Historical Jesus

[IanS]

No matter how many times you assert that, it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how much of the NT is made up, it still doesn't prove that a historical Jesus didn't exist.

Just merely "asserting" it, does not "prove" Jesus did not exist. But there are two problems with what you say there ... (1) dejudge is not just asserting it, he's given a vast mass of checkable references to support his interpretation of the Jesus stories. But also others here have been pointing out for years that wherever we have been able to check to see if the biblical stories of Jesus are true, it has always turned out that they are not true! And that's the most that it's ever possible to do if something or someone does not exist; i.e. all you can ever do is to show that the claims of their existence are repeatedly and constantly false and with not even one claim/story ever supported in any credible way at all ... and that is exactly what has now been done.

And then (2) - it's absolutely impossible to literally prove anything in this universe, and especially not in ancient history. So when you say that dejudge does not "prove" his case, that is a worthless argument against him, because none of us can prove anything at all (we can't even prove Quantum theory or Relativity, or even Evolution if it comes to that).

Before you can dismiss it entirely, you have to explain why the NT authors felt it necessary to invent a story about a man, and then retrofit godly powers onto him (as is clear from an unbiased reading of the NT). The obvious reason is that they didn't invent him, because the tradition already existed - IOW their predecessors also believed Jesus was the founder of Christianty. Why? Because he (or someone) almost certainly was.

It's by no means clear that the NT authors started out describing a "Man" (ie a human person). If anything, the entire opposite is true. E.g., Pauls letters are universally claimed by bible scholars and others to be the earliest mention of Jesus. And there the author "Paul" makes very clear that the Jesus figure which he knows, was obtained by him as a divine revelation from ancient "scripture" ... and where he also makes clear that neither he nor anyone else had ever known Jesus except as a figure of fanatical belief evidenced as a spiritual vision in the heavens.

I think your big mistake is in not understanding the culture of the times. If anyone today insisted their church was started by a god in human form, and wrote a book about him that was full of supernatural nonsense, we would rightly scoff. But back then, in that society, it was expected. That is why the NT authors (and those before them) would have gone to such lengths to make the real leader out to be more than he was.

The fact that anyone today would dismiss such a story, is ultra clear evidence that the Jesus stories were an invention. And the key point there is that in biblical times people did not realise that such stories were mythical inventions ... in the 1st century they actually all believed that miracles, gods, demons, angels etc. were very frequent occurrences upon the Earth.

If you want to convince us that the NT authors made up Jesus out of whole cloth, you need more than just a lack of evidence for his existence outside the NT. You need to show evidence that they did not base their writings on any earlier tradition, or you need to provide a reasonable explanation for why they had to make it up.

The term "out of whole cloth" is completely misleading everyone here. The suggestion from most HJ sceptics is NOT that some individual decided one day to completely invent a story of his own to claim a messiah. The explanation, which I have given here countless times already, is that everyone in that region was absolutely certain that a messiah would come to the people, because that was Gods own promise in divine OT scripture. So all that was needed was for someone like Paul to decide that he had suddenly been granted a revelation from God that told him the true meaning of the coded messiah prophecies in ancient "scripture" ... and that is exactly what Paul's letters repeatedly say, in fact he insists upon it! ...

... Paul's' letters are telling the reader that Gods promised saviour-Messiah (who was by then about 600 years overdue!), had indeed been sent to Earth at some unknown time in the past ... Paul did not know any such person, and he tells us that very explicitly ... he is also very explicit in saying he got that messiah understanding/belief "from no Man"; he got it entirely from his sudden new understanding of scripture. The only "new" thing that Paul or someone else (we do not know who) added that was very slightly new or different was the name "Jesus" ... but of course Paul would not have called the messiah "Jesus" at that date anyway ... if he was writing in ancient Hebrew then the Messiah would have been called Yehoshua or Joshua, or in the Greek writing of the time it would have been "Iesous" ...

