Historical Jesus

[Kapyong]

It wasn't made up from thin air at all.

In fact the opposite is true :

the gospels were crafted from previous stories and characters in the Tanakh (the Old Testament).

Key evidence that IanS, and myself, and others here have brought up many times.

Critical evidence that the Jesus believers never address, even while they keep asking :

believer : "where is the evidence of myth ?"

sceptic : "the way the gospels were made from previous stories"

believer : "show us any evidence it's myth"

sceptic : "Randel Helms for instance shows how the gospels were made from the Jewish scriptures".

believer : "you have no evidence of myth"

sceptic : "yes there is - the way the gospel stories were crafted from the Tanakh"

believer : "there is no evidence it was made up from thin air"

sceptic : "there is clear evidence they came from Jewish stories"

believer : "why is there no evidence Jesus was myth ?"

sceptic : "here is evidence : Michael Turton"

believer : "there is no evidence Jesus was myth"

sceptic : "the crucifixion story was created from Psalm 22"

believer : "why can't you show evidence Jesus was a myth ?"

...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Just for reference, here is the scholarly timeline from Wikipedia's Authorship of the Bible.

Mark, 68–70 CE
Matthew, 80–90 CE
Luke and Acts, 80–90 CE
John, 90–110 CE

But you asked how do we know. The Wiki article goes into detail about this. Another good resource is our friend, Cecil, Who wrote the bible, part 4.

But that's just Wiki and scholarship. Posters here know better than that.

 

[Kapyong]

So Paul is an obvious liar who claimed to have received the gospel from 'revelation', which cannot possibly be true.

Pardon?
WHY, Roger ?

Why is it impossible for a human being to have had a vision ?

Do you really believe there are no such things as visions, revelations, reveries, what-ever you may call them ?

Because it's obvious that human history and experience is full of such things. How about Kekule and the benzene ring ? Bohr and the atom ? Ramanujan ?

Paul tells us he had a vision - why would you call him a liar ?


Kapyong

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It wasn't made up from thin air at all.

In fact the opposite is true :

...

sceptic : "the crucifixion story was created from Psalm 22"

believer : "why can't you show evidence Jesus was a myth ?"

...

That some stuff written about Jesus may have come from the Tanakh or other places does not prove that Jesus was myth, only that these myths were added to the narrative to justify claims that he was fulfilling prophesy etc. With his followers constantly looking out for such signs, who is to say they didn't think they saw them in mundane events? We have modern examples of people witnessing events that didn't happen, eg. the Miracle of Fátima. Of course the miracle didn't occur, but the gathering did.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Paul tells us he had a vision - why would you call him a liar ?

Because Paul admits himself that he is a lair. Perhaps he did have a vision, but it wasn't of Jesus. A 'blinding light' doesn't reveal scripture to you - it's just a light. We could be generous and admit the possibility that Paul experienced some kind of hallucination, but it doesn't explain all his other lies.

 

[Kapyong]

But that's just Wiki and scholarship. Posters here know better than that.

They are the generally accepted mainstream dates.

Funny thing though - we have many early Christian writings covering every decade from the 50s to the 200s and on, but the earliest evidence of any Christian writer having direct knowledge of Gospels by having them in his hands is Justin Martyr in the 150s, or maybe Aristides mentioning a singular Gospel a little earlier. Still un-named.

We can see the actual word 'gospel' changing from it's general meaning of something like "our Christian beliefs" (derived from it's basic meaning of "good news") through the decades.

e.g. Revelation, probably from the 90s :

"14:6 I saw an angel flying in mid heaven, having an eternal Gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation, tribe, language, and people."

but later -

Apology of Aristides, probably 138-161 AD

"And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the Gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

A singular, written Gospel, yet un-named, which had only been preached for a short time.

And -

Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE

"Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; ..."

Multiple written Gospels, yet un-named.

 

[Kapyong]

Because Paul admits himself that he is a lair. Perhaps he did have a vision, but it wasn't of Jesus. A 'blinding light' doesn't reveal scripture to you - it's just a light. We could be generous and admit the possibility that Paul experienced some kind of hallucination, but it doesn't explain all his other lies.

I think he made it fairly clear -

He had a vision/hallucination/flash of light which made him realise that the truth of Jesus Christ could be found in the Jewish scriptures, and that the Holy Spirit had given HIM the key to it.

When he says "according to the scriptures" he means just that - he has decoded the truth of Jesus from passages in the Tanakh.

And we see exactly that all throughout the NT - stories and episodes directly mimic OT stories. In a culture where mimicry of earlier writings (e.g. Homer) was a popular written format.

