Historical Jesus

[GDon]

I think I'm on his ignore list, but does anyone have a link to any of these "detailed explanations" from any of the MJ posters here? (dejudge excluded: "It was all forged in the 2nd century" doesn't count)

I'd like to see how they stack up against the various HJ books I've read.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12. Do not discuss your ignore list in threads where that is not the subject.

But have you read any books that makes a comprehensive case that there really was a HJ? The only things I've read that come close are Dr Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" and Dr EP Sanders' excellent "The Historical Figure of Jesus", both of which disappointingly seemed to me to be based on assumptions that have been around forever.

Don't get me wrong. I think the assumptions can be backed up by the evidence. I just haven't seen them backed up. So I keep an open mind towards the idea of ahistoricity. That's not to say that the popular side of mythicism (e.g. the "Zeitgeist" movie) isn't as nutty as Creationism. The arguments by IanS and dejuror are good examples of the more irrational side of mythicism. But Dr Carrier and Earl Doherty have at least made comprehensive cases. There is nothing similar on the HJ side as far as I know. I'd love to know differently.

What HJ book do you recommend that makes an actual case for historicity, starting from a position that it isn't assumed in the first place?

 

[Brainache]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to match quoted post

But have you read any books that makes a comprehensive case that there really was a HJ? The only things I've read that come close are Dr Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" and Dr EP Sanders' excellent "The Historical Figure of Jesus", both of which disappointingly seemed to me to be based on assumptions that have been around forever.

Don't get me wrong. I think the assumptions can be backed up by the evidence. I just haven't seen them backed up. So I keep an open mind towards the idea of ahistoricity. That's not to say that the popular side of mythicism (e.g. the "Zeitgeist" movie) isn't as nutty as Creationism. The arguments by IanS and dejuror are good examples of the more irrational side of mythicism. But Dr Carrier and Earl Doherty have at least made comprehensive cases. There is nothing similar on the HJ side as far as I know. I'd love to know differently.

What HJ book do you recommend that makes an actual case for historicity, starting from a position that it isn't assumed in the first place?

I've read EP Sanders and found him as you say, same for JD Crossan and the Jesus Seminar essays I read. At some point they all rely on something supernatural, which is annoying.

I haven't read Ehrman, Carrier or Doherty much beyond the excerpts posted in these many HJ threads and yeah, it doesn't look good...

The following opinion hasn't won me many friends here over the years, but I still haven't seen a better fit for the evidence (such as it is): The Researcher who I think has done the best job of piecing together a probable HJ is Robert Eisenman.

Eisenman's HJ is based on what we know about James, his brother. James is better attested in the historical record than Jesus. It makes sense to me that the man who took over the Jerusalem Community after Jesus died was more like Jesus (if he existed) than anyone else (with the notable exception that he lasted a lot longer in charge than any Jesus ever did - something like 30 years).

Basically that HJ was a Jewish Fundamentalist who lived a communal lifestyle with his followers and was committed to returning Judea to Jewish Theocratic rule.

People scoff at Eisenman, but I don't understand why, it seems reasonable to me.

 

[Delvo]

does anyone have a link to any of these "detailed explanations" from any of the MJ posters here?

Nevermind "detailed explanations"... given how consistently they just go with complete silence in response to non-mythicist points they don't like, as if pretending something they don't want to exist will make it actually not exist, it would be a substantial improvement if they could just muster even the slightest passing reaction.

 

[GDon]

I've read EP Sanders and found him as you say, same for JD Crossan and the Jesus Seminar essays I read. At some point they all rely on something supernatural, which is annoying.

I haven't read a lot of Crossan's work, but I'm surprised to read that about Sanders and the Jesus Seminar. I haven't come across anything to suggest that they rely on anything supernatural in their discussions of historicity.

The Jesus Seminar was formed by Funk, a scholar who was agnostic. But they are an example of what I mean: scholars voting using colored beads on what was actually said or done by the historical Jesus. It doesn't give a lot of confidence. Having said that, mythicists like Carrier and Doherty do seem to agree with nearly everything decided by such scholars.

I haven't read Ehrman, Carrier or Doherty much beyond the excerpts posted in these many HJ threads and yeah, it doesn't look good...

