Historical Jesus

[IanS]

We do have information on the (other) Jewish "false messiahs" which is indicative.

Without checking back, I think what I was saying (in answer to a poster who said that the region was filled with street preachers at the time), was only to say that we should be a little cautions about building a theory or explanation on assuming that the area was filled with street preachers. Because whilst I agree that is the general assumption, afaik we don't have any accurate numerical data for the number of such preachers.

No doubt there were quite a few, and afaik we all think that's the case. But if we could travel back in time to see for ourselves then we might discover that their presence was not as numerous as we had thought ... so the point was just to say that I think it's dangerous to build any theories or explanations on the basis of assuming that the streets were awash with such people every day.

IOW, in general - I think this is a subject where far too many assumptions have been made to support a HJ, and with far too much taken on trust from biblical scholars and religious leaders as a source of facts, but where that trust has really been misplaced and the assumptions clearly either wrong or else highly dubious. So I think we need to be very careful about those things

 

[Brainache]

Without checking back, I think what I was saying (in answer to a poster who said that the region was filled with street preachers at the time), was only to say that we should be a little cautions about building a theory or explanation on assuming that the area was filled with street preachers. Because whilst I agree that is the general assumption, afaik we don't have any accurate numerical data for the number of such preachers.

No doubt there were quite a few, and afaik we all think that's the case. But if we could travel back in time to see for ourselves then we might discover that their presence was not as numerous as we had thought ... so the point was just to say that I think it's dangerous to build any theories or explanations on the basis of assuming that the streets were awash with such people every day.

IOW, in general - I think this is a subject where far too many assumptions have been made to support a HJ, and with far too much taken on trust from biblical scholars and religious leaders as a source of facts, but where that trust has really been misplaced and the assumptions clearly either wrong or else highly dubious. So I think we need to be very careful about those things

That's why people read Josephus. You should give it a try. Better than Game Of Thrones IMO.

 

[IanS]

Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.

L Ron Hubbard is not comparable to Jesus though. L Ron Hubbard is the one preaching to people that they should believe in some imaginary supernatural deity (whoever that was). L Ron Hubbard is more comparable to the preachers who wrote the gospels and letters ... like Hubbard, those who wrote the gospels and letters were the ones preaching to the people telling them to believe in a supernatural deity called Jesus.

 

[Darat]

Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.

Who has ever suggested there wouldn't be a real person behind the origins of Christianity? The debate is whether that was a real Jesus.

I think from memory you agree that we know the mythical Jesus the Christians say existed and still exists never existed?



(Mind you I do have to say I think it is more likely that there were several people who could lay claim to have "originated" Christianity adding their own bits and pieces, killing the heretics and the like, I say this from the known history of the religions.)

 

[dejudge]

Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.

Your analogy is really baseless. You have no historical evidence at all to show that Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

The existence or non-existence of L Ron Hubbard cannot determine the existence or non-existence of the character called Jesus in the Christian Bible.

 

[dejudge]

(4) the same is true for Paul's letters. They were once regarded as the strongest and most direct evidence of Jesus, because they were saiid to be the earliest writing (pre-dating the gospels), and unlike the gospels the letters are said to be written by the author himself. But again a more careful reading showed that Paul was describing a Jesus that he had only known in religious visions. And where he mentions more than 500 other people who had witnessed Jesus, but again if you look more carefully he only ever says that all of those others had also only "met" Jesus in religious visions. So that is also clearly evidence against a HJ ... because it is clear evidence that Paul was describing his religious beliefs (ie divine visions, voices from the heavens, a belief that it was all "according to scripture" and clear statements saying "it came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone"). That is very clear evidence of religious mythical belief, and clear evidence against a real HJ.

The so-called Pauline writer claimed he was one of the witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Christians and Bible writings state that Jesus bodily resurrected and was seen after he was raised from the dead.

And not only was seen but that the resurrected Jesus conversed directly with the disciples and that he ate food in their presence.

The Christian Bible teaches that their Jesus of Nazareth bodily resurrected

The so-called Paul openly lied when he claimed he was one of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Even, in Acts it is claimed Saul/Paul did not see the resurrected Jesus but only heard his voice.

Acts 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

The Pauline writers are found to be liars in the very Christian Bible.

