Historical Jesus

[Gord_in_Toronto]

A very common mis-understanding.



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

Stop. Trying. To make. Sense. Of Religious. Beliefs. THANK YOU!

 

[Delvo]

And as for you being a "HJ-believer" - you did tell us that you believe in a HJ, didn't you?

So your excuse is that you supposedly aren't aware of what I've already written. That's consistent with your complete lack of any response at all to most of my points on the actual subject here, but it's still really no excuse. Not knowing what I said and making something up to fill in the gap is really no better than knowing and making something up to replace some of it while hiding from the rest.

If you haven't read my posts and do want to know what's in them, then of course you could just read them now. And then you'd find what I've already said not only about myself but also about the actual subject of the thread. And the latter would be what more people here would probably want to see a response to, since none has been given yet and it's the subject they're reading here for in the first place.

 

[dejudge]

The argument that the Pauline Jesus was only a heavenly being who was not believed to be on earth is another of the ridiculous claims by some Scholars.

Apologetic writers argued against the very heresy[that Jesus was only divine] in "Against Heresies" , "Refutation of All Heresies", "Against Marcion", "Presciption Against the Heretics", On the Flesh of Christ" and other writings.

Now, examine 1 Thessalonians 2.14-15

1 Thess. 2

14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men..

This is the fundamental teaching of the Jesus cult religion.

The Jews killed the son of the God of the Jews and their God destroyed the Jewish Temple and caused the fall of Jerusalem.

1. 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.

2. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

….. that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem...……. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One

3. Hippolytus Expository Treatise Against the Jews

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?...………. it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor..

4. Origen "Against Celsus" 1

…. he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ…

5. Lactantius' Of the manner in which the Persecutors died"

…... I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.

6.Terullian "Answer to the Jews

let the Jews recognise their own fate — a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him

7. Eusebius Church History 1.

….. So much have I believed in him that I wished to take an army and destroy those Jews who crucified him....

The teaching that the Jews killed Jesus Christ in the so-called Pauline Epistles is found in multiple apologetic and Church writings which mention the reason for the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the Fall of Jerusalem.

 

[IanS]

So your excuse is that you supposedly aren't aware of what I've already written. That's consistent with your complete lack of any response at all to most of my points on the actual subject here, but it's still really no excuse. Not knowing what I said and making something up to fill in the gap is really no better than knowing and making something up to replace some of it while hiding from the rest.

If you haven't read my posts and do want to know what's in them, then of course you could just read them now. And then you'd find what I've already said not only about myself but also about the actual subject of the thread. And the latter would be what more people here would probably want to see a response to, since none has been given yet and it's the subject they're reading here for in the first place.

Do you believe in a Historical Jesus or not!?

And while you are at it - please tell us what is the actual evidence for anyone ever having met any such real person as a HJ??

If there is no evidence that anyone anyone at all ever claimed to have met any such person, then it means all that has been offered as evidence by biblical scholars, theologians and Christian church leaders, is only evidence of uneducated religious fanatics with a deep belief in the supernatural, who preached stories about a promised miraculous “Christ" as a matter of wildly invented hearsay taken from unknown unnamed claimed witnesses, none of whom ever said a single word about knowing any such person as Yehoshua!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

I thought that the problem that the Immaculate Conception was made up to fix was the bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven? (Otherwise they could have just declared that Virgin Birth was by definition immaculate). For Mary to Ascend bodily into Heaven she had to be free of sin including original sin, so presto chango, she is! (Don't mention where Jesus's siblings).

 

[Brainache]

...
And while you are at it - please tell us what is the actual evidence for anyone ever having met any such real person as a HJ??

What would such evidence look like?

If there is no evidence that anyone anyone at all ever claimed to have met any such person, then it means all that has been offered as evidence by biblical scholars, theologians and Christian church leaders, is only evidence of uneducated religious fanatics with a deep belief in the supernatural, who preached stories about a promised miraculous “Christ" as a matter of wildly invented hearsay taken from unknown unnamed claimed witnesses, none of whom ever said a single word about knowing any such person as Yehoshua!

Those damn ignorant Historians!

Do you imagine that someone has to dig up a scroll with "I knew Jesus, signed his little brother Jimmy..." or something written on it, to establish the probable historicity of Jesus?

In what way would a statement in an ancient scroll by someone claiming to have met Jesus affect anything at all?

Who wrote that scroll? Why? When? Where? How has it survived? What can the handwriting tell us about the scribal tradition to which the author belonged? etc etc etc... All questions more important than whatever story the author is writing down...

Shame those stupid Historians spend so much time worrying about those kinds of questions, when they could just be looking for scrolls that tell them anything they want to know...

 

[theheno]

So basically you agree there is no evidence that the man Jesus existed? Is that correct?

 

[dejudge]

Those damn ignorant Historians!

Do you imagine that someone has to dig up a scroll with "I knew Jesus, signed his little brother Jimmy..." or something written on it, to establish the probable historicity of Jesus?

In what way would a statement in an ancient scroll by someone claiming to have met Jesus affect anything at all?

