Historical Jesus

[IanS]

What I’m saying is that the Jesus religion began around the time when the real Jesus is supposed to have lived. Before this period there was NO Jesus religion. Why did such a religion begin and evolve at this time is the question. I suggest the most likely explanation is that a real figure was the catalyst at its core. And that the mythical stories coalesced around this figure as the Jesus story grew in the telling.

Even though several us have pointed out your mistake here, you still don't seem to see what's wrong with what you have written.

It's those very stories in the gospels that tell us when Jesus was supposed to have lived. It's from those gospels that we get the claim that Jesus was executed by order of Pontius Pilate.

But that is not two independent sources where one source tells the story of Jesus, and then another entirely different independent source tells us that Pilate had executed Jesus. No, it's not that at all … it's the very same source that gives us all the supernatural fictional tales of Jesus & which also says that Pilate was the governor at that time.

So where could the gospel writers have got that idea of Pilate being the executioner? Well I just explained to you that if you think Paul was writing 20 to 50 years before any gospels (and where all HJ people in this thread do claim that, and all biblical scholars do claim that), then the gospel writers could have easily got that idea from the writing of Paul (because Paul's vision is thought by biblical scholars to have been shortly after 33AD on the road to Damascus).

Do you really not “get” any of that?

 

[Jerrymander]

His letters (supposed genuine) do not mention Pilate giving any order to crucify Jesus. So I'm just pointing out that there is none of that in those letters to state or imply when Paul thought "the Christ" had been upon the Earth ...

... there's nothing in Paul's letters that put any date on "the Christ".

Can we just be clear on whether or not you are a believing Christian. Because frankly you are posting like an extreme fundamentalist (rather like the so called pre-suppusitionalist nut cases in the US).

So who did Paul believe crucified Jesus? Marcellus? But anyway the point is the gospels state that Jesus was killed by Pilate and the earliest Christian documents date a few decades after Pilate. Consist with the claim that the Jesus tradition arise shortly after Jesus is claimed to have lived.

And whether I'm a believing Christian is irrelevant. I'm arguing from historicity and mainstream scholarship which see the texts like everything else (not special). You on the other hand are arguing from New Atheist pre-suppusitionalist idea that the texts are just lies by default.

 

[IanS]

So who did Paul believe crucified Jesus? Marcellus? But anyway the point is the gospels state that Jesus was killed by Pilate and the earliest Christian documents date a few decades after Pilate. Consist with the claim that the Jesus tradition arise shortly after Jesus is claimed to have lived.

According to Paul it was "the rulers of this age" who killed Jesus. But as Carrier and others have explained, the meaning of that statement from Paul is far from clear.

And whether I'm a believing Christian is irrelevant. I'm arguing from historicity and mainstream scholarship which see the texts like everything else (not special). You on the other hand are arguing from New Atheist pre-suppusitionalist idea that the texts are just lies by default.

Ohh, it's extremely relevant if you are a believing Christian, because in that case you are almost certain to be very strongly biased towards belief in Jesus, otherwise you would have no faith!

And I've never heard of any such people as pre-suppositionalist atheists. Who on earth are they?

And I'm also not arguing from a position of being an atheist who merely does not believe that a Christian God exists. We are not talking here about God. We are talking about what is claimed to be a real human Jesus.

But I take it from your reply that you are in fact arguing as a Christian who is getting angry when people suggest that Jesus may not have been real.

Look, I don't care if you are a believing Christian. That's fine by me, and it's entirely your own choice. But on a topic like this, it's rather obvious that almost all Christians who believe in Jesus are bound to be biased in their views when anyone suggests to them that there is really little or no evidence of Jesus.

 

[Jerrymander]

Ohh, it's extremely relevant if you are a believing Christian, because in that case you are almost certain to be very strongly biased towards belief in Jesus, otherwise you would have no faith!

And I've never heard of any such people as pre-suppositionalist atheists. Who on earth are they?

And I'm also not arguing from a position of being an atheist who merely does not believe that a Christian God exists. We are not talking here about God. We are talking about what is claimed to be a real human Jesus.

But I take it from your reply that you are in fact arguing as a Christian who is getting angry when people suggest that Jesus may not have been real.

Look, I don't care if you are a believing Christian. That's fine by me, and it's entirely your own choice. But on a topic like this, it's rather obvious that almost all Christians who believe in Jesus are bound to be biased in their views when anyone suggests to them that there is really little or no evidence of Jesus.

Why do you assume that someone who argues for a historical Jesus is a biased Christian? The arguments I'm making are no difference than those made by agnostics like Bart Erhman. If I'm "angry" then it's due to frustration over terrible reasoning. I even watched the video you posted and you completely misrepresented what he said.

 

[Jerrymander]

According to Paul it was "the rulers of this age" who killed Jesus. But as Carrier and others have explained, the meaning of that statement from Paul is far from clear.

