Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Here is another interesting, and more detailed article that discusses the the connection between Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls -

https://conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/the-dead-sea-scrolls-contours-of-religious-belief/

The very first overlooked problem is the term "Christianity".

There is no historical evidence at all that there was a universal teaching of Christians in any century until perhaps the 4th century.

This is a partial list of people called Christians.

1. Followers of Simon Magus were called Christians in the time of Claudius .

2. Followers of Menander were called Christians in the 1st century.

3. Followers of Basilides were called Christians .

4. Followers of Valentinus were called Christians.

5. Followers of Macus were called Christians.

6. Followers of Carpocrates were called Christians.

7.Followers of Saturnilus were called Christians.

8. Followers of Marcion were called Christians.

Examine the list.

None of the Christian Cult leaders were Jews.
None of the Christian cults were found in Judea.
None of the teachings of Christian cult were based on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There is simply no historical evidence anywhere that Christian cults were started by Jews or that they had any relation or similarity to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

We keep forgetting that the NT Jesus story is not history.

The NT Jesus story, including those in the Epistles are non- historical garbage.

 

[Lithrael]

What else have we got to look at that’s as old and rigorous as the Justin Martyr stuff?

His writings look pretty well substantiated and dated around 155 and clearly show that a lot of the modern Christian stuff was already baked in to Jesus-following Christians by then, but also clearly describes (via protests against his kind of Christians being lumped in with those Christians) that there were people following other prophets who were also known as Christians, and things had been that way since at least Claudius, around like 55 ad?

 

[Lithrael]

It’s pretty funny though that Justin Martyr goes ‘ok those people who talk about souls going to heaven when you die, and don’t believe the dead will be bodily resurrected, those guys are not real Christians.’ And modern apologia guys have to be like ‘he uh... well... look over there, a squirrel!’

 

[dejudge]

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr are extremely important in re-constructing the history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Justin wrote sometime during the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius c 138-161 CE.

Justin knew stories of Jesus from what he calls "Memoirs" but never mentioned any Gospels named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

In addition, the author appears not to know of Acts of the Apostles and all the Epistles.

However, Justin knows of the Apocalypse of John.

In First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho Justin writes about events after the supposed ascension of his Jesus.

There is no mention whatsoever of a single known figure of history who was a follower or believer of Jesus in or out of Judea.

Justin mentioned Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides, Saturnilus, Vlentinus and Marcus but nothing about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the supposed Paul founder of multiple Christian Churches in the Roman Empire.

In fact, when Justin wrote about his own conversion, in his search to find the truth, he did not use a single phrase from a so-called Pauline Epistle.

After Justin became a Christian there is still no mention whatsoever of an early evangelist called Paul- nothing at all.

Justin used the Memoirs called Gospels, the Apocalypse of John and Hebrew Scripture.

From the time of Pilate 27-37 CE to the Emperor Antoninus 138-161 CE Justin Martyr found nothing about Acts of the Apostles, nothing about Paul, nothing about his Epistles and nothing about his Churches to help in his search and conversion.




Justin's First Apology

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.

Justin's First Apology

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits

The fabrication of NT Gospel authors, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles were manufactured no earlier than the 2nd century or at least after the writings attributed to Justin c 138-161 CE.

 

[Lithrael]

One thing he does share with Paul is the notion that looking for human wisdom/a guy was a bust, and what you really want to be leaning on is divine revelation.

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to understand the idea that you’re following divine revelation and not a guy, when you’re following a guy who is telling you about what he got out of divine revalation.

 

[Darat]

One thing he does share with Paul is the notion that looking for human wisdom/a guy was a bust, and what you really want to be leaning on is divine revelation.

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to understand the idea that you’re following divine revelation and not a guy, when you’re following a guy who is telling you about what he got out of divine revalation.

It’s the clever sidestep all the best gurus have mastered. And again it really does just emphasise how unusual Christianity would be if its foundational character was someone who actually existed, it would be the only one I know of.

 

[Delvo]

What other "foundational characters" are you referring to?

 

[Darat]

What other "foundational characters" are you referring to?

Any of the other gods people have claimed existed.

 

[abaddon]

None of the Christian Cult leaders were Jews.

Bwahahahah.

One of your best. Thx for the LOLs.