Or are you suggesting that Paul lied about getting his Jesus from visions and scriptures, when he actually got it from real history ?!


Kapyong

 

[dejudge]

That Paul's writings are earlier than surviving gospel manuscripts is just an accident of history - it does not mean that his version is a more 'accurate' account of early Christian beliefs. You only have to read what he wrote to see that he was actually an outsider who was largely ignorant of them.

Please, you don't know what you are talking about. There are existing fragments of manuscripts of the Gospels and Revelation with earliest possible dating which are earlier than existing manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles.

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

New Testament gJohn Papyri [P] 52 dated c125-175 CE.

New Testament Matthew Papyri [P] 77 dated c 100-300 CE.

New Testament John Papyri [P] 90 dated c 100-200 CE.

New Testament Revelation Papyri [P] 98 dated c 100-200 CE.

New Testament Matthew Papyri [P] 103 dated c100-300 CE.

New Testament Matthew Papyri [P] 104 dated c100-200 CE.

New Testament Mark Papyri [P] 137 dated c 100-300 CE.

New Testament Pauline Epistles Papyri [P] 46 dated c 200-225 CE.

In addition, there are many New Testament Papyri with the same earliest possible date as the Pauline Epistles P46 like P1, P4, P5 and others.

In fact, you will never find any Jesus cult writer who made reference to the so-called Pauline Epistles without making mention of the Gospels.

However, you will find Jesus cult writers who made references to the Gospels without making any reference to all the so-called Pauline Epistles.

There is simply no evidence anywhere at all that the so-called Pauline Epistles predated the Gospels and Revelation.

 

[Lithrael]

Some of the earliest apologetics we have describe the ‘preaching of Peter’ and they say stuff like

“Peter in the Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says: But we having opened the books of the prophets which we had, found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles, and sometimes directly (authentically) and in so many words naming Jesus Christ, both his coming and his death and the cross and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens before Jerusalem was founded (MS. judged), even all this things as they had been written, what he must suffer and what shall be after him. When, therefore, we took knowledge of these things, we believed in God through that which had been written of him.”

That sounds a heck of a lot like having any real person to attach this to would have been superfluous.

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline writers had no vision from a resurrected Jesus. They were using stories of Jesus that were already written and circulated in the Roman Empire.

A Pauline writer claimed he met apostles called Peter and James in Jerusalem after the resurrection.

Those characters are only found in fiction stories similar to gLuke.

Another letter claimed the resurrected Jesus told Paul about the Last Supper.

The Last Supper is found in Jesus stories called Gospels.


There is no Jewish Scripture which claims a character called Jesus would be crucified and resurrect on the third day.

The claim that Jesus would be killed and raised on the third day comes directly from the stories of Jesus found in the Gospels.

Mark 9:31

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Matthew 16:21

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

How in the world could anyone get a vision from a non-historical resurrected being??

Fables of Jesus called Gospels were already written before all the so-called Pauline Epistles.

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...

Aristides Apology

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness...

It is also clear from Acts of the Apostles that Saul/Paul was a fabricated convert- no such Christian ever existed.

Acts 9

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

What light from heaven???
What voice??
What prick!!!

The so-called Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles are non-historical garbage manufactured no earlier than the 2nd century.

 

[IanS]

No it doesn't, because it obvious from Paul's own words that he wasn't among the first Christians, yet he claimed to have independent knowledge of Jesus from an unbelievable source.

He may have been the first to identify a figure who he named as "Yehosua" (translated as "Jesus" in middle English afaik). Explanation - in the letters he said he preached a more traditional form of Old Testament messianic belief prior to his vision. He says that after his vision he joined a belief that others had been preaching at that time ... but we should be cautious about assuming that these others (in a group he called "The Church of God") were also believing in a past figure identified as Yehoshua ...

... it might easily be the case that what was similar, and what Paul then joined or supported as his new messiah belief, was only the belief that traditional Judaic messiah beliefs had been wrong, and that revelation from God now showed that the messiah had been sent (already sent in the unknown past ... Paul never indicates when this was ... eg there is no mention in his "genuine" letters of Pilate or anyone else killing Jesus at any specific known time) specifically to gather the faithful in readiness for Gods apocalyptic day of judgement when the true believers would be raised up to heaven and all others cast down to hell ... it might only be that sort of apocalyptic belief which the Church of God had been preaching and which Paul had previously persecuted ...

