Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Considering that I never said he didn't, I'm not even sure what you think you're answering to. But then again, that seems to be the whole pattern of your 'contribution' here: not as much answering to anything, just using it as an excuse to hear yourself spout whatever 'smart' stuff you had prepared.

So, let me be clear, Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist. They are really fiction characters.

 

[HansMustermann]

So, let me be clear, Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist. They are really fiction characters.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with our talk about Origen. I mean, literally previously the only connection between what I said and what you replied was the name "Origen", but now even that seems to have disappeared and you're back to repeating your old postulates.

But ok, sure, let's move on then. Feel free to explain how you know that with such certainty then.

Far as I can piece together your logic, it seems to go something like: they're in the same anthology of 27 different stories by different authors, and 4 of them are about some miraculous superpowered guy, and some guys who aren't even in that anthology made outlandish claims too, therefore nobody from any of them is based on any real person.

But that would be fallacious in more than one way. To wit:

1. You're doing an association fallacy. Each document must be judged on its own merits. Just quoting some miraculous stuff from Mark doesn't mean that the same applies to 1 Timothy or 1 Cor.

2. Argument from fallacy, which is itself a fallacy. Just because an argument for a conclusion C is broken, it doesn't mean you can therefore conclude that absolutely, positively it's !C. And it's a fallacy because basically it's a subcase of your old nemesis, the denying the antecedent fallacy. I.e., it relies on confusing "A=>C" to also mean "!A=>!C". (Where A is the argument, and C is the conclusion.) But that's not how negating an implication works.

More to the point here, a document being unreliable or outright fiction in the case of Acts or the gospels, does mean it can't be trusted as a source. But it does NOT mean that you can proclaim with any degree of certainty that therefore positively, absolutely none of the people mentioned in there ever existed, and none of them were ever based on any real people.

In fact, you don't even need to understand the argument from fallacy to see that that kind of logic is trivially false. Just because it really is trivial to find counter-examples.

E.g., the old film The Mummy (not the new remake) features Imhotep as a thoroughly supernatural undead monster. Is the movie a good source for Imhotep? No. HELL NO. Was there nevertheless a real person named Imhotep? Yes.

But anyway, there's a difference between saying that something is unsupported, and claiming to know for sure that the opposite is true. If you want to go all the way for the latter, you can help yourself to the burden of proof.

3. Quite frankly, most of your reasoning so far has been just an unrelenting gish gallop. You never seem to stop to properly support any of the claims, nor address any objections, you just dump a ton of claims that aren't even related to anything anyone was saying.

 

[smartcooky]

Its a waste of time addressing anything dejudge is posting - he's all mouth and no ears. He quotes others' posts and then posts "replies" that don't actually address what he quoted. He just repeats the same stuff over and over with zero understanding of (and apparently zero attempt to understand) anything that anyone else has posted. He sees the posts of others merely as irrelevant intervals between the dogma he wants to post.

 

[dejudge]

I'm still not sure what this has to do with our talk about Origen. I mean, literally previously the only connection between what I said and what you replied was the name "Origen", but now even that seems to have disappeared and you're back to repeating your old postulates.

But ok, sure, let's move on then. Feel free to explain how you know that with such certainty then.

Far as I can piece together your logic, it seems to go something like: they're in the same anthology of 27 different stories by different authors, and 4 of them are about some miraculous superpowered guy, and some guys who aren't even in that anthology made outlandish claims too, therefore nobody from any of them is based on any real person.

But that would be fallacious in more than one way. To wit:

1. You're doing an association fallacy. Each document must be judged on its own merits. Just quoting some miraculous stuff from Mark doesn't mean that the same applies to 1 Timothy or 1 Cor.

2. Argument from fallacy, which is itself a fallacy. Just because an argument for a conclusion C is broken, it doesn't mean you can therefore conclude that absolutely, positively it's !C. And it's a fallacy because basically it's a subcase of your old nemesis, the denying the antecedent fallacy. I.e., it relies on confusing "A=>C" to also mean "!A=>!C". (Where A is the argument, and C is the conclusion.) But that's not how negating an implication works.

More to the point here, a document being unreliable or outright fiction in the case of Acts or the gospels, does mean it can't be trusted as a source. But it does NOT mean that you can proclaim with any degree of certainty that therefore positively, absolutely none of the people mentioned in there ever existed, and none of them were ever based on any real people.

In fact, you don't even need to understand the argument from fallacy to see that that kind of logic is trivially false. Just because it really is trivial to find counter-examples.

E.g., the old film The Mummy (not the new remake) features Imhotep as a thoroughly supernatural undead monster. Is the movie a good source for Imhotep? No. HELL NO. Was there nevertheless a real person named Imhotep? Yes.