 

[Darat]

Sure. But it amuses me that dejudge insists on stamping his little feet about such a trivial idea at every opportunity.

Now, to me, it is also a trivial notion that an apocalyptic preacher existed in the Levant 2,000 years ago. We know there were a cartload of such. So what?

But it matters so much to dejudge that he will bust a blood vessel and hurl insult at the mere hint that this actually happened. Even though we know that crank itinerant preachers were almost a currency in that time and place.

I really don't care a whole lot as an atheist. For me, it is far more entertaining to watch dejudge lose all self control at the most innocuous of counter argument.

I suppose I could have reported many posts, but have not. Those are simply too hilarious to lose.

Crank preachers that could walk on water or raise the dead?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Here is another interesting, and more detailed article that discusses the the connection between Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls -

https://conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/the-dead-sea-scrolls-contours-of-religious-belief/

Interesting, but more about what it says about the scrolls themselves than any connection to Christianity

The Qumran scrolls represent nearly a thousand manuscripts, probably comprising the remains of a library or libraries. As the only contemporary writings preserved in Hebrew from the lifetimes of John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul, the Scrolls can illuminate the religious culture of their times like no other source...

even when it is calculated that less than 10% of the material originally deposited here has survived, there is an astonishing range of religious ideas.

So much history has been lost, so how can we say the little that survived is evidence of absence? It would be like taking 10 pages from a phone book and throwing away the rest, then declaring that 50,000 people never existed because we have no record of them.

 

[dejudge]

Writings attributed to Philo show that it is implausible that Jews would have worshiped a known human being as a God.

Examine an excerpt from "On Embassy to Gaius" attributed to Philo, composed c 44-50 CE.

Emperor Gaius' address to King Agrippa.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book40.html

On Embassy to Gaius

Your loyal and excellent fellow citizens, the only nation of men upon the whole face of the earth by whom Gaius is not esteemed to be a god, appear now to be even desiring to plot my death in their obstinate disobedience, for when I commanded my statue in the character of Jupiter to be erected in their temple, they raised the whole of their people, and quitted the city and the whole country in a body, under pretence of addressing a petition to me, but in reality being determined to act in a manner contrary to the commands which I had imposed upon them.

On Embasy to Gaius

...... erecting the created and perishable nature of a man, as far at least as appearance went, into the uncreated and imperishable nature of God, which the nation correctly judged to be the most terrible of all impieties (for it would have been easier to change a god into man, than a man into God)/, besides the fact of such an action letting in other most enormous wickedness, infidelity and ingratitude towards the Benefactor of the whole world, who by his own power givers abundant supplies of all kinds of blessings to every part of the universe.

It is clear that Jews did not worship men as Gods and regarded the worship of man as the most terrible of all impieties. It is simply non-historical garbage that a supposed Jew and Pharisee called Paul, who would be a contemporary of the Emperor Gaius and Philo, would ask Jews and people in the Roman Empire to worship a dead crucified criminal as a God. The NT Jesus stories including those in the Epistles are total fiction.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Crank preachers that could walk on water or raise the dead?

Crank preachers who were claimed to have walked on water or raised the dead. Big difference - and one that dejudge refuses to consider.

We have plenty of examples even in modern times - examples for which we enough evidence that we know the subjects existed (minus the added myth and supernatural claims). But imagine trying to do that 2000 years later, after numerous wars, purges, ecological disasters and simple neglect had wiped out over 90% the record?

 

[dejudge]

....So much history has been lost, so how can we say the little that survived is evidence of absence? It would be like taking 10 pages from a phone book and throwing away the rest, then declaring that 50,000 people never existed because we have no record of them.

So how is it people argue Jesus probably existed if much of history is lost?

So how is it people argue Satan did not exist if much of history is lost?

How is it people argue that the God of the Jews does not exist if much of history is lost.

How is it people argue that Romulus did not exist if much of history is lost?

It is the existing evidence that is always used to support arguments not what is assumed to be missing.

Based on the existing evidence Jesus, the disciples and Paul are figures of fiction.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Writings attributed to Philo show that it is implausible that Jews would have worshiped a known human being as a God.

At least you didn't use the the word 'impossible', but your argument that Jews would not have worshiped a human is irrelevant.

The NT Jesus stories including those in the Epistles are total fiction.

Now you are saying it is impossible.