At the very least it is earthly rulers who we know were crucifying people at that time.

 

[GDon]

Regardless "seed of David" = human. The mythers may argue that Christians believed was not related to David because God fathered him and not Joseph. But Paul is quoting a pre-literary creed which states that Jesus was made the son of God at his resurrection.

Yes, it's pretty clear that the natural reading of Paul here is that Jesus was an earthly human. We have lots of examples of "seed of" being used in that sense. Not that "earthly" means "historical", since there have been a lot of people who were thought to have lived on earth who never actually existed. But it is strongly against the idea of a celestial Jesus who never came to earth.

How do mythicists address this? Dr Carrier famously proposes that ancient Christians believed that there was a "cosmic sperm bank", where God took David's sperm from David's belly before he died and kept it for later use.

Richard Carrier, "On the Historicity of Jesus", page 577:

"It would not be unimaginable that God could maintain a cosmic sperm bank. After all, God's power was absolute; and all sorts of things could be stored up in heaven (Element 38), even our own future bodies (2 Cor. 5.1-5)."​

Earl Doherty suggests that "seed of David" was not being used in a literal sense.

Earl Doherty, "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man", page 168:

"Why then does Paul put it in? We can only assume that he does so because in his thinking the world contains other relationships of being a kinsman and of someone's "seed" that are not the usual fleshly, physical ones."​

You can see the language being used: "not unimaginable" and "we can only assume". Once you start to get down to imagination and assumptions versus actual known meanings, you can easily see which case is the stronger.

Again, I'll stress that early Christians like Paul believing that Jesus was earthly by itself doesn't mean that Jesus was historical. Some versions of mythicism are quite happy with an earthly Jesus, e.g. GA Wells. But it's strong evidence against the celestial versions of MJ by people like Carrier and Doherty.

 

[Lithrael]

There is an early church tradition that the "preaching of Peter" is what is called the gospel of Mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

Ah! Cool, ty, I’ll look at that.

Man, you can’t even look in Quora’s direction with this stuff, it’s all 2 posts or less from biblical authorship idle question to quantum aryuvedic numerology.

 

[GDon]

At the very least it is earthly rulers who we know were crucifying people at that time.

Yes, we have lots of examples of men being crucified at the time. But let me answer for IanS:

You forget all the examples in ancient times of celestial beings being crucified, like... oh, um... like... THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE EVER MET THE HISTORICAL JESUS!

 

[dejudge]

So who did Paul believe crucified Jesus? Marcellus? But anyway the point is the gospels state that Jesus was killed by Pilate and the earliest Christian documents date a few decades after Pilate. Consist with the claim that the Jesus tradition arise shortly after Jesus is claimed to have lived.

And whether I'm a believing Christian is irrelevant. I'm arguing from historicity and mainstream scholarship which see the texts like everything else (not special). You on the other hand are arguing from New Atheist pre-suppusitionalist idea that the texts are just lies by default.

Your argument makes no sense and is contradictory. You conveniently believe parts of the Jesus Bible stories.

Christians state specifically that their Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost without a human father.

Whether or not you are an atheist you cannot change the story now. It is too late.

Christians have already stated their religion originated from a belief that Jesus was God who came down from heaven.

You have no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever that Bible Jesus ever lived.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, we have lots of examples of men being crucified at the time. But let me answer for IanS:

You forget all the examples in ancient times of celestial beings being crucified, like... oh, um... like... THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE EVER MET THE HISTORICAL JESUS!

But, you have no historical evidenced at all [none whatsoever] that Jesus of Nazareth Son of the Ghost without a human father ever lived.

 

[dejudge]

Again, I'll stress that early Christians like Paul believing that Jesus was earthly by itself doesn't mean that Jesus was historical. Some versions of mythicism are quite happy with an earthly Jesus, e.g. GA Wells. But it's strong evidence against the celestial versions of MJ by people like Carrier and Doherty.

Well, since you know that believing Bible characters were on earth does not make them historical figures then the HJ argument is dead in the water.

Bible Jesus and Satan were together on earth in Jerusalem on top the Jewish Temple.

 

[dejudge]

At the very least it is earthly rulers who we know were crucifying people at that time.

But, you still have no historical evidence that any earthly ruler crucified any one named Jesus of Nazareth.

All we have are Bible stories and Christian writings about a water-walking, transfiguring, Son of a Ghost/Son of God crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

 

[IanS]

Yes, we have lots of examples of men being crucified at the time. But let me answer for IanS:

You forget all the examples in ancient times of celestial beings being crucified, like... oh, um... like... THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE EVER MET THE HISTORICAL JESUS!

OK, so is there some credible evidence of anyone meeting a living human Jesus?

Can you tell us who it was that made a credible claim of meeting Jesus?



... and the only reason for the word "credible" there, is that we don't want any more claims of evidence or meetings that are patently not credible.

