Historical Jesus

[IanS]

It doesn't matter the topic: people on my side of the debate are genuinely convinced through evidence and clear thinking. It's the people on the other side of the debate who are hopelessly biased. Hands up if you agree!

The problem on this thread isn't that someone is not happy to have their mind changed. It's that we often have no common ground for the debate in the first place. Do we need credible evidence that someone actually meat Jesus? Is it meaningful to talk about a historical 'supernatural' Jesus? Does Paul describe Jesus as a man and is that important to the debate?

If one side thinks 'yes' and the other thinks 'no', then we will just keep talking past each other. And that's what's happening on this thread. Framing the debate in the first place so that both parties are on the same understanding with regards to what the topic is about is a requirement before the debate can occur. Since it won't happen here, this thread will go on forever. Maybe the next thread will establish this at its start.

Here is what happens if common understanding is not established beforehand (2 mins 51 secs):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXpmHuCE9Ls

Edited to add: I just noticed I wrote "Do we need credible evidence that someone actually meat Jesus?" Seems a suitable slip-of-the-tongue!

First of all, if people are Christians and follow the faith, eg going to church as believers and praying etc. Then it's undeniable that they are likely to be not just biased towards belief in Jesus, but so enormously biased as to make it virtually impossible to believe otherwise (no matter what the evidence is).

And I don't mean "biased" in the sense of criticising them as dishonest or deliberately lying. I mean biased in the sense of being already committed to belief in Jesus through their faith, and thereby completely unwilling to, or unable to, have their minds changed regardless of how much evidence is against them and regardless of what is at best a vanishing small extent of evidence to support their beliefs.

And far from having "no common ground for the debate", all of the ground that we have for debate is "common" to all of us ... we are all using exactly the same information. But that information really all comes from a 2000 year old religious Bible that is totally discredited by it's constant claims of miracles and the supernatural ...

... you cannot have a source or "witness" like that which has been found (eventually, after nearly 2000 years) to be repeatedly making untrue claims about the very thing that is under discussion.

A witness like that is completely discredited by it's constant untruths.

If you had a witness like that in any democratic court, then (a) no lawyer would put that witness before any jury, or else it would make their case a laughing stock, and (b) the judge would probably refuse to allow such a constantly dishonest witness to be put before the jury.

But in the case of Jesus, that is really the only witness that you have.

That is the "common ground" for all of us.

The HJ side in these threads (and biblical scholars) are quoting the bible as their evidence of Jesus. And the sceptical side saying (1) the bible is not a credible source anyway, so you need something vastly more credible and more honest than that if you are going to claim evidence, and (2) if we have to respond to claims or evidence made from quoting the bible, then what has been shown about that in every HJ thread ever made, is that the biblical quotes offered as evidence are in fact all definitely untrue claims of the supernatural.

That amounts to a zero case for a HJ. But it is unarguably a massive case of showing undeniable evidence confirming that the biblical accounts are definitely invented mythical religious fiction and simply not admissible as credible evidence of a human Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

People are lying for Paul.

The supposed Pauline writer stated specifically that his Jesus Christ was not a man.

Galatians 1:1

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.

Please, stop wasting time.

 

[Jerrymander]

This is getting utterly ridiculous, and it really must stop. You cannot go on wasting everyone's time here by saying that all sorts of things are evidence of Jesus being a real human person, when all your examples are instantly proved untrue and shown to be certainly not the evidence you claim.

OK last time - how do you know that a human Jesus was ever executed or baptised by anyone? Ohh, right, you got it from the bible. Well the bible is most definitely not a credible source of evidence for it's own repeated claims of the incredible and supernaturally impossible.

And as if that were not waaaay more than enough already (which it certainly is), both of the above claims are in fact claims of miracles yet again! ...

... in the crucifixion story, Jesus dies, but then lives again!

... in the baptism, in all 4 gospels, the heavens opened the voice of God was heard, and a spirit was seen descenting into Jesus!

Here – look at this from BibleGateway -


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+1:1-10&version=NIV

The Baptism and Testing of Jesus
9*At that time Jesus came from Nazareth*in Galilee and was baptised by John*in the Jordan.*10*Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.

Your point? It is also hard to believe that Jesus was baptized (which the gospel writers couldn't make up as I stated either) and the writer added the heavens opening up later. Some for crucifixion.