The Epistles are really evidence that the Pauline writers were liars or false witnesses and that they were aware of stories about the resurrected Jesus before their composition.

Since Scholars admit the Epistles are products of multiple authors it is impossible to know who wrote any of them and precisely when they were written without any external historical sources of the Pauline writers.

There are no historical sources which mentions a character called Paul a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

 

[dejudge]

Don't you get tired of repeating the same thing (or almost) a million times?

Don't waste your computer in vain. None of your arguments are definitive proof that Jesus the Galilean did not exist. There is nothing strange about a small sect attributing increasingly unbridled miraculous deeds to its failed prophet. It's called cognitive dissonance, and similar things have been seen many times in history. This may cast a serious shadow of doubt over the whole gospel narrative, but not necessarily over the prosaic existence of its "divine" patron. That is something really inconsequential.

By the way, St. Paul does claim to have spoken to people who knew Jesus directly "in the flesh". Don't make things up.

Well, back to my stuff. I'm sure that if I come back here in a few centuries you and Dejudge will continue with the same thing. What monotony!



Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

You are back with the same baseless assumptions.

I know for sure that you have no historical evidence at all - none whatsoever- for an historical Jesus.

The Epistles are not evidence of an historical Jesus. The Pauline writer claimed he met his Jesus in the third heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

The Epistles are non-historical garbage about a resurrected supernatural being called Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

Yes the writings of his followers, just like Jesus.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels attributed to them according to Scholars.


The character called Paul in the Epistles was not a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, it is claimed after Jesus ascended to heaven in a cloud that he heard his voice while being blinded by a bright light.

The Epistles attributed to James, John, Peter and Jude are all forgeries or false attribution according to Scholars.

The author of Revelation claimed his Jesus was the first begotten of the dead.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any book in the NT was written by an actual follower of Bible Jesus, the son of the Ghost.

 

[pgwenthold]

Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.

In the analogy, ar best this is a claim for the existence of Paul.

 

[dejudge]

In the analogy, ar best this is a claim for the existence of Paul.

But which Paul would that be and when did any of them exist?

Tassman's analogy is of no value in the HJ/MJ argument.

 

[dejudge]

It is hideously illogical for Scholars, Christian or not, to argue that some of the Pauline Epistles are authentic while admitting they are products of multiple authors when there is not even corroboration in the Bible itself that a character called Paul wrote any Epistle to anyone at anytime.

No Bible author corroborates [falsely or not] that Saul/Paul wrote Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon and none of them make references to the so-called Pauline Epistles.

Once Scholars admit there were multiple persons using the name of Paul then the Epistles are not credible sources not only for historical purposes but for the beliefs or teachings of the early Jesus cult.

 

[Delvo]

So in summary - the biblical writing is indeed evidence. But it's actually very strong evidence against the reality of a HJ.

All 4 of your points are entirely neutral on this question; they could just as easily be true in an HJ world as in an MJ world. The first two are already built in to everybody's thinking on both sides. (It strains credibility that you don't already know that.)

And the third and fourth are false anyway:

(3) ...they were not written by any actual disciples or any eye-witnesses. That again is very clear evidence of the authors trying to deceive readers

The deception, if there is any at all in this rather than error, is by those who applied the names to the books, some time after the authors were dead. All you've disproven is a claim which the authors never made. (...And which doesn't matter to the subject here.)

(4) Paul was describing his religious beliefs (ie divine visions, voices from the heavens, a belief that it was all "according to scripture" and clear statements saying "it came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone"). That is very clear evidence of religious mythical belief, and clear evidence against a real HJ.

Source ≠ contents.

...especially not when the claim you're trying to use the source to prove about the contents is directly contradicted by some of the contents. (Back to specifics, yes, he has Jesus still doing stuff after dying & resurrecting & ascending, but he also has Jesus doing normal living human stuff before that, during his normal living human life; that's what he's supposed to have ascended from.)

(And even if it did it wouldn't matter to the subject here.)

 

[Delvo]

In the analogy, ar best this is a claim for the existence of Paul.

Quite clearly not, in more ways than one.