 

[IanS]

Why do you assume that someone who argues for a historical Jesus is a biased Christian? The arguments I'm making are no difference than those made by agnostics like Bart Erhman. If I'm "angry" then it's due to frustration over terrible reasoning. I even watched the video you posted and you completely misrepresented what he said.

I'm just asking if you are a believing Christian. Why is that so hard to answer?

If you ask me if I am an atheist, the answer is yes ... I don't believe the Christian God exists. Easy enough.

 

[Jerrymander]

But, you still have no historical evidence that any earthly ruler crucified any one named Jesus of Nazareth.

All we have are Bible stories and Christian writings about a water-walking, transfiguring, Son of a Ghost/Son of God crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

Yes we heard you the first time. You really just spamming now.

 

[Jerrymander]

By the way, the Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760) had many supernatural events attributed to him by eyewitnesses. I guess he was fictional.

 

[Brainache]

Ah! Cool, ty, I’ll look at that.

Man, you can’t even look in Quora’s direction with this stuff, it’s all 2 posts or less from biblical authorship idle question to quantum aryuvedic numerology.

If you enjoyed reading about Papias, you might also like this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesippus_(chronicler)

...Eusebius quotes from Hegesippus fifth and last book[14] a long account of the death of James the Just, "the brother of the Lord", who was given the obscure Greek epithet Oblias, which is supposed to be a Greek transcriptions of a Semitic word.[15] Dr. Robert Eisenman connects "Oblias" with "Protector of the people", as were other 'Zaddikim'.[16] He also transcribes from Hegesippus the story of the election of his successor Simeon, and the summoning of the descendants of Jude the Apostle to Rome by the Emperor Domitian.[17]...

That word 'Zaddikim' is the plural of 'Zaddik' (This is the English version) which was a title given to especially 'holy' or 'Righteous' men like James: https://www.sefaria.org/Chagigah.12...source_Talmud_Bavli&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

... Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: The earth rests on one pillar and a righteous person is its name, as it is stated: “But a righteous person is the foundation of the world” (Proverbs 10:25)...

There's that word "Pillar" again...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Why do you assume that someone who argues for a historical Jesus is a biased Christian?

Because that is what this discussion is really about - religious beliefs, not history. That's why it's in the "Religion and Philosophy" sub forum, not "History, Literature, and the Arts".

For some atheists it's not good enough that Jesus be just an ordinary man, he has to be total fiction. They fear that if we admit the possibility of Jesus being a real person then it will give theists more credence, making it harder to counter their supernatural claptrap.

Many atheists came to realize that God doesn't exist by applying logic to the theist's claims and finding that they come up short. But it's not hard to conclude that supernatural things don't exist. What is hard for all of us is not letting our preconceptions get in the way of our perception. If you don't then you run the risk of becoming just like the people whose attitudes you despise.

Selectively using information and logic to support a preconceived notion while ignoring or twisting the meaning of anything that doesn't fit your narrative? That's what theists do. But so do a lot of atheists, and they are just as oblivious to it.

 

[dejudge]

By the way, the Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760) had many supernatural events attributed to him by eyewitnesses. I guess he was fictional.

This thread is not about the Baal Shem Tov. The existence or non-existence of the Baal Shem Tov has no bearing whatsoever on the historicity/non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth the son of the Ghost.

It is quite illogical to argue that if Baal Shem Tov lived 1698-1760 that Jesus the son of the Ghost walked on earth in the time of Pilate.

 

[dejudge]

Because that is what this discussion is really about - religious beliefs, not history. That's why it's in the "Religion and Philosophy" sub forum, not "History, Literature, and the Arts".

For some atheists it's not good enough that Jesus be just an ordinary man, he has to be total fiction. They fear that if we admit the possibility of Jesus being a real person then it will give theists more credence, making it harder to counter their supernatural claptrap.

Many atheists came to realize that God doesn't exist by applying logic to the theist's claims and finding that they come up short. But it's not hard to conclude that supernatural things don't exist. What is hard for all of us is not letting our preconceptions get in the way of our perception. If you don't then you run the risk of becoming just like the people whose attitudes you despise.

Selectively using information and logic to support a preconceived notion while ignoring or twisting the meaning of anything that doesn't fit your narrative? That's what theists do. But so do a lot of atheists, and they are just as oblivious to it.

Your argument is contradictory.

If atheists use logic to determine the God of the Jews did not exist then they also use logic to determine the Son of the God of the Jews was also non-historical.

It is quite logical that God and his Son are figures of mythology.

If it is not hard to conclude that supernatural things don't exist then it should have been easy for you conclude that the water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost without a human father did not exist.

Obviously you have let your preconceptions get in the way of your own perception.

John 10:30

I and my Father are one.

Bible Jesus and Bible God are representations of the same myth characters in the Christian Bible.