... so you might ask why Paul chose the name "Yehosua/Iesous"? But there are two fairly obvious reasons which might explain that - (1) without looking it up again, in his book "On The Historicity of Jesus" Richard Carrier claims that Paul could actually find that same name attributed to the Messiah in some parts of ancient OT scripture (I don't know if Carrier is correct about that, but the book did pass Peer Review). See also the wiki link below regarding Theophoric Names, which also mentions numerous OT uses and Dead Sea scroll use of the name Joshua or it's variations for all sorts of supposedly holy leaders. But also (2) Yehosha is not a normal name. Instead its a what's called a "Theophoric" word that represents a vocal cry or appeal to the heavenly God, which is roughly interpreted to mean something like "he saves us".

OK, I've written much of that from memory, without specifically re-checking; so you need to check the above, but you will find that is at least a plausible genuine description/possibility both on what Carrier has in his book and what I've just said about theophoric names and the nature of the name or “word” “Yehoshua” (but actually, I did just check that before posting this … see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua )

But if you just keep harping on about "the obvious lies in the NT prove that Jesus never existed" then you are going to look a fool if some evidence turns up. It wouldn't be the first time that a myth turned out to have some basis in fact.

Would it actually matter if someone is wrong on the internet??

It's really not possible to literally “prove” anything, let alone trying to “prove” such a massive negative as the non-existence of Jesus.

The best that anyone can ever hope to do is to produce strong clear evidence showing that the Jesus stories were invented. And that's been done in abundance ever since modern science slowly educated the world to understand that the miracles and superstitions of 2000 yeas ago (which everyone did believe in at the time), are really not credible any more. That's the most evidence that it would ever be possible to discover against the reality of Jesus – i.e., we have now found that the stories were invented religious myth-making. And we have also found that the gospel writers (particularly g.Mark and g.Mathew) were using OT scripture as a source for creating mythical stories of Jesus. And furthermore, in the letters attributed to “Paul”, the author repeatedly insists that the beliefs which he has obtained about Jesus “came from no Man. Nor was I taught it by anyone” but instead he repeatedly reminds his readers that it was all “according to scripture” … and he found that out because in a blinding revelation from God he said “God was pleased to reveal his Son in me”. So “Paul” was even directly telling everyone that he too was getting his beliefs from ancient “scripture”.

 

[dejudge]

There is no ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization of the Jesus story.

Personal opinion of no interest to anyone but you.

NT authors admitted their Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost and God Creator from the beginning.

Your opinion is worthless.

Your addition of "in the time of Herod the Great" is yours only. An addition you make in order to make your assertion true. What's more, there is no need for there to be a clear prophecy in Hebrew scripture about the Messiah for Jews (or any other religious person) to believe that there is. Even worse, numerous wannabe Messiahs have existed over the many centuries since JC and had no problems gaining followers among other Jews, showing that it is perfectly possible to claim a Messiah at any point in time.

Your opinion is worthless. It is stated in the NT that Jesus was born of a Ghost when Herod was King of the Jews.

There was no prophesied Messianic ruler of the Jews named Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pilate based on writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Jesus, the son of the Ghost was always fiction from the beginning.

Irrelevant. It obviously has no prophecy that there would be a person named Pilate. Nor does it have a prophecy that there would be a person named Vespasian. So what?

NT writers were still liars when they claimed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messianic ruler of the Jews based on prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius stated the Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE.

Jesus, the son of the Ghost, is a fabricated Messianic ruler of the Jews

Josephus was eager to shoehorn Vespasian into the prophecies. Others were eager to shoehorn Jesus into them. Do you believe that Vespasian was the Messiah? If not, why not?

The mere fact that the Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE signifies that Jesus, the son of Ghost, was a fabricated Messianic ruler.

NT Jesus never ever existed.

Whether or not Vespasian was the prophesied Messianic ruler the Romans did claim he was their God and Saviour.



Antiquities of the Jews 20.4.1

But as soon as the news was come that he was hard by, and those that had met him at first related with what good humor he received every one that came to him, then it was that the whole multitude that had remained in the city, with their wives and children, came into the road, and waited for him there; and for those whom he passed by, they made all sorts of acclamations, on account of the joy they had to see him, and the pleasantness of his countenance, and styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome...