 

[Jerrymander]

The HJ side in these threads (and biblical scholars) are quoting the bible as their evidence of Jesus. And the sceptical side saying (1) the bible is not a credible source anyway, so you need something vastly more credible and more honest than that if you are going to claim evidence, and (2) if we have to respond to claims or evidence made from quoting the bible, then what has been shown about that in every HJ thread ever made, is that the biblical quotes offered as evidence are in fact all definitely untrue claims of the supernatural.

That amounts to a zero case for a HJ. But it is unarguably a massive case of showing undeniable evidence confirming that the biblical accounts are definitely invented mythical religious fiction and simply not admissible as credible evidence of a human Jesus.

Very dishonest framing. The fact is you have no better explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement. You try to argue he was made up from OT prophecies. So according to you, sometime in the 30s-50s, some Jew decided to look into Isiah and other random verses (which have never before been interpreted as Messianic predictions) and made up whole-cloth a new messiah. All this for....fun I guess?

 

[Delvo]

No! Nobody has said anything of the kind. None of us have said that quote "if a person is thought of as divine or had supernatural powers that means they didn't exist."

Or at least, if your actual meaning involves a few other steps between those two components, then quit being Underpants Gnomes and state the intermediate part(s).

OK, maybe this is that...

1:

Jesus is a figure who was repeatedly and constantly described in supernatural terms ... there's actually virtually nothing said about him in the biblical writing that is not in fact supernatural...

OK, that's the part that brought this up, so, to see what else goes with it to make it not the entirety of the argument, we need to move along to the next. (This part is already not accurate by itself, but that's what my last post was about, so I'll just move along to the next anyway for this post.)

2:

biblical writing is really the only and entire source for anything at all about Jesus

By name, yes, but overall, no, it isn't. There are indirectly connected facts to consider, in the same way as how an artifact in the Greek language in Persia or India is evidence of Big Alex with or without his name being on it. For Jesus, these include:

• Non-Christian corroboration that people of the general type that would be needed did exist
• Non-Christian corroboration of a couple of specific ones of those who fit better than most, one of whom is unnamed in that source, the other of whom is named "Jesus"
• Precedents that this is a real thing that really happens; real people have had supernatural traits/stories ascribed to them in other cases
• The unprecedentedness & implausibility of the only non-supernatural alternative to explain Christianity: that he was entirely made-up and believed, in a culture that didn't already have him; proposed analogues from other religions/cults have been suggested but they fail key points of the needed analogy to establish that this is even a possibility

Whether those are adequate is debatable, but adequacy was not the claim here; the claim was that they don't exist, which they undisputably do.

3:

and there is really no evidence in that biblical writing to show that any of those writers ever thought that Jesus was an ordinary human preacher.

Irrelevant; the idea is not that they thought so themselves, but that the tale had evolved a bit before it got to them. And you already know that.

* * *

So the reason why this argument can easily appear to only have step 1 in it instead of all 3 is because step 1 is the only part that's even close enough to reality to be even marginally semi-debatable. The other two are just too easy to dismiss as effectively nothing at all and then forget about or lose sight of under #1's shadow, because their problems are so immediate & obvious; they're like saying there was no Jesus because crickets shoot fireballs & lightning from their knees. That which only takes 1 sentence or less to debunk tends to disappear under the conversational shadow of that which can actually result in some back-&-forth discussion.

 

[IanS]

Your point? It is also hard to believe that Jesus was baptized (which the gospel writers couldn't make up as I stated either) and the writer added the heavens opening up later. Some for crucifixion.

They are both clearly claims of miracles. And it's just not possible to deny that.

So that's an end to that pieces of nonsense.

 

[Jerrymander]

They are both clearly claims of miracles. And it's just not possible to deny that.

No, the heavens opening up is a miracle claim. Not the baptism itself. The resurrection is the miracle claim, not the crucifixion.

 

[IanS]

Very dishonest framing. The fact is you have no better explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement. You try to argue he was made up from OT prophecies. So according to you, sometime in the 30s-50s, some Jew decided to look into Isiah and other random verses (which have never before been interpreted as Messianic predictions) and made up whole-cloth a new messiah. All this for....fun I guess?

Well are you quoting from the bible as your source for Jesus, or not!?

If you want to chuck out the bible now, then that would be very sensible (since there's really no credible evidence there, only impossible miracle after impossible miracle, and the claim that he was the scion from a supernatural imaginary God).

Though of course. if you chuck out the bible then you really have nothing else at all.

 

[IanS]

Okay then. I was wrong on that. I can't admit that unlike you.

Freudian slip there ... you actually say that you "can't admit it!

 

[clayflingythingy]

Your point? It is also hard to believe that Jesus was baptized (which the gospel writers couldn't make up as I stated either) and the writer added the heavens opening up later. Some for crucifixion.