Who wrote that scroll? Why? When? Where? How has it survived? What can the handwriting tell us about the scribal tradition to which the author belonged? etc etc etc... All questions more important than whatever story the author is writing down...

Shame those stupid Historians spend so much time worrying about those kinds of questions, when they could just be looking for scrolls that tell them anything they want to know...

NT Jesus had a little brother?? When was NT Jesus born?? Who was his father??

Those damn ignorant Historians!

 

[dejudge]

I have another question for "those damn ignorant historians".

1. The Bible says the Lord Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin called Mary.
2. The Bible says Paul met James the Lord's brother.

Would James be the brother of the son of the Ghost if he had the same mother?

Those damn ignorant historians must know the answer!!!

 

[Brainache]

So basically you agree there is no evidence that the man Jesus existed? Is that correct?

What? How on earth did you get that idea? I'm just pointing out that IanS's ideas about what constitutes evidence in Historical research are laughably uninformed.

Do you think an ancient scroll with "I knew Jesus" written on it would be slam-dunk evidence for an HJ? If so, you don't understand how Historical research works.

 

[theheno]

What? How on earth did you get that idea? I'm just pointing out that IanS's ideas about what constitutes evidence in Historical research are laughably uninformed.

Do you think an ancient scroll with "I knew Jesus" written on it would be slam-dunk evidence for an HJ? If so, you don't understand how Historical research works.

I got the idea from your reply to Ian asking what evidence there was. You replied 'what could that evidence look like?' I guess I misinterpreted that to mean there couldn't be. OK then what evidence is there?

 

[Brainache]

I got the idea from your reply to Ian asking what evidence there was. You replied 'what could that evidence look like?' I guess I misinterpreted that to mean there couldn't be. OK then what evidence is there?

The evidence derives from an understanding of the cultural historical context and close critical analysis of ancient texts (yes, including the many different texts that comprise the NT).

If you aren't willing to research the question for yourself, reject the opinions of experts and deliberately distort the arguments of your opponents, then I'm not sure your posts are made in good faith.

Let me know when you're ready to start learning the first thing about how actual Historical Research works, rather than just further revealing the depth of your ignorance on the subject.

There are actual Historians (IANAH) reading this thread and as far as I know, not one of them finds the MJ case convincing. They are the people you guys need to reach. If you have a MJ theory, publish a book about it and rake in the big bucks on the book tour circuit...

Otherwise, accept the fact that people who spend their professional lives studying a subject might know more about it than someone who spent an hour or two on YouTube watching Richard Carrier stroke his rock-hard ego...

 

[theheno]

The evidence derives from an understanding of the cultural historical context and close critical analysis of ancient texts (yes, including the many different texts that comprise the NT).

If you aren't willing to research the question for yourself, reject the opinions of experts and deliberately distort the arguments of your opponents, then I'm not sure your posts are made in good faith.

Let me know when you're ready to start learning the first thing about how actual Historical Research works, rather than just further revealing the depth of your ignorance on the subject.

There are actual Historians (IANAH) reading this thread and as far as I know, not one of them finds the MJ case convincing. They are the people you guys need to reach. If you have a MJ theory, publish a book about it and rake in the big bucks on the book tour circuit...

Otherwise, accept the fact that people who spend their professional lives studying a subject might know more about it than someone who spent an hour or two on YouTube watching Richard Carrier stroke his rock-hard ego...

Wow what a tirade, all I asked was what evidence there was. My first post on the topic I openly declared my lack of knowledge. I've asked some questions and had some very informative answers, excluding yourself obviously, you're just incredibly rude and arrogant, and kind of aggressive for some reason I can't fathom.
Here's the thing, I have absolutely no intention of immersing myself in the study of ancient texts, if I was I'd probably do a university course, not come to a forum and ask some questions. Maybe you should ask the mods to only allow people with a certain degree of knowledge to participate here, alternatively you could just stick to spaces only occupied by experts and leave us casual enquiring minds here? Being honest your answers here ( more like non answers) do not help poor uneducated people like myself to understand more. Anyway as I said before, I'm not one who loves to repeat themselves over and over to no avail. Thanks to all that have patiently answered my questions, it's been very informative. I'll now take my uneducated self back to lurking, so as not to upset the superlative Brainache

 

[Brainache]

Wow what a tirade, all I asked was what evidence there was. My first post on the topic I openly declared my lack of knowledge. I've asked some questions and had some very informative answers, excluding yourself obviously, you're just incredibly rude and arrogant, and kind of aggressive for some reason I can't fathom.
Here's the thing, I have absolutely no intention of immersing myself in the study of ancient texts, if I was I'd probably do a university course, not come to a forum and ask some questions. Maybe you should ask the mods to only allow people with a certain degree of knowledge to participate here, alternatively you could just stick to spaces only occupied by experts and leave us casual enquiring minds here? Being honest your answers here ( more like non answers) do not help poor uneducated people like myself to understand more. Anyway as I said before, I'm not one who loves to repeat themselves over and over to no avail. Thanks to all that have patiently answered my questions, it's been very informative. I'll now take my uneducated self back to lurking, so as not to upset the superlative Brainache

I'm sorry if my tone doesn't match your high standards, but given that you have jumped into the end of a discussion going back years and demanded spoon-feeding of the most basic aspects off the subject, the fact that in times past I have devoted energy to trying to explain the evidence to MJers exactly like yourself and received nothing back only to have the same people demand the same thing again later, it all just gets on my nerves.

