reliable as evidence of a real Jesus who was actually known to anyone? … and same question concerning Paul's letters …

… IOW – the likelihood of reality or otherwise of Jesus, depends upon evidence of whether or not that biblical writing meets the test of being reliable and credible for what it says of the activities of Jesus …

… and the answer to that, is that all known evidence now shows that the biblical writing is not even remotely credible or reliable as evidence of a real Jesus ever known to anyone.

 

[Kapyong]

The idea that people to whom supernatural traits or deeds have been ascribed can not have existed is clearly wrong.

The same ridiculous ******** claim, willfully repeated, over and over - no matter how many times it is shown to be false.

No-one here made that claim, and Delvo must be aware of it.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

 

[IanS]

That's just using semantics to avoid the actual subject, but OK, I'll play along...

The same statement still works with "evidence" just as well.

I could ascribe something supernatural to you right now, and you wouldn't poof out of existence..

In my reply 1514, I did not actually respond to the above. So for the sake of completion I'll do that now -

- no, of course it would make me disappear from existence merely because you "ascribed something supernatural to me". But when you say that, you are already defining me as existing anyway! But that is not the situation that we have with Jesus ... with Jesus we cannot start by saying he definitely existed ... that's precisely the question that we are trying to settle!, i.e. Q1 - did Jesus exist or not.

If he did not exist then it's impossible to produce direct evidence of his non-existence. The best anyone could do would be to show that everything that was claimed about him, and which could actually be checked, has turned out to be either clearly untrue or else highly dubious and with no independent supporting corroboration.

On the other hand if Jesus did exist, then we'd expect to find some credible evidence of that. Or else, at the very least we would expect to find that what was offered as the evidence, did not keep turning out to be untrue fiction from hopelessly unreliable "witnesses".

And that's exactly the problem with the case for a real HJ ... all that we do have are some hopelessly unreliable witnesses in the form of the biblical writers. And a whole load of "evidence" that has turned out to be untrue fiction. And furthermore, it also then turns out that there is clear evidence that they were using OT prophecies and such-like to invent stories of Jesus.

All of which amounts to (a) no credible evidence of a HJ, and (b) a great deal of evidence to show that the stories were fictional invention.

That is not a proof that Jesus could not have existed. But it is very strong evidence to show that what was written as the evidence of Jesus in the gospels and letters is almost all certainly untrue, and that the tiny amount that remains (if any really remains at all) is completely unreliable.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Dejudge. If it is in the bible it is false by default. That is what he said.

Doesn't much matter to me either way. I just find it hilarious how far his emotional investment goes.

Was there an actual person called jesus?
Was the Jesus figure an amalgam of the many religious wingnuts wandering the area at the time?
Was jesus entirely made from whole cloth?

Each is possible.

Does it bother me one way or another? Nope.

Do I get all hissy and insulting at any of those three possibilities being proposed? Nope.

Do I have a preference for any of them? Well, I wouldn't go so far as to term it a preference, but I favour the amalgam idea above the others, as the basis upon which the myth was constructed. Seems plausible to me.

Am I committed to that idea? Nope. Frankly, I couldn't give a flying **** which is true. Whichever might be true still leaves one with a bloke, a bunch of blokes or no bloke at all. So what? Still doesn't magically produce some GAAAAWWWWWDDDDD, does it?

So supposed we were to agree that some nutjob called jesus wandered about preaching apocalypse 2,000 years ago. Fine, it's just some nutty bloke.

Suppose we agreed that it was a pastiche of the numerous apocalyptic preachers in that place at that time. Great. It is a bunch of nutty blokes.

Suppose we agreed that it was an entirely invented tale by some unknown somebody. Super, it's an imaginary nutty bloke.

What of this would make me, you or anyone else stop being an atheist?

Seriously. Your choices are nutty bloke, bunch of nutty blokes and no bloke. Where's the beef?

 

[abaddon]

Yup -
a large collection of writings from many early Christians - and yet NONE of them contain a credible claim of meeting Jesus !

All of that is correct in the canon.

Outside of the canon there exist far more wild claims. One can understand why they were omitted. In some of the extra-canonical books, jesus is like Damian from The Omen.

One can see that cherry-picking was a feature of christianity from the outset.

Funnily enough, it still happens to this day with christians and the bible.

I consider that most christians simply have not read what their magic book actually says. Or misrepresent it.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

All of that is correct in the canon.

Outside of the canon there exist far more wild claims. One can understand why they were omitted. In some of the extra-canonical books, jesus is like Damian from The Omen.

One can see that cherry-picking was a feature of christianity from the outset.

Funnily enough, it still happens to this day with christians and the bible.

I consider that most christians simply have not read what their magic book actually says. Or misrepresent it.

"The Best Cure of Christianity is Reading the Bible" -- Mark Twain

 

[abaddon]

Sigh! I didn't say it was evidence of an HJ. Its evidence of the very real phenomenon of mass hysteria and was in the context of dejudge's claim that it would be impossible for 500 people to see Jesus at the same time. I'm also NOT arguing that 500 people DID see Jesus, just that mass hysteria exists.

I know that. You know that. Look, I lived through the 1985 summer of moving statues of holy mary. It was remarkable how people deluded themselves. En mass. I was 17 at that time, already an atheist and still living at home with two parents who were devout catholics. Even they were aghast at the way a mass delusion grew legs. News crews would record it and show people afterward that the statue din't move at all. Did that change the believers minds? Did that make them rethink? No, they dug in their heels.

So, yes, you are correct. Mass delusion is an odd thing, but a very real thing. You only have to see it once to know that.

If you want to see this in action, ten minutes of this insanity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZjM83wZmWw