Mhm. There was no prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler in the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries, either. None of which prevented a bunch of wannabe Messiahs from gaining followers in those centuries. The fact that they were all fake Messiahs isn't the point. The point is that it was, and still is, perfectly possible for someone to say "Oh, look! The Messiah has come!" That they were wrong didn't prevent them from making that claim. Just like some gospel writers made claims that a certain Jesus was the Messiah. They were wrong. But that they were wrong is beside the point.

Writing fiction is beside the point? Please, you are not making any sense.

You have no idea what religious people can make themself believe, do you? Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676) claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam. He still has followers who believe he was the Messiah today!

Well, NT writers admitted their Jesus was the son of a Ghost and up to today, even in the 21st century people want others to believe he was human without evidence.

Your private hypothesis, I gather?

I know you have no historical evidence for an HJ.
.

 

[IanS]

They had to make him a god so that he could compete with the other gods around. Jesus being just another prophet wasn't good enough. Even the Caesars claimed to be descended from gods, so Jesus had to descend from God, too. Hence the story of the conception from "a ghost", as dejudge calls it. So much of the NT has all the appearances of ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization. Did some other god raise someone from the dead? Well Jesus did that, too! In spades! Does the old prophecies say that the Messiah would come from Betlehem? Ah...umm... well, actually, the romans had this big census, you see... (we know the rest).

But here's my question: doesn't all that retrofitting sort of point to there being an underlying reality to it? Someone not a god made into a god, someone from Nazareth moved to Betlehem, someone dead resurrected, a not all that remarkable wannabe Messiah turned into the real deal.

Why are you calling it retro-fitting? That sounds like you have already decided that Jesus was real regardless of any evidence. I.e., as if you are saying he was a real person who could only do ordinary things, but later gospel writers decided that they had to write tales of the fantastic about an otherwise ordinary street preacher.

But you do not know, and none of us here or anywhere else, know if he was in fact just an ordinary but real street preacher ... that's the very question that we are trying to answer by looking at all the evidence. However, what is certainly not evidence of a real person is that the person was constantly described in supernatural terms ...

... for example - all the other gods, deity's, angels, demons etc. of antiquity were described in supernatural terms ; so does that mean they were most likely real people because "all the untrue stuff was retro-fitted on to them"?? Superman and Spiderman and the rest were described in supernatural terms, but they were not real people with retro-fitted myths.

It's true that real Roman Emperors and other famous rulers of the time were said by sycophantic courtiers that they (the rulers) had been made into gods with miraculous powers etc. But that was clearly because not saying such things about the ruler was likely to get you executed. But in any case all of those rulers of antiquity are known almost entirely for a vast mass of very human things that they did, and that's why they are famous ... they are barely known at all for any claims of becoming gods etc.

It's also true that all sorts of sensationalist stories have later become increasingly embellished by wild fictional claims that are, if you like, "retro-fitted". But a lot of those were only ever mythical in the first place. E.g., the story of the Roswell UFO landings unfolded that way with more-&-more untrue fiction being added by fanatical believers ... but that event was complete fiction anyway - there never was any such crash landed alien spaceship.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

-snip-

More useless drivel that has no bearing on what I asked.



I know you have no historical evidence for an HJ.

.

And I never claimed that I did. Why the **** are you acting as if I have made any such claim? What the hell is wrong with you?

,

 

[Thor 2]

They had to make him a god so that he could compete with the other gods around. Jesus being just another prophet wasn't good enough. Even the Caesars claimed to be descended from gods, so Jesus had to descend from God, too. Hence the story of the conception from "a ghost", as dejudge calls it. So much of the NT has all the appearances of ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization. Did some other god raise someone from the dead? Well Jesus did that, too! In spades! Does the old prophecies say that the Messiah would come from Betlehem? Ah...umm... well, actually, the romans had this big census, you see... (we know the rest).