But anyway, there's a difference between saying that something is unsupported, and claiming to know for sure that the opposite is true. If you want to go all the way for the latter, you can help yourself to the burden of proof.

3. Quite frankly, most of your reasoning so far has been just an unrelenting gish gallop. You never seem to stop to properly support any of the claims, nor address any objections, you just dump a ton of claims that aren't even related to anything anyone was saying.

You seem utterly confused and contradictory.

You are certain NT Jesus did not literally exist.

You stated in a previous post that " Nobody here is saying that the gospel character literally existed".

..... Nobody here is saying that the gospel character literally existed.

I am saying that NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist.

 

[smartcooky]

I am saying that NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist.

AND LITERALLY NO ONE HERE IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON THIS!

However, where I (and I am sure several others here) differ with you is that you insist that the NT Jesus, the disciple and Paul were completely made up fiction, fabricated from whole cloth and entirely from the imagination of some author or authors you are unable to name, and that you claim these are established, irrefutable facts, because there is no evidence to support any other conclusions.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is not a scholar (theist or atheist) anywhere who agrees with your characterization. You are essentially saying that you are the only one who is right, and that everyone else in the world is wrong.

What I (and I am sure several others here) think, is that it is not possible to definitively rule out that the fictional accounts in the NT, of Jesus, the disciples and Paul could have been based on actual people, and those fictional accounts have been exaggerated beyond all reason to give us the fictional narrative we have today. As a result, we acknowledge that we do not know whether HJ existed or not, and that acknowledgement does not disqualify us from having a valid opinion!

 

[abaddon]

So, let me be clear, Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist. They are really fiction characters.

Prove that claim in the face of all scholarship. Because we already know you are not a scholar, you merely have a fervently held belief much like a faith.

And why is it that you reuse these phrases as though they were evidence?

You don't know what you are talking about.

I simply pointed out that you really don't know what you are talking about.

You have nothing to contribute.

Which is an egregious insult.

You continue to write repeated fiction.

Another egregious insult.

But none of us has any reason to think you know any more about it than the rest of us and much reason to think that you do not.

To me it is simple. I retain an open mind to the idea that a historical MAY have existed. As an atheist, I fail to see how acknowledging that perhaps such an individual, or amalgam of various individuals may have existed. We have plenty of evidence for such wandering apocalyptic wingnuts in the levant at the time. Does not mean I will suddenly convert, althogh it seems to mean that to you,

Your mind is utterly closed. Why is that? What evidence can you provide? Because so far, you have provided none beyond insulting your interlocuters.

And that is a tactic that you cannot justify and will not endear you to anyone.

I suspect your attitude is not borne out of some need to convince all of us. You have no need for such. We are mostly atheists already. It is borne out of a desperation to convince yourself.

 

[dejudge]

I am saying that NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist.

AND LITERALLY NO ONE HERE IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON THIS!

OK.

However, where I (and I am sure several others here) differ with you is that you insist that the NT Jesus, the disciple and Paul were completely made up fiction, fabricated from whole cloth and entirely from the imagination of some author or authors you are unable to name, and that you claim these are established, irrefutable facts, because there is no evidence to support any other conclusions.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is not a scholar (theist or atheist) anywhere who agrees with your characterization. You are essentially saying that you are the only one who is right, and that everyone else in the world is wrong.

What I (and I am sure several others here) think, is that it is not possible to definitively rule out that the fictional accounts in the NT, of Jesus, the disciples and Paul could have been based on actual people, and those fictional accounts have been exaggerated beyond all reason to give us the fictional narrative we have today. As a result, we acknowledge that we do not know whether HJ existed or not, and that acknowledgement does not disqualify us from having a valid opinion!aying that NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist.

You appear to be confused and contradictory.

You must have forgotten what you just wrote "
AND LITERALLY NO ONE HERE IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON THIS!"

NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist.

 

[smartcooky]

You appear to be confused and contradictory.

NOTHING I said in that post contradicts anything you have said, nothing!

NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist.

NOTHING I said in that post contradicts this, nothing!

You literally do not understand that believing something to be true IS NOT THE SAME as proving it to be true!

You literally do not understand that just because a narrative is fictional DOES NOT MEAN that everything it contains it is untrue.

You literally appear to be totally closed minded to anything other than your own dogma - you appear to be impossible to get through to.

I would not be at all surprised if English is not your native language, because you have real difficulty in understanding the most basic of language concepts, such as analogies.

 

[dejudge]

NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist.

NOTHING I said in that post contradicts this, nothing!

You literally do not understand that believing something to be true IS NOT THE SAME as proving it to be true!