The baptism most certainly could be made up. The baptism is unknown to the epistle writers.

gMark made lots of stuff up. Making up a baptism by John would satisfy scripture and would also function as a way to bring followers of the baptist into the Jesus camp.

You have zero evidence the baptism is historical. gMark is our first source for the event. And gMark makes up bunches.

Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

 

[GDon]

The baptism is unknown to the epistle writers.

That's not true, at least as far as you have framed it. We don't know whether or not Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist -- if it ever happened -- was known to them or not. "The baptism is not mentioned by the epistle writers" is accurate. "Unknown", not so much.

We can certainly try to reconstruct attitudes towards baptism in earliest Christianity. Paul says that he baptised people:

1 Cor 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius...
1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas...​

One interesting question (I'll note that this isn't a question at all relevant to the question of whether Jesus was historical or not) is where did Paul get the idea about baptism and how did it apply to non-Jews?

The idea that John the Baptist was part of a sect (possibly the Essenes) suggests that Jesus and earliest Christianity came out of that sect. That's not a point that might be of interest to people of this board, but it is one that gets discussed a lot elsewhere by people whose interest in history extends beyond the HJ/MJ divide.

gMark made lots of stuff up. Making up a baptism by John would satisfy scripture and would also function as a way to bring followers of the baptist into the Jesus camp.

"Baptism by John would satisfy scripture"? Really? I know that John the Baptist was fulfilling the Elijah role (according to the Gospels), thus the importance of Jesus meeting him, but there is nothing about baptism in the OT relating to the Messianic role as far as I know. I could be wrong, but if you could point me to the OT passage I'd appreciate it.

You have zero evidence the baptism is historical. gMark is our first source for the event. And gMark makes up bunches.

There's certainly evidence, just not proof. First: we have no credible evidence that anyone ever met the historical Jesus or John the Baptist or witnessed the baptism. Just like to get that out of the way.

In gMark, Jesus is portrayed as a Jewish man. No pre-existence, no virgin-birth. Baptism is a means of cleansing one of sin, and all men need to be cleansed. He gets baptised by John the Baptist. All is good.

In gMatthew, Jesus is born of a virgin and is starting to become a supernatural being. John the Baptist recognises this, and is astonished that such a being wants to be baptised. Jesus doesn't need it! Why does he ask for it?

In gJohn, Jesus is full-on incarnate Word. Jesus mets John the Baptist, but no baptism is mentioned at all.

Again, I'll note that none of this is evidence for historicity. However, IF Jesus was historical, then given the importance of baptism in Paul and the Gospels, the stories of John the Baptist, and the gradual disappearance of the baptism of Jesus scene: this is evidence towards the best explanation for the existence of these passages in these texts as being that Jesus was probably baptised by John the Baptist.

Just to repeat the dogma: We have no credible evidence that anyone ever met the historical Jesus or John the Baptist or witnessed the baptism. Amen.

 

[dejudge]

...There's certainly evidence, just not proof. First: we have no credible evidence that anyone ever met the historical Jesus or John the Baptist or witnessed the baptism. Just like to get that out of the way....

No, No!!! You can't just get it out the way like that.

The writings of Josephus are regarded as credible historical sources for the history of the Jews up to around c 96 CE and do mention John the Baptist as a baptizer of Jews who was ultimately imprisoned and executed by Herod the tetrarch. See Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.1

The writing of Josephus had to be corrupted in order to deceive people into believing there was an historical Jesus.

Whoever forged the passage in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 still wrote that it was not known if it was lawful to call Jesus a man.

It is clear that the humanity of Jesus was not certain up to the time of the forgery.

The humanity of John the Baptist is not questioned in the writings of Josephus only Jesus by an apologetic forger.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man...

Jesus of Nazareth was not a man and had no history that is why he is not mentioned in credible historical sources of antiquity.

In gMark, Jesus is portrayed as a Jewish man. No pre-existence, no virgin-birth. Baptism is a means of cleansing one of sin, and all men need to be cleansed. He gets baptised by John the Baptist. All is good.

All is not good at all.

You very well know that baptism or bathing in the River Jordan was not a means of cleansing Jews of sins in the Jewish religion.

Naanman was cured of leprosy by dipping in the River Jordan.
2 Kings 5:10

And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean

Kings 5:14

Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

You very well know that it is documented in Hebrew Scripture and in the writings of Josephus that the Jews sacrificed animals for remission of sins.