But here's my question: doesn't all that retrofitting sort of point to there being an underlying reality to it? Someone not a god made into a god, someone from Nazareth moved to Betlehem, someone dead resurrected, a not all that remarkable wannabe Messiah turned into the real deal.

Seems more likely that they had someone they could hang all this stuff on rather than just create an entity out of nothing. Perhaps there was more than one come to think of it. This would fit with the contradictory accounts about what he did and said. Mind you I don't care much (one way or the other), because the whole idea of scape goat Jesus dying (but not really dying), for my sins, makes zero sense to me.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

Why are you calling it retro-fitting? That sounds like you have already decided that Jesus was real regardless of any evidence. I.e., as if you are saying he was a real person who could only do ordinary things, but later gospel writers decided that they had to write tales of the fantastic about an otherwise ordinary street preacher.

But you do not know, and none of us here or anywhere else, know if he was in fact just an ordinary but real street preacher ... that's the very question that we are trying to answer by looking at all the evidence. However, what is certainly not evidence of a real person is that the person was constantly described in supernatural terms ...

... for example - all the other gods, deity's, angels, demons etc. of antiquity were described in supernatural terms ; so does that mean they were most likely real people because "all the untrue stuff was retro-fitted on to them"?? Superman and Spiderman and the rest were described in supernatural terms, but they were not real people with retro-fitted myths.

It's true that real Roman Emperors and other famous rulers of the time were said by sycophantic courtiers that they (the rulers) had been made into gods with miraculous powers etc. But that was clearly because not saying such things about the ruler was likely to get you executed. But in any case all of those rulers of antiquity are known almost entirely for a vast mass of very human things that they did, and that's why they are famous ... they are barely known at all for any claims of becoming gods etc.

It's also true that all sorts of sensationalist stories have later become increasingly embellished by wild fictional claims that are, if you like, "retro-fitted". But a lot of those were only ever mythical in the first place. E.g., the story of the Roswell UFO landings unfolded that way with more-&-more untrue fiction being added by fanatical believers ... but that event was complete fiction anyway - there never was any such crash landed alien spaceship.

Thanks for responding to what I actually asked.

Why do I think it looks retro-fitted as opposed to just made up? To start with, the whole birth story is clearly fiction. There was no census, no wise men, no shepherds being visited by angels.

So that raises the question: What is the purpose of this story? Was it just entertainment? Or did whoever made it up have an agenda? If an agenda, what was it?

It looks to me as if the agenda is to place the birth of Jesus in Betlehem. (Does it look different to you?)

So that's what I mean by retro-fitted. It's fiction, made up for the purpose of placing a person (fictional or not) where he would otherwise not be placed. Without it Jesus would be Jesus from Nazareth only. The author of this fiction needed to change that.

Let's just see if you're with me so far!

 

[Ulf Nereng]

Seems more likely that they had someone they could hang all this stuff on rather than just create an entity out of nothing. Perhaps there was more than one come to think of it. This would fit with the contradictory accounts about what he did and said. Mind you I don't care much (one way or the other), because the whole idea of scape goat Jesus dying (but not really dying), for my sins, makes zero sense to me.

It probably made sense to people at the time who were familiar with sacrificing to gain a god's favor. Sacrifice a chicken... better than nothing. Sacrifice a lamb... good enough. Sacrifice a human... noteworthy! Sacrifice your firstborn son... the god is sure to notice! Sacrifice a king... well now! Sacrifice the firstborn son of a god... fantastic! Miracles are sure to happen!

I agree that an amalgate of several persons is possible, perhaps some fictional and some real.

 

[dejudge]

Thanks for responding to what I actually asked.

Why do I think it looks retro-fitted as opposed to just made up? To start with, the whole birth story is clearly fiction. There was no census, no wise men, no shepherds being visited by angels.

So that raises the question: What is the purpose of this story? Was it just entertainment? Or did whoever made it up have an agenda? If an agenda, what was it?

It looks to me as if the agenda is to place the birth of Jesus in Betlehem. (Does it look different to you?)