You literally do not understand that just because a narrative is fictional DOES NOT MEAN that everything it contains it is untrue.

You literally appear to be totally closed minded to anything other than your own dogma - you appear to be impossible to get through to.

I would not be at all surprised if English is not your native language, because you have real difficulty in understanding the most basic of language concepts, such as analogies.

You agree NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist but you can't prove it.

If NT Jesus did not exist please tell us what is true in the NT?
Your position is confusingly absurd.

 

[smartcooky]

You agree NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist but you can't prove it.

If NT Jesus did not exist please tell us what is true in the NT?

People who are known to have really existed - evidence is available
Pontius Pilate (fifth governor of the Roman province of Judaea)
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (Governor of Syria)
Simon Peter (Bishop of Rome)
Herod the Great (King of Judea)
Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea)
Herod Archelaus (Ethnarch of Judea, Samaria and Edom)
Joseph ben Caiaphas (High Priest of Israel)
Augustus Caesar (Emperor of Rome)

Places that are known to have existed
Jerusalem
Galilee,
Nazareth
Magdala
Bethlehem
Meggido
Machaerus

 

[HansMustermann]

You seem utterly confused and contradictory.

Nope, it's just your comprehension skills, and tendency to take one sentence or even one word out of context and go off on that. Just like Paul

You are certain NT Jesus did not literally exist.

You stated in a previous post that " Nobody here is saying that the gospel character literally existed".

Meaning: not as described in the gospels. Meaning we're not saying someone could actually walk on water, turn water into wine, and revive after a spear hit to the heart like Deadpool. Which you'd know if you had actually read and understood that message, instead of quote-mining a sentence from it. There is a difference between that and being sure it wasn't based on anyone.

Trivial example: we're pretty sure Tony Stark is fiction, but we know it's based on Howard Hughes. Now I would say that doesn't mean Howard Hughes is 'the historical Iron Man', but apparently for some people that level of identification makes sense. THAT is what has been enough to call some schmuck from Judaea 'the historical Jesus'. And even then most of them seem to be at the level of "MAY have been based on someone."

So, yeah, it helps if you actually read and understand what you're answering to.

I am saying that NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist.

And here you seem to (possibly intentionally) not notice that you snuck a couple of terms in, and then pretend that if someone agreed to "X doesn't exist" (as described) they automatically should agree to the extended "X, Y and Z don't exist" version, or they're somehow confused. No, it's you that's confused if you don't see the difference between the two. Just because me and you pretty much agree on Jesus, doesn't mean we do about Paul or for that matter Peter.

A.k.a., the Motte And Bailey fallacy.

 

[HansMustermann]

@smartcooky
And that's just from the gospels. The epistles and acts add another big chunk of people (e.g., Aretas IV Philopatris, Gamaliel or Theudas), and pretty much half the cities in the eastern Mediterranean.

So, yeah, even a novel like Acts can contain real people.

 

[smartcooky]

@smartcooky
And that's just from the gospels. The epistles and acts add another big chunk of people (e.g., Aretas IV Philopatris, Gamaliel or Theudas), and pretty much half the cities in the eastern Mediterranean.

So, yeah, even a novel like Acts can contain real people.

My lists were by no means exhaustive. There are literally dozens of people written about to varying degrees in the Gospels and the Epistles and Acts who are known with some certainty to have really existed.

 

[Tassman]

Apollonius was not a contemporary of NT Jesus.

NT Jesus was a water walking, transfiguring son of a ghost.

Well Apollonius was a contemporary of NT Jesus. His dates are 15 CE to 100CE. He was believed to perform wonders and miracles and was frequently compared to the Jewish sage and “miracle worker” Jesus of Nazareth.

NT Jesus was total fiction.

No more so than Apollonius of Tyana and others in this gullible era..

Those who wrote about Apollonius claimed Paul and Peter were liars

So, presumably Paul and Peter actually existed if they were considered liars, despite your claims to the contrary.

Competent Scholars agree that Jesus did not exist and that the so-called Pauline Epistles were not written by Saul/Paul.

This is simply a bald assertion totally unsupported by fact. There are numerous competent biblical scholars. Their overwhelming consensus is that Jesus the man existed (as opposed to the miracle-working god/man). And of the thirteen books of the New Testament attributed to Paul, seven of them are authentic.

What is your problem facing facts?

 

[abaddon]

You agree NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not literally exist but you can't prove it.

If NT Jesus did not exist please tell us what is true in the NT?
Your position is confusingly absurd.

Everything in the NT is fiction, therefore Jerusalem does not exist.

That is how absurd your position is.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I am saying that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did literally exist.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

]I am saying that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did literally exist.

I am saying that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did literally exist.