... but that sort of apocalyptic messianic preaching had already been in practice probably for at least 100 years or more by then from Qumran community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, so there was already a very well known and presumably (from the extensive nature of the scrolls) a very extensive set of such apocalyptic preachers in that area at the time ... the Church of God who's followers Paul says he had mercilessly persecuted prior to his vision of revelation, may well have simply been preaching something similar to the Scrolls, without specifically identifying or agreeing clearly on who that messiah of the unknown past actually was ... but from his vision, Paul then identifies that messiah as a figure named Yehosua ...

... in his letters Paul actually says that the members of that Church of God, people like Peter and James and the rest, could not agree on who the messiah had been, and he condemns them all for that. And he also says that he did not learn about Yehoshua from any of those people, because he specifically and insistently says that the gospels which he now preaches (that's a gospel of belief in an apocalyptic past Yehoshua) "came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone" ... so he specifically says that he did not get that belief from those people who he called "the Pillars" in the Church of God.

 

[Brainache]

He may have been the first to identify a figure who he named as "Yehosua" (translated as "Jesus" in middle English afaik). Explanation - in the letters he said he preached a more traditional form of Old Testament messianic belief prior to his vision. He says that after his vision he joined a belief that others had been preaching at that time ... but we should be cautious about assuming that these others (in a group he called "The Church of God") were also believing in a past figure identified as Yehoshua ...

... it might easily be the case that what was similar, and what Paul then joined or supported as his new messiah belief, was only the belief that traditional Judaic messiah beliefs had been wrong, and that revelation from God now showed that the messiah had been sent (already sent in the unknown past ... Paul never indicates when this was ... eg there is no mention in his "genuine" letters of Pilate or anyone else killing Jesus at any specific known time) specifically to gather the faithful in readiness for Gods apocalyptic day of judgement when the true believers would be raised up to heaven and all others cast down to hell ... it might only be that sort of apocalyptic belief which the Church of God had been preaching and which Paul had previously persecuted ...

... but that sort of apocalyptic messianic preaching had already been in practice probably for at least 100 years or more by then from Qumran community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, so there was already a very well known and presumably (from the extensive nature of the scrolls) a very extensive set of such apocalyptic preachers in that area at the time ... the Church of God who's followers Paul says he had mercilessly persecuted prior to his vision of revelation, may well have simply been preaching something similar to the Scrolls, without specifically identifying or agreeing clearly on who that messiah of the unknown past actually was ... but from his vision, Paul then identifies that messiah as a figure named Yehosua ...

... in his letters Paul actually says that the members of that Church of God, people like Peter and James and the rest, could not agree on who the messiah had been, and he condemns them all for that. And he also says that he did not learn about Yehoshua from any of those people, because he specifically and insistently says that the gospels which he now preaches (that's a gospel of belief in an apocalyptic past Yehoshua) "came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone" ... so he specifically says that he did not get that belief from those people who he called "the Pillars" in the Church of God.

This is all very well and good, except that the Dead Sea Scrolls community were expecting a human warrior leader type Messiah to expel the foreigners from Judea. This is their "New Covenant":http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

An excerpt:

All those that entered into the new covenant in 'the land of Damascus' but subsequently relapsed and played false and turned away from the well of living waters shall not be reckoned as of the communion of the people nor inscribed in the roster of it throughout the period from the time the teacher of the community is gathered to his rest until that in which the lay and the priestly messiah [anointed] assume their office.88

Looks like these guys were so Messiah mad that they wanted two of them!

They had no time for preachers going around talking to spirits and lying to people:

Such men may be described as 'builders of a rickety wall' [Ezek. 13.10], or as persons that have 'walked after filth' [Hos. 5.11]. The 'filth' in question is the babbling preacher of whom God said, 'Babble-babble shall they preach' [Mic. 2.6]...
Those that have been 'builders of the rickety wall' and 'daubers of veneer upon it'34 have never considered all this, because the man who walks in wind, who raises whirl-winds, who spouts lies-the kind of man against all of whose ilk God's wrath has always been kindled-has kept spouting at them...

Oh well, carry on. You're getting there...

 

[abaddon]

They are the generally accepted mainstream dates.

Funny thing though - we have many early Christian writings covering every decade from the 50s to the 200s and on, but the earliest evidence of any Christian writer having direct knowledge of Gospels by having them in his hands is Justin Martyr in the 150s, or maybe Aristides mentioning a singular Gospel a little earlier. Still un-named.

We can see the actual word 'gospel' changing from it's general meaning of something like "our Christian beliefs" (derived from it's basic meaning of "good news") through the decades.

e.g. Revelation, probably from the 90s :

"14:6 I saw an angel flying in mid heaven, having an eternal Gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation, tribe, language, and people."

but later -

Apology of Aristides, probably 138-161 AD

"And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the Gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

A singular, written Gospel, yet un-named, which had only been preached for a short time.