What was that you said about repeating yourself to no avail? Try doing it for years among supposedly educated people who on this one subject alone, refuse to acknowledge expert opinions, then get back to me with your hurt feelings.

 

[Brainache]

Wow what a tirade, all I asked was what evidence there was. My first post on the topic I openly declared my lack of knowledge. I've asked some questions and had some very informative answers, excluding yourself obviously, you're just incredibly rude and arrogant, and kind of aggressive for some reason I can't fathom.
Here's the thing, I have absolutely no intention of immersing myself in the study of ancient texts, if I was I'd probably do a university course, not come to a forum and ask some questions. Maybe you should ask the mods to only allow people with a certain degree of knowledge to participate here, alternatively you could just stick to spaces only occupied by experts and leave us casual enquiring minds here? Being honest your answers here ( more like non answers) do not help poor uneducated people like myself to understand more. Anyway as I said before, I'm not one who loves to repeat themselves over and over to no avail. Thanks to all that have patiently answered my questions, it's been very informative. I'll now take my uneducated self back to lurking, so as not to upset the superlative Brainache

Reply number two:

It wasn't a tirade, it was quite restrained. Please take your fake offense and put it to good use: Prove the HJ wrong. If you can do that you'll be a millionaire and you'll have the satisfaction of wiping the smug grin off my ugly arrogant face... Go on, get stuck in! Learn the historical and cultural context of second temple judaism, learn how to critically analyse texts, learn Aramaic and Ancient Greek... Then you can show those arrogant, stuffed shirt HJ believers what-for.

But I can't do it for you, you'll have to do it yourself...

 

[Elagabalus]

Wow what a tirade, all I asked was what evidence there was. My first post on the topic I openly declared my lack of knowledge. I've asked some questions and had some very informative answers, excluding yourself obviously, you're just incredibly rude and arrogant, and kind of aggressive for some reason I can't fathom.
Here's the thing, I have absolutely no intention of immersing myself in the study of ancient texts, if I was I'd probably do a university course, not come to a forum and ask some questions. Maybe you should ask the mods to only allow people with a certain degree of knowledge to participate here, alternatively you could just stick to spaces only occupied by experts and leave us casual enquiring minds here? Being honest your answers here ( more like non answers) do not help poor uneducated people like myself to understand more. Anyway as I said before, I'm not one who loves to repeat themselves over and over to no avail. Thanks to all that have patiently answered my questions, it's been very informative. I'll now take my uneducated self back to lurking, so as not to upset the superlative Brainache

Start here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12792348#post12792348

Goes into quite some detail about the "Historical Method".


Then work your way up.

 

[dejudge]

Start here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12792348#post12792348

Goes into quite some detail about the "Historical Method".


Then work your way up.

Just as expected there is no historical evidence for Jesus in your "Historical Method" links.

Nothing at all.

Non-experts just want to see the historical evidence that supports an HJ argument.

Don't you know what that historical evidence is?

Which book is it in? The Old Testament or the New Testament?

Which chapter?? Which verse?

What a shame!!! The "historical method" did not provide any historical evidence for an HJ.

 

[Elagabalus]

Just as expected there is no historical evidence for Jesus in your "Historical Method" links.

Nothing at all.

Non-experts just want to see the historical evidence that supports an HJ argument.

Don't you know what that historical evidence is?

Which book is it in? The Old Testament or the New Testament?

Which chapter?? Which verse?

What a shame!!! The "historical method" did not provide any historical evidence for an HJ.

Nick Terry is an "expert" Historian. Yes. We're starting at the beginning so I thought an overview of the Historical Method would be good.

 

[Kapyong]

"Prove the HJ wrong."

But that's totally backwards isn't it ?
Because the onus of proof is on those who believe the alleged historical Jesus existed to support that belief with evidence.

Else I could ask you : "prove that faeries don't exist".

Many believers here have tried to show the alleged historical Jesus existed, but the pathetically weak evidence produced has totally failed to convince sceptics - because it falls far short of the quality claimed for this evidence by those believers.

In fact the reverse is true - some fence-sitters here have admitted losing belief in Jesus as a result of finding out just how bad the alleged slam-dunk evidence really is.

Because much evidence has been produced here arguing against the alleged historical Jesus - but it's generally ignored by the believers in favour of beating on straw men and repeating long demolished claims.

Suggesting that the believers here are following proper historical methods is just a joke.

Kapyong

 

[dejudge]

Nick Terry is an "expert" Historian. Yes. We're starting at the beginning so I thought an overview of the Historical Method would be good.

It is historical evidence that was asked for - not Nick Terry's opinion.

Everyone knows that there may be millions of experts but that there is no historical evidence to support the HJ argument.

What good are experts who have no historical evidence for their opinion?