So that's what I mean by retro-fitted. It's fiction, made up for the purpose of placing a person (fictional or not) where he would otherwise not be placed. Without it Jesus would be Jesus from Nazareth only. The author of this fiction needed to change that.

Let's just see if you're with me so far!

You seem to be confused with your agenda. It is the other way. There was no city of Nazareth in the time of Tiberius.

The son of the Ghost is placed in a city where he could not have been.

The author of gMatthew who claimed the son of the Ghost was born in Bethlehem invented a so-called prophecy not found anywhere in Hebrew Scripture to place his Jesus in a non-existing unknown city of Nazareth.

Bethlehem is mentioned in Hebrew Scripture but never a city called Nazareth.

Bethlehem is mentioned in the writings of Josephus but never a city called Nazareth.

Remember Josephus lived or stayed in Galilee and travelled to the cities and villages in the region.

Matthew 2.23

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a .Nazarene.

The son of a Ghost came from a city which did not exist.

Jesus of nowhere is total fiction.

 

[dejudge]

It probably made sense to people at the time who were familiar with sacrificing to gain a god's favor. Sacrifice a chicken... better than nothing. Sacrifice a lamb... good enough. Sacrifice a human... noteworthy! Sacrifice your firstborn son... the god is sure to notice! Sacrifice a king... well now! Sacrifice the firstborn son of a god... fantastic! Miracles are sure to happen!

You are just making stuff up. Your imagination has gone wild.

What you imagine is worthless as historical evidence.

Jesus cult Christians did not sacrifice human beings to their God.

I agree that an amalgate of several persons is possible, perhaps some fictional and some real.

Once NT Jesus was an almagate of characters [real or not] then NT Jesus was not a figure of history.

 

[Tassman]

1. All Scholars do not agree that Jesus was a figure of history.

Certainly. But the majority of reputable scholars are of the view that the man Jesus existed. This is the point I'm struggling to make here. Even mythicist Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the historical existence of Jesus in any form) agrees that his mythicist perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. “The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Jesus at the Vanishing Point” - by Robert M. Price

 

[Tassman]

Jesus cult Christians did not sacrifice human beings to their God.

For what its worth Jesus was considered the one true sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb of god, by "Jesus cult Christians".

 

[Ulf Nereng]

You seem to be confused with your agenda. It is the other way. There was no city of Nazareth in the time of Tiberius.

The son of the Ghost is placed in a city where he could not have been.

The author of gMatthew who claimed the son of the Ghost was born in Bethlehem invented a so-called prophecy not found anywhere in Hebrew Scripture to place his Jesus in a non-existing unknown city of Nazareth.

Bethlehem is mentioned in Hebrew Scripture but never a city called Nazareth.

Bethlehem is mentioned in the writings of Josephus but never a city called Nazareth.

Remember Josephus lived or stayed in Galilee and travelled to the cities and villages in the region.

Matthew 2.23

The son of a Ghost came from a city which did not exist.

Jesus of nowhere is total fiction.

Again with the pointless drivel. There did not need to be a city called Nazareth for someone to believe there was. The author of Luke, for example did. (Luke 1:26)

You're arguing as if I'm claiming that a city named Nazareth existed. Kindly stop pushing opinions on me that I don't hold!

 

[Ulf Nereng]

You are just making stuff up. Your imagination has gone wild.

What you imagine is worthless as historical evidence.

Jesus cult Christians did not sacrifice human beings to their God.



Once NT Jesus was an almagate of characters [real or not] then NT Jesus was not a figure of history.

How the **** do you get from my "people at the time" to your "Jesus cult Christians"? Are you some kind of moron?

And I do not "imagine" that people at the time were familiar with sacrifices. Jews sacrificed animals. Their holy scripture has a story of their god telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. They were familiar with the idea.

Your lack of knowledge is worthless as historical evidence.

 

[IanS]

Thanks for responding to what I actually asked.

Why do I think it looks retro-fitted as opposed to just made up? To start with, the whole birth story is clearly fiction. There was no census, no wise men, no shepherds being visited by angels.