If I keep repeating it, will that make it true?

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, generally I would be weary of the claims of what the primary sources for Apollonius of Tyana knew or said. We only have Philostratus's account from about 150 years or so after the death of Apollonius, and his sources, especially Damis, aren't actually corroborated by anyone. In fact, most modern scholars are only divided about whether Philostratus made up Damis himself, or he was just gullible enough to trust another forgery signed Damis.

Not the least because it makes the same kind of miracle claims that dejudge is understandably cautious about when it comes to Jesus. In fact, if Jesus's being born of a divine being is suspicious, Apollonius of Tyana is the guy I mentioned before who topped even that by claiming to be born of TWO gods. Literally, his mom had a threesome with two gods. (It's almost the kind of *ahem* theology you'd find on PornHub) Plus a slew of miracles including some Jesus never did, like teleportation. And the guys he bravely confronted and were duly amazed because the author says so include the Emperor. So again, he's topping even the claim that Jesus confronted and impressed some Pharisees. Screw that, Apollonius did it with the emperor himself.

So yeah, anyone one who is not taking the gospels as, well, gospel -- and really one SHOULD doubt them -- then the same applies to Philostratus and then some.

Whoever wrote THAT kind of nonsense definitely wasn't a first hand witness writing down memoirs.

So yeah, claims to the effect that 'but Apollonius of Tyana was attested by Damis' as if that lends it any credence... uh, no. Claims to the effect of 'but Damis didn't mention Jesus' as if he should, uh, no. Just no. Not only it's irrational to claim that such a BS account had any reason to mention anyone except the guy he was glorifying, but it's an argument from ignorance too, since really we don't know what else was in that forged diary of Damis. We only have the bits that Philostratus copied. Saying what WASN'T in the bits we don't have is just plain old silly.

Frankly, even the claim that, basically, 'don't trust liars like Paul and Peter' reads more like a variant of the standard forgery red flag: where the forger warns you against trusting (other) liars and forgers. The reason being that gullible marks believed (and most still do) that someone who's lying wouldn't want you to even think about it possibly being a forgery, so anyone who warns you about forgeries from the start must be the real Slim Shady. Mind you, it's not a guarantee that whenever you encounter such a passage, you're actually being lied to, but one would do well to take it as a cue to exercise proper skepticism.

 

[ahhell]

AND LITERALLY NO ONE HERE IS DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON THIS!

However, where I (and I am sure several others here) differ with you is that you insist that the NT Jesus, the disciple and Paul were completely made up fiction, fabricated from whole cloth and entirely from the imagination of some author or authors you are unable to name, and that you claim these are established, irrefutable facts, because there is no evidence to support any other conclusions.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is not a scholar (theist or atheist) anywhere who agrees with your characterization. You are essentially saying that you are the only one who is right, and that everyone else in the world is wrong.

What I (and I am sure several others here) think, is that it is not possible to definitively rule out that the fictional accounts in the NT, of Jesus, the disciples and Paul could have been based on actual people, and those fictional accounts have been exaggerated beyond all reason to give us the fictional narrative we have today. As a result, we acknowledge that we do not know whether HJ existed or not, and that acknowledgement does not disqualify us from having a valid opinion!

This.

Its a waste of time addressing anything dejudge is posting - he's all mouth and no ears. He quotes others' posts and then posts "replies" that don't actually address what he quoted. He just repeats the same stuff over and over with zero understanding of (and apparently zero attempt to understand) anything that anyone else has posted. He sees the posts of others merely as irrelevant intervals between the dogma he wants to post.

I just want to say, I agree with the Smartcooky here but like others, I can't help but respond.


So, here's the thing.
dejudge his making a few errors repeatedly.
Those expressing lack of certainty are actually more familiar with the evidence than he is, we are not admitting they don't know anything. We know enough to realize, certainty is unwarranted. I'm of the opinion that a preacher named jesus probably existed and his followers created a religion around him. It appears to be nothing like what he meant it to be. Most seem to think that if such a preacher existed, he was so far removed from what we've been told as to not really be the same character.

Claiming that because the NT stories can not be literally true in all respects means the are there fore false in all respects. Like saying George Washington couldn't be real because he didn't actually cut down a cherry tree and also, the biographer who originally made that claim wasn't real either.

So, the thing is, christianity and therefore Jesus just weren't that important for the first hundred years or so after he would have died. Its not surprising that almost nobody but christians wrote about him. Just one of many cults in the empire at the time. We don't know much about most of them.

Dejudge, did the Buddha actually exist?

 

[Delvo]

Well, generally I would be weary of the claims...

.

weary = tired, fatigued (as in, it's been wearing you down)

wary = cautious, unsure (as in, beware)