And -

Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE

"Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; ..."

Multiple written Gospels, yet un-named.

And your point?

We all know the gospels are anonymous. It was Iraneus somewhere around 200 CE that invented those attributions out of nowhere and even then it didn't really catch on for a further 200 years. And now we are stuck with those false attributions.

 

[dejudge]

He may have been the first to identify a figure who he named as "Yehosua" (translated as "Jesus" in middle English afaik). Explanation - in the letters he said he preached a more traditional form of Old Testament messianic belief prior to his vision. He says that after his vision he joined a belief that others had been preaching at that time ... but we should be cautious about assuming that these others (in a group he called "The Church of God") were also believing in a past figure identified as Yehoshua …

Writers under the name of Paul claimed they were the last to be seen of their resurrected Jesus.

No apologetic writer of antiquity claimed anywhere or anytime that their supposed Paul was the first to preach the Gospel to anyone.

Apologetic writers stated their supposed Paul persecuted the faith before his conversion was fabricated.

In their fables called Acts of the Apostles, Peter and other apostles had already preached their story of the crucified and resurrected Jesus before Paul.


Acts 2.

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes...

There is simply no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever, that the writers called Paul were the first to preach about the Jesus stories.

The so-called Pauline Epistles are late inventions and of no historical value with respect to the development of the early Jesus cult.

 

[Kapyong]

And your point?

That the Gospels, and the alleged historical stories there-in, were unknown to the wider Christian community until mid 2nd century.

All Christians knew and discussed was the heavenly divine Jesus with no connection to history, until a century or more after the alleged events.

The alleged historical Jesus stories only became widely known a century or more after the alleged events - and when they did, critics attacked them as fiction, legends, myths, falsehoods.

Naturally the Christians burned most of those critiques, not to mention many of the critics too !


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

I think I espied another comment about the Immaculate Conception somewhere upstream, readers should be careful to distinguish between the different beliefs :

The Virgin Birth :
The Virgin Mary gave birth the Jesus,
a belief that goes way back to the 2nd century.

vs

The Immaculate Conception :
Mary's mother (traditionally Anne) immaculately conceived Mary,
a belief started in 1854.
(Because Mary was never baptised, which left her stained with the original sin of her parents having sex, so a loophole had to be created for her, Mary's, conception.)

Kapyong

 

[Chanakya]

WTF, I thought those two were synonyms.

So, what, sin cancels out after a generation? No need for a virgin grandmother?

 

[Kapyong]

Just to be clear about the Immaculate Conception -

According to Catholics - child baptism removes the stain of Original Sin caused by parents having sex (because sex is inherently sinful.)

But that meant the Virgin Mary was still stained by Original Sin from her parents having sex - because Mary gave birth before Christians even existed and could have baptised her.

And that would mean Jesus Christ was born to a mother stained with Original Sin. Not good.

That problem eventually lead to the crazy 'infallible' Pope Pius IX in 1854 declaring the new dogma of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary was conceived without being stained by her parents having sex.

See what that means ?

Anne and Joachim were the first and only people in history to have had Immaculate Sex.

According to the Pope.

 

[Kapyong]

WTF, I thought those two were synonyms.

A very common mis-understanding.

So, what, sin cancels out after a generation? No need for a virgin grandmother?

Yup - where to stop ?
Anne and Joachim may have had Immaculate Sex, but weren't they stained with their own Original Sin ?

And if you run the immaculate-ness back through the generations - wouldn't you hit Adam and Eve and the Original Original Sin ?

Doesn't that completely cancel out Original Sin entirely ?

It's turtles all the way down

 

[dejudge]

The Canonical Pauline writings are about a myth character called Jesus, God's Son made of a woman, who was crucified on earth, buried and bodily resurrected on the third day.

The Canonical Pauline writings are compatible with the teachings of the Church that their Jesus was God, Spirit and man simultaneously.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Romans 6:9

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

The so-called Pauline Epistles were fabricated to argue against Marcionites who claimed their Savior was without birth and without body.

See "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm

Anyone who has read the fables called Acts of the Apostles would see that Saul/Paul was a character whose conversion was invented AFTER their Son of a Ghost Jesus was crucified on earth, buried, resurrected, conversed with his apostles and ascended to heaven.

All the Canonical Pauline Epistles and Paul were manufactured after the "Memoirs of the Apostles" were already written and circulated or no earlier than at least c 175 CE.