Antiquities of the Jews 3.9.3

But if any one sin, and is conscious of it himself, but hath nobody that can prove it upon him, he offers a ram, the law enjoining him so to do; the flesh of which the priests eat, as before, in the holy place, on the same day.

And if the rulers offer sacrifices for their sins, they bring the same oblations that private men do; only they so far differ, that they are to bring for sacrifices a bull or a kid of the goats, both males. [/HILITE]

The story in the NT that John was baptising Jews for remission of sins would be a capital crime and regarded as blasphemy.

In gMatthew, Jesus is born of a virgin and is starting to become a supernatural being. John the Baptist recognises this, and is astonished that such a being wants to be baptised. Jesus doesn't need it! Why does he ask for it?

How would John the Baptist recognize that Jesus was born of a Virgin and was starting to become a supernatural being?
From the voice from heaven??

In gJohn, Jesus is full-on incarnate Word. Jesus mets John the Baptist, but no baptism is mentioned at all.

Anyone who is familiar with gJohn would quickly notice that virtually all of the supposed miracles of Jesus are not mentioned by the supposed Johanine author but his Jesus was God Creator.

Again, I'll note that none of this is evidence for historicity. However, IF Jesus was historical, then given the importance of baptism in Paul and the Gospels, the stories of John the Baptist, and the gradual disappearance of the baptism of Jesus scene: this is evidence towards the best explanation for the existence of these passages in these texts as being that Jesus was probably baptised by John the Baptist.

Your explanation is the probably worst.

There is almost zero probability that Jesus, if a Jew, would be baptized in the river Jordan for remission of sins.

Just to repeat the dogma: We have no credible evidence that anyone ever met the historical Jesus or John the Baptist or witnessed the baptism. Amen.

Well, let me repeat the facts.

John the Baptist is mentioned in the writings of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews" 18.5.1

Jesus, if it be lawful to call a man" is found in a forgery of "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3.

What is the best explanation?

Why did an apologetic manipulate known credible historical writings of Josephus?

Because Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God had no history.

Jesus of Nazareth was total fiction fabricated AFTER at least the works of Josephus or at least after c 96 CE.

 

[Tassman]

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 did not mention a character called Jesus and it was proven that the passage was manipulated.

The copy of Tacitus Annals 15.44 did not originally contain the word "Christians"

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

You are clutching at straws. Your sole link suggesting that Tacitus’ comment in his Annuls had been altered has been contradicted by numerous scholars. In the same link: “The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.”

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

This indicates that a flesh and blood man was crucified. It says nothing about a virgin-born miracle worker and resurrecting god/man. But no one here is arguing that such a magical entity ever existed – except you. Merely that an actual man provided the catalyst for the origins of the Jesus story, which was subsequently embellished as the story grew in the telling. The reality is that there is no better explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere.

 

[dejudge]

The baptism most certainly could be made up. The baptism is unknown to the epistle writers.

gMark made lots of stuff up. Making up a baptism by John would satisfy scripture and would also function as a way to bring followers of the baptist into the Jesus camp.

You have zero evidence the baptism is historical. gMark is our first source for the event. And gMark makes up bunches.

Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

In addition, the author of gMark does not even claim to be writing historical accounts.

The author of gLuke clearly stated he was writing about what people believed among themselves.

Luke 1:1

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us…

The Jesus of cult Christians started with the belief that their Jesus was the Son of God with or without a birth narrative.

 

[dejudge]

No, the heavens opening up is a miracle claim. Not the baptism itself. The resurrection is the miracle claim, not the crucifixion.

The heavens opening up is not a miracle it is called fiction..

Jews do not baptize or wash themselves in the River Jordan for remission of sins.

Jews sacrifice animals to their God for remission of sins.

The baptism story of Jesus of Nazareth with the voice from heaven and the Holy Ghost is total fiction - it never happened.

 

[dejudge]

You are clutching at straws. Your sole link suggesting that Tacitus’ comment in his Annuls had been altered has been contradicted by numerous scholars. In the same link: “The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.”

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

The link does state that it was conclusively proven that the word "Christians" was manipulated.

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[16] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown….

You are clutching at straws -every corrupted source and fiction.

Tacitus' Annals did not even mention Jesus of Nazareth.

You very well know Tacitus' Annals was written c 115-120 CE long after the stories of Jesus were already known and circulated in the Roman Empire.

It is virtually impossible to show that Tacitus was not merely repeating stories that were circulating in the 2nd century.