So that raises the question: What is the purpose of this story? Was it just entertainment? Or did whoever made it up have an agenda? If an agenda, what was it?

It looks to me as if the agenda is to place the birth of Jesus in Betlehem. (Does it look different to you?)

So that's what I mean by retro-fitted. It's fiction, made up for the purpose of placing a person (fictional or not) where he would otherwise not be placed. Without it Jesus would be Jesus from Nazareth only. The author of this fiction needed to change that.

Let's just see if you're with me so far!

Well, I'm not sure whether you are postulating a real Jesus or not, for example because of that highlighted bit above, from which it looks as if you are actually thinking that over time when earlier simpler looking stories become more-&-more embellished with the fantastic, that implies a real person at the core of the story ... is that what you are saying or thinking? Because I don't think that's true or a reasonable deduction at all ... and that's what I was explaining with examples in the previous post ...

... to sum that up - it's not true at all that increasingly embellished stories imply a real person as the basis of the stories.

In the case of Jesus it's really quite simple - either there is good evidence of him existing, or else there is not!

And the answer in this case is not merely that good evidence is lacking, but in fact that any kind of honest credible evidence is completely 100% absent! And furthermore, all of the material that for nearly 2000 years was claimed to be so convincing and unarguable for a real Jesus, and which was believed by almost everyone to be totally true and absolutely certain as real, has turned out be all, ALL OF IT, completely untrue and quite definitely all invented religious fanatical superstitions fiction.

And the idea, which has been floated countless times in these threads, that it's somehow not possible to explain how Christianity could possibly have begun unless there was a real Jesus at the heart of the religion, that idea, claim, or belief is clearly complete nonsense as some of us have pointed out and explained here countless times - it's supremely easy to create religious myths about supernatural deities without any real person at the heart of such fanatical beliefs ... and that is exactly what has happened with every other religion ever known! ... that's exactly what has happened with all the countless thousands of other claimed gods, angels, demons, monsters etc. claimed by every religion ... and I've already explained here in detail (several times) exactly how and why that was almost certain to happen in the case of the Christian "Christ belief" that we are talking about for Jesus.

Does that mean Jesus must have been a myth? No. No, because we cannot either prove that, or even make that claim very strongly from evidence. But that's partly because it would never be humanly possible to find direct evidence of the non-existence of someone! So I'm not arguing either that he did not exist, or that it's most likely that he did not exist. And for some reason I have to keep stressing that even though it's crystal clear for all the many thousands of posts that I've ever written on this subject. But what I am saying is that everything which has been claimed as evidence in favour of a HJ has turned out to be quite definitely NOT credible evidence of a HJ … and worse than that, we now have a vast amount of evidence to show that all the known stories of Jesus were invented as fictional devotional religious Messiah belief that had existed from hundreds of years before in the OT and/or in other “scripture” … and that is an extremely damaging finding against any reality of a HJ. So, in other words the current evidence is counting more against a HJ than for one.

But even so, even after all of the above, if you ask what my suspicions are in regard to a HJ, then I have to say that I think it's impossible (on current evidence), to have any strong view either way on whether he existed or not ... I could not put any figure on it for probablity, neither 100% or 0% or any other percentage in-between ... because there is simply no reliable or credible evidence of his existence ... that is obviously not a good position for belief in a HJ, but then I don't believe in any such HJ, but that does not mean that I feel confident in concluding he did not exist ... I don't have much confidence in actual evidence for either position ... but I think it's perfectly likely that he may not have existed.

 

[IanS]

It probably made sense to people at the time who were familiar with sacrificing to gain a god's favor. Sacrifice a chicken... better than nothing. Sacrifice a lamb... good enough. Sacrifice a human... noteworthy! Sacrifice your firstborn son... the god is sure to notice! Sacrifice a king... well now! Sacrifice the firstborn son of a god... fantastic! Miracles are sure to happen!

I agree that an amalgate of several persons is possible, perhaps some fictional and some real.