For one thing, Hubbard didn't go around preaching about Xenu, because Scientology is not about Xenu. Xenu has practically nothing to do with it and isn't even mentioned in most of it or ever mentioned to most of its members.

Second, Paul was not the first Christian; it's impossible to be the inventor/founder of something you only joined sometime after it got going.

Third, the equivalent of Xenu in Christian mythology obviously can't be Jesus. It would need to be somebody not just wildly more powerful but also more distant and cosmic and thoroughly unlike humans. That really only leaves Yahweh, the Devil, or maybe other angels. Jesus was a person who merely talked about those characters... which makes his Scientological counterpart somebody else who merely talked about Xenu... and that means Hubbard.

 

[pgwenthold]

Quite clearly not, in more ways than one.

For one thing, Hubbard didn't go around preaching about Xenu, because Scientology is not about Xenu. Xenu has practically nothing to do with it and isn't even mentioned in most of it or ever mentioned to most of its members.

Second, Paul was not the first Christian; it's impossible to be the inventor/founder of something you only joined sometime after it got going.

Third, the equivalent of Xenu in Christian mythology obviously can't be Jesus. It would need to be somebody not just wildly more powerful but also more distant and cosmic and thoroughly unlike humans. That really only leaves Yahweh, the Devil, or maybe other angels. Jesus was a person who merely talked about those characters... which makes his Scientological counterpart somebody else who merely talked about Xenu... and that means Hubbard.

Paul was the promoter of Christianity. It's silly to think that Christianity would be anything without Paul. His supposed letters make up more than half of the New Testament. Without his promotion, Christianity does in the first century.

Similarly, without Hubbard, Scientoligy is nothing. He's the promoter.

Jesus is not the founder of christianity. It's about him, but he never founded nor promoted the religion. That was Paul.

 

[Jerrymander]

(4) the same is true for Paul's letters. They were once regarded as the strongest and most direct evidence of Jesus, because they were saiid to be the earliest writing (pre-dating the gospels), and unlike the gospels the letters are said to be written by the author himself. But again a more careful reading showed that Paul was describing a Jesus that he had only known in religious visions. And where he mentions more than 500 other people who had witnessed Jesus, but again if you look more carefully he only ever says that all of those others had also only "met" Jesus in religious visions. So that is also clearly evidence against a HJ ... because it is clear evidence that Paul was describing his religious beliefs (ie divine visions, voices from the heavens, a belief that it was all "according to scripture" and clear statements saying "it came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone"). That is very clear evidence of religious mythical belief, and clear evidence against a real HJ.

So in summary - the biblical writing is indeed evidence. But it's actually very strong evidence against the reality of a HJ.

Again, I already show you quotes of Paul referring to Jesus as a human and you failed at explaining them away.

 

[dejudge]

Paul was the promoter of Christianity. It's silly to think that Christianity would be anything without Paul. His supposed letters make up more than half of the New Testament. Without his promotion, Christianity does in the first century.

Similarly, without Hubbard, Scientoligy is nothing. He's the promoter.

Jesus is not the founder of christianity. It's about him, but he never founded nor promoted the religion. That was Paul.

Actually, the character called Paul cannot even be compared to Hubbard.

Hubbard did not first attempt to persecute, destroy and kill adherents to Scientology before he promoted the religion.

Galatians 1:23

But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

Acts 9. 1

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem....

The character called Paul was not the founder of the Jesus cult of Christians in or out the NT.

There is no historical evidence at all of the Pauline writers.

L Ron Hubbard is a known figure of history who started the Church of Scientology.

 

[dejudge]

Again, I already show you quotes of Paul referring to Jesus as a human and you failed at explaining them away.

The Bible Jesus was a supernatural being - a God/man.


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..

Christians believed their Jesus was God who came down from heaven and lived in a woman.

Aristides Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. 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.

The Jesus cult writers who used the Pauline Epistles stated their Jesus was both God and man.

Jesus cult Christianity originated with belief in a supernatural God/man.

It is really a waste of time to use the Bible to argue that Bible Jesus was only a man -complete waste of time.

 

[dejudge]

….Third, the equivalent of Xenu in Christian mythology obviously can't be Jesus. It would need to be somebody not just wildly more powerful but also more distant and cosmic and thoroughly unlike humans. That really only leaves Yahweh, the Devil, or maybe other angels. Jesus was a person who merely talked about those characters... which makes his Scientological counterpart somebody else who merely talked about Xenu... and that means Hubbard.