But more importantly, what you are arguing against is not what others are talking about. It is irrelevant that NT authors were pushing the Jesus is God angle. It doesn't mean he could not have been a Jewish preacher who was not worshiped as a God by his peers.

Nobody is denying that the NT is full of obvious fiction. But that is not what we are concerned about. The Art of the Deal is full of fiction too, but we don't expect that 2,000 years from now people will be arguing that Donald Trump didn't exist. Even if that book was the only surviving record. Even if 100's of years later a cult calling itself Christianity worshiped him as an actual god (some almost do now, so it's not much of a stretch...).

 

[Thor 2]

Crank preachers that could walk on water or raise the dead?

That walking on water stint was a cinch. Hundreds of monks managed to levitate (no need for water to add support) in the past. The Catholic Church sainted heaps of them if you want proof. One of the most recent was St. Joseph of Cupertino, only 400 years ago, who used to fly down the road to get lunch for himself and his fellow monks.

 

[dejudge]

At least you didn't use the the word 'impossible', but your argument that Jews would not have worshiped a human is irrelevant.

Evidence is irrelevant?? How ridiculous can you be!!

But more importantly, what you are arguing against is not what others are talking about. It is irrelevant that NT authors were pushing the Jesus is God angle. It doesn't mean he could not have been a Jewish preacher who was not worshiped as a God by his peers.

Again, your post does not make sense.

The claim that Jesus was God does not mean he could have been a Jewish preacher.

There is no evidence that NT Jesus had any peers.

Nobody is denying that the NT is full of obvious fiction. But that is not what we are concerned about. The Art of the Deal is full of fiction too, but we don't expect that 2,000 years from now people will be arguing that Donald Trump didn't exist. Even if that book was the only surviving record. Even if 100's of years later a cult calling itself Christianity worshiped him as an actual god (some almost do now, so it's not much of a stretch...).

Nobody has evidence that Jesus was a figure of history.

Nothing you say can contradict my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were figures of fiction.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

So how is it people argue Jesus probably existed if much of history is lost?

So how is it people argue Satan did not exist if much of history is lost?

How is it people argue that the God of the Jews does not exist if much of history is lost.

You equate the obvious non-existence of Satan and Yahweh to the possibility of a Jewish preacher named Jesus existing?

It doesn't have to be 'probable' to be a possibility. If much of history is lost then we can't say one way or the other unless we have evidence of absence, not just poor evidence for it.

Based on the existing evidence Jesus, the disciples and Paul are figures of fiction.

You keep saying that, but you can't support it. The existing evidence for a historical Jesus may be thin, but if most of the history is missing that is to be expected. So it keeps the possibility open. You can argue that it's unlikely, but you cannot justify saying it's impossible.

 

[dejudge]

You equate the obvious non-existence of Satan and Yahweh to the possibility of a Jewish preacher named Jesus existing?

You have no evidence whatsoever to support the possibility that Jesus existed.

It doesn't have to be 'probable' to be a possibility. If much of history is lost then we can't say one way or the other unless we have evidence of absence, not just poor evidence for it.

You just repeating the same nonsense.

You have no idea what is missing so you are in no position to know what is possible.

All arguments are based on existing evidence.

Based on existing evidence Jesus was a Ghost story.

Christian writers and NT authors admitted he was born of a Ghost.

Your evidence is missing.

You keep saying that, but you can't support it. The existing evidence for a historical Jesus may be thin, but if most of the history is missing that is to be expected. So it keeps the possibility open. You can argue that it's unlikely, but you cannot justify saying it's impossible.

You are contradicting yourself. You can't support your possible Jesus by absence of evidence.

NT Jesus was a water walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost and God Creator.

NT Jesus was total fiction.

 

[Delvo]

What other "foundational characters" are you referring to?

Any of the other gods people have claimed existed.

OK, nevermind for a moment the misuse of the word "foundational" for religions/pantheons that don't contain any characters that are really the "foundation" of it all, and focusing instead on just the thing about gods being made up...

What's the evidence that, for example, belief in Zeus originated one day long ago with somebody suddenly just making up Zeus, in a culture where there had never before been any stories mentioning a "Zeus" character, and then a bunch of people who'd never heard of Zeus before suddenly believed that person's brand-new Zeus claims anyway?