I don't know what dejudge is saying to you, and you can discuss that with him, but just in respect of that highlight, which appears to be the entire whole of your position ... you are making a guess which does not help the situation at all ... you are guessing that Jesus might have been real ie based upon some real person or that that he might have been mythical (based on mythical persons) ... but that's exactly back to right we all started! Yes -- he might have been a real person, or maybe he was not!

What we are trying to deduce here, and what dejudge is telling you about his deductions from a whole load of what was written in countless early writing of the time, is whether or not there really was ever any genuine of evidence of anyone ever having met a real Jesus ...

... because if nobody can be shown as ever meeting a real HJ, then it means there is no genuine evidence there of an any HJ existing. And so far, which is a big problem for belief in a HJ, all of that written material which we can actually check as evidence of a HJ, has turned out to be either invented fiction, or simply wrong, or altered by much later copyists etc., ... everything which we can now actually check, all of which was in the past claimed as overwhelming evidence of certainty in Jesus, has turned out to be no sort of credible or genuine evidence of Jesus at all (in fact, all that we have so far is very clearly & unarguably evidence of religious myth-making).

 

[Ulf Nereng]

I don't know what dejudge is saying to you, and you can discuss that with him, but just in respect of that highlight, which appears to be the entire whole of your position ... you are making a guess which does not help the situation at all ... you are guessing that Jesus might have been real ie based upon some real person or that that he might have been mythical (based on mythical persons) ... but that's exactly back to right we all started! Yes -- he might have been a real person, or maybe he was not!

What we are trying to deduce here, and what dejudge is telling you about his deductions from a whole load of what was written in countless early writing of the time, is whether or not there really was ever any genuine of evidence of anyone ever having met a real Jesus ...

... because if nobody can be shown as ever meeting a real HJ, then it means there is no genuine evidence there of an any HJ existing. And so far, which is a big problem for belief in a HJ, all of that written material which we can actually check as evidence of a HJ, has turned out to be either invented fiction, or simply wrong, or altered by much later copyists etc., ... everything which we can now actually check, all of which was in the past claimed as overwhelming evidence of certainty in Jesus, has turned out to be no sort of credible or genuine evidence of Jesus at all (in fact, all that we have so far is very clearly & unarguably evidence of religious myth-making).

I'm certainly not coming here to promote some premeditated position I hold. My current opinion is more like this:

Probability Jesus stories are wholly made up myth: Unknown
Probablilty Jesus stories are myth added to real person: Unknown

So I'm interested in discussing things about either hypothesis that I'm not sure how they would fit. For example the genealogies you find in NT. To my mind that tells us that two different people wrote them, unaware of each other. How does that fit with the MJ hypothesis?

 

[Ulf Nereng]

Well, I'm not sure whether you are postulating a real Jesus or not, for example because of that highlighted bit above, from which it looks as if you are actually thinking that over time when earlier simpler looking stories become more-&-more embellished with the fantastic, that implies a real person at the core of the story ... is that what you are saying or thinking? Because I don't think that's true or a reasonable deduction at all ... and that's what I was explaining with examples in the previous post ...

... to sum that up - it's not true at all that increasingly embellished stories imply a real person as the basis of the stories.

In the case of Jesus it's really quite simple - either there is good evidence of him existing, or else there is not!

And the answer in this case is not merely that good evidence is lacking, but in fact that any kind of honest credible evidence is completely 100% absent! And furthermore, all of the material that for nearly 2000 years was claimed to be so convincing and unarguable for a real Jesus, and which was believed by almost everyone to be totally true and absolutely certain as real, has turned out be all, ALL OF IT, completely untrue and quite definitely all invented religious fanatical superstitions fiction.

And the idea, which has been floated countless times in these threads, that it's somehow not possible to explain how Christianity could possibly have begun unless there was a real Jesus at the heart of the religion, that idea, claim, or belief is clearly complete nonsense as some of us have pointed out and explained here countless times - it's supremely easy to create religious myths about supernatural deities without any real person at the heart of such fanatical beliefs ... and that is exactly what has happened with every other religion ever known! ... that's exactly what has happened with all the countless thousands of other claimed gods, angels, demons, monsters etc. claimed by every religion ... and I've already explained here in detail (several times) exactly how and why that was almost certain to happen in the case of the Christian "Christ belief" that we are talking about for Jesus.