What a load of crap.

Bible Jesus did state that he was God's only begotten son and that he and God the father were one in the fables of the NT.


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.

John 10:30

I and my Father are one.

Mark 14.

61 …….Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am...…

 

[dejudge]

Paul was the promoter of Christianity. It's silly to think that Christianity would be anything without Paul. His supposed letters make up more than half of the New Testament. Without his promotion, Christianity does in the first century.

There were multiple Christian cult leaders and writers who promoted Christianity without mentioning Paul and the Epistles.

Simon Magus, Menander, Valentinus, Carpocrates, Basilides, Saturninus, ,Marcion, Justin, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tatian and others.

Theophilus of Antioch is one of many examples where he promotes Christianity in "To Autolycus" without using or making any reference to Bible Jesus, Bible Paul, the Epistles and the NT.

If the Roman Government did adhere to the Christian teachings of one of the other cults in the 4th century then we would have probably not heard of the Jesus cult of Christians.

 

[IanS]

All 4 of your points are entirely neutral on this question; they could just as easily be true in an HJ world as in an MJ world. The first two are already built in to everybody's thinking on both sides. (It strains credibility that you don't already know that.)

No they are not neutral. And that is extremely obvious from their content.

Biblical scholars (and all other who believe Jesus was real), have been forced to remove almost every significant mention of Jesus from those gospels, in order to leave something that could be believed about a Jesus figure who does nothing at all and who would never have been written about as a messiah from God. You have to erase almost everything in those gospels ... but the fact that you have to do that, is actually glaringly obvious and very direct evidence against the gospels being evidence of a real Jesus ...

... think about it - the overwhelming majority of what was written in those gospels is clearly and unarguably evidence against any reality for Jesus.

That has to be true because all of that content from the gospels is unarguably invented fiction.

And the third and fourth are false anyway:

The deception, if there is any at all in this rather than error, is by those who applied the names to the books, some time after the authors were dead. All you've disproven is a claim which the authors never made. (...And which doesn't matter to the subject here.)

No. Again, not true. The gospels were given those names as an attempt to make the faithful (and everyone else) think that they were the words of eye-witness disciples. That's why the writers have the gospels with those specific names.

For most of the last 2000 years since those gospels were written, almost everyone believed they were indeed written by those named disciples, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. And even today if you talk to the average Christian at any church congregation, you find that almost all of them are under the impression that the gospels were actually authored by those named people ... it's only in far more recent times, say from 100 to 200 years ago (or however long it is), that biblical scholars, theologians and Church leaders (Popes, Cardinal, Archbishops etc.) have slowly come to the realisation that the gospels were not in fact written by any of those named authors, and not written by anyone who was ever an eye-witness to Jesus.

Source ≠ contents.

...especially not when the claim you're trying to use the source to prove about the contents is directly contradicted by some of the contents. (Back to specifics, yes, he has Jesus still doing stuff after dying & resurrecting & ascending, but he also has Jesus doing normal living human stuff before that, during his normal living human life; that's what he's supposed to have ascended from.)

(And even if it did it wouldn't matter to the subject here.)

Again, completely untrue – everyone now knows, and even Christian biblical scholars accept, that there is nothing in Pauls letters (the supposed genuine ones) to say that Paul had ever known any Jesus except as a religious vision of divine revelation.

In those letters there is no actual description a real Jesus known either to Paul or to anyone else. And I just quoted to you where Paul himself insists in extremely clear words that his belief in Jesus came from divine revelation through which he believed that his searches for messiah prophecy in ancient scripture had revealed the true coming of the messiah.

There is no description there of any “normal living human life”. It's simply not true for you to claim that.

So again, to summarise that – whilst Biblical scholars and others, including all HJ posters here, are claiming the gospels as a source of reliable evidence for a real Jesus, in fact if you take the "blinders" off, and just look honestly and objectively at the gospels as a whole, ie as they actually are without erasing virtually all that was said about Jesus, then it's blindingly obvious, and really unarguable, that their content is overwhelming evidence against a real Jesus.