This indicates that a flesh and blood man was crucified. It says nothing about a virgin-born miracle worker and resurrecting god/man. But no one here is arguing that such a magical entity ever existed – except you. Merely that an actual man provided the catalyst for the origins of the Jesus story, which was subsequently embellished as the story grew in the telling. The reality is that there is no better explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere.

It is simply not true that a known man was a catalyst for the origins of the Jesus story.

It is documented by Christian writers themselves who admitted their belief originated with a story that God came down from heaven and lived in a daughter of man.

In your haste to clutch at a corrupted source for your HJ you exposed fundamental problems with the HJ argument.

The passage in Tacitus' Annals contradict the claim by HJers that their HJ was a scarcely known wandering character who was later embellished.

The character called Christ in Tacitus Annals had already started a Christian cult in Judea and was crucified to stop the spread of the cult.

No such thing is found in Christian writings.

Jesus did not start a new Christian cult while he was supposedly alive. In fact, the character did not tell his disciples he was the Christ and commanded his disciples to tell no-one such a thing.

Jesus cult Christianity started when there was no Jesus on earth, HJ or not, in Christian writings.

The Jesus cult of Christians started AFTER the supposed resurrection and ascension of Jesus and after the apostles received the Holy Ghost and then began to preach the Gospel.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is corrupted and the Christ mentioned in the forgery is not a scarcely known character.

There is no historical source of antiquity which mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, a scarcely known wandering character.

 

[HansMustermann]

That is not a character who's primarily defined by just being god-like all the time. It just isn't.

...not even if you pretend that the magic tricks really fall into the god-like category too even though they were just part of the routine preacher schtick because they were thought of at the time as things humans could do. Even counting up that combination instead of only the bits that were really thought of as beyond humans, which would be dishonestly trying to skew the "supernatural" numbers high, would still add up to not much compared to the amount of just traveling & talking & having Earthly corporeal things done to him & being the subject of other people's reactions.

So does Darth Vader in the original trilogy, but that doesn't make him anything else than a made-up space wizard

 

[Jerrymander]

It is virtually impossible to show that Tacitus was not merely repeating stories that were circulating in the 2nd century.

If Tacitus was merely repeating what Christians were saying, he would have said so.

"My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history."
(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

"A show of gladiators, given in the name of his brother Germanicus, was presided over by Drusus, who took an extravagant pleasure in the shedding of blood however vile — a trait so alarming to the populace that it was said to have been censured by his father." (Annals 1.76)

And here's what a historian says about Tacitius' methods.

In the Histories there are sixty-eight instances in which Tacitus indicates either a recorded statement or a belief on someone’s part with regard to something which he himself is unwilling to assert as a fact; in other words, he cites divergent authority for some fact or motive …. [These] would seem to indicate a writer who had not only read what was written by historians …. but had also talked with eye witnesses and considered with some care the probable truth where doubt or uncertainty existed. …. Tacitius assumes the responsibility of the historian to get at the truth and present it. His guarantee was his own reputation. To make this narrative colorful and dramatic, he felt justified in introducing facts and motives which he might refute on logical grounds or leave uncontested but for which he did not personally vouch. There is no indication that he followed blindly the account of any predecessor” (C.W. Mendell, Tacitus: The Man and his Work, 1957, pp. 201-4)

 

[Jerrymander]

It is documented that Jesus the son of Damneus was High Priest c 63 CE.

It is also documented in Christian writings that the Jews called their High Priests and Kings the Christ [THE ANOINTED

And it is also documented that Josephus did not use two appellations on two different sentences for the same person. Nor would he bother repeating a appellation if he already introduced them. If the "James" he was talking about was the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, he would have called him "James son of Damneus" and would later have stated that "and made James' brother Jesus high priest". Or maybe said "brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah whose name was James," and later "and made Jesus high priest" since he already introduced him.


Jesus called the Messiah ≠ Jesus son of Damneus.

 

[dejudge]

If Tacitus was merely repeating what Christians were saying, he would have said so.

"My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history."
(Tacitus, Annals, IV.11)

What nonsense you post.

Tacitus must have repeated stories that he heard or was already written since he was not living in the time of Pilate.

It is claimed that Tacitus was born c 56 CE and wrote his Annals c 115-120 CE.

You are wasting your time.

It is already known that no well-known writer mentioned Jesus of Nazareth when writing about events of that time.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 was manipulated no earlier than the 4th century.

Severus in his "Sacred History" 1 mentioned a similar passage to Tacitus' Annals 15.44 and there is no mention of a character called Christ crucified in the time of Pilate.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 was corrupted after writings attributed Hierocles and Julian.