Does that mean Jesus must have been a myth? No. No, because we cannot either prove that, or even make that claim very strongly from evidence. But that's partly because it would never be humanly possible to find direct evidence of the non-existence of someone! So I'm not arguing either that he did not exist, or that it's most likely that he did not exist. And for some reason I have to keep stressing that even though it's crystal clear for all the many thousands of posts that I've ever written on this subject. But what I am saying is that everything which has been claimed as evidence in favour of a HJ has turned out to be quite definitely NOT credible evidence of a HJ … and worse than that, we now have a vast amount of evidence to show that all the known stories of Jesus were invented as fictional devotional religious Messiah belief that had existed from hundreds of years before in the OT and/or in other “scripture” … and that is an extremely damaging finding against any reality of a HJ. So, in other words the current evidence is counting more against a HJ than for one.

But even so, even after all of the above, if you ask what my suspicions are in regard to a HJ, then I have to say that I think it's impossible (on current evidence), to have any strong view either way on whether he existed or not ... I could not put any figure on it for probablity, neither 100% or 0% or any other percentage in-between ... because there is simply no reliable or credible evidence of his existence ... that is obviously not a good position for belief in a HJ, but then I don't believe in any such HJ, but that does not mean that I feel confident in concluding he did not exist ... I don't have much confidence in actual evidence for either position ... but I think it's perfectly likely that he may not have existed.

I agree with you that there is nothing anywhere in the NT that we can point to and say "this bit here must be true". At best we can find some bits that aren't impossible, such as when it goes "And Jesus said....".

Here's a conundrum for you: You're travelling in Greece and one day you encounter some old men who tell you that the Messiah has already come and gone. It happened over 400 years ago, they say, and they have numerous stories about the miracles he performed and the words he spoke. You of course, being a sceptic and a member of this Forum don't believe any if it, but you are left wondering: Did they (or perhaps someone 200 years ago) invent all of it from whole cloth, or was there originally some person about whom these myths have been spun? Could there be some clue as to the truth of the matter inside some of the stories they tell?

In this case you would eventually realize that they were talking about Sabbatai Zevi, who did indeed exist and did indeed claim to be the Messiah. Now that doesn't prove that another Messiah existed, too, but perhaps it shows that there can be a real person at the bottom of a fiction.

 

[dejudge]

For what its worth Jesus was considered the one true sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb of god, by "Jesus cult Christians".

NT Jesus was God's only begotten Son, [God Creator]

In NT fables, it was God who gave his only son to be sacrificed.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[dejudge]

How the **** do you get from my "people at the time" to your "Jesus cult Christians"? Are you some kind of moron?

And I do not "imagine" that people at the time were familiar with sacrifices. Jews sacrificed animals. Their holy scripture has a story of their god telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. They were familiar with the idea.
.

You don't know what you are talking about. Jews were familiar with laws against the killing of human beings..

The Jews did not sacrifice human beings for their salvation. In the Jewish religion a Jew would probably be put to death for killing a person.

Deuteronomy 5:17

Thou shalt not kill.

Leviticus 24:17

And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death

It is just total nonsense that Jews may have started a religion by murdering a man as a sacrifice to their God.

The NT Jesus story is just total fiction - complete non-historical idiocy.

 

[dejudge]

Again with the pointless drivel. There did not need to be a city called Nazareth for someone to believe there was. The author of Luke, for example did. (Luke 1:26)

You're arguing as if I'm claiming that a city named Nazareth existed. Kindly stop pushing opinions on me that I don't hold!

You have no idea what you yourself are arguing about. You don't really know what the author of gLuke believed, We only know what is written in the existing manuscripts.

Existing manuscripts of gLuke state Jesus was born of a Ghost in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

gLuke is a about the son of the Ghost so where the ghost lived is really irrelevant.