I've read and reviewed the books by Carrier and Doherty, and they are bad. Doherty's work is well-written speculative nonsense, while Carrier's books are poorly-written but well laid out. Carrier at least makes a comprehensive case, though introduces concepts like "Cosmic Sperm Banks" and "Half-platonic realms."

I've argued endlessly with Doherty over the years. He created quite a few pages on his own website addressing my points. For anyone interested in reading further:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/CritiquesDonJNGNM.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/CritiquesGDon.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/CritiquesGDon-2.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/DebatesFelix.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/DebatesAscension.htm

Eisenman's HJ is based on what we know about James, his brother. James is better attested in the historical record than Jesus. It makes sense to me that the man who took over the Jerusalem Community after Jesus died was more like Jesus (if he existed) than anyone else (with the notable exception that he lasted a lot longer in charge than any Jesus ever did - something like 30 years).

Yes, that's interesting. I don't know much on that side. If James was the brother of Jesus and was in charge of the early cult for 30 years, it suggests that it was like a "family business". They could have controlled the propaganda about Jesus, like Disney Corp did around Walt Disney (*). Once Paul and the Gospel of Mark came along, things opened up and Christianity went from Proprietary to Open Source.

(*) For those interested: Walt Disney: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney

Disney's public persona was very different from his actual personality.... Views of Disney and his work have changed over the decades, and there have been polarized opinions. Mark Langer, in the American Dictionary of National Biography, writes that "Earlier evaluations of Disney hailed him as a patriot, folk artist, and popularizer of culture. More recently, Disney has been regarded as a paradigm of American imperialism and intolerance, as well as a debaser of culture."​

 

[Tassman]

Scholarly consensus does not change the fact that it was proven that the existing copy of Annals' Tacitus 15.44 was manipulated.

The existing copy of Tacitus' Annals does not mention Jesus or Christians any where.

That is ONE opinion, which you have latched on to because it supports your agenda. It is NOT the generally accepted opinion of any other scholars in the very link you yourself provided

Existing Christian writings of antiquity state that the Christian cult originated with the belief that their Jesus was God came down from heaven and born of a Virgin.

The existing Christian writings were not set down until 50 to 100 years after the alleged birth of Jesus – plenty of time for the growth of the mythology that accrued around the Jesus figure.

Your HJ is no different to those of the Bible story writers who simply made up a plausible believable character.

Virgin births and resurrecting corpses are NOT believable characters. But attribution of such things in a gullible society decades after the event, is the most likely explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere.

The fact that multiple Christian writings of antiquity state that their Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin without a human father must mean that such a character was extremely plausible in antiquity and even today.

Certainly virgin-born miracle workers and resurrecting god/men were plausible in the nonscientific era of wonders and magic – but only for gods and heroes and the like. Which is why those who were flogging the Jesus story embellished it, because they wanted potential converts to believe Jesus was a god. But this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t an actual flesh and blood figure at the core of the story.

 

[dejudge]

Eisenman's HJ is based on what we know about James, his brother. James is better attested in the historical record than Jesus. It makes sense to me that the man who took over the Jerusalem Community after Jesus died was more like Jesus (if he existed) than anyone else (with the notable exception that he lasted a lot longer in charge than any Jesus ever did - something like 30 years).

It is utter rubbish that the character called James a supposed brother of Jesus is better attested in the historical record than the Lord and Savior Jesus.

Utter rubbish!!!

In the NT there are only three or four mention of a supposed brother called James and there is zero, I repeat zero, details about this James - absolutely nothing.

Examine all references to a character called James as a brother of Bible Jesus.

Mark 6.3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda and of Simon...????

Matthew 13:55

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Jude 1.1

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ

Galatians 1.19

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

There is no claim at all in the Gospels and Acts that Bible Jesus had an apostle who was his brother [James or not]

Only Galatians makes the uncorroborated claim that an apostle called James was the brother of the Lord.

There are two apostles called James in the NT.

The apostle James, the son of Zebedee and the apostle James the son of Alphaeus.

Matthew 10.2-3

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus...………...

Mark 3.14-18

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach ……………………...16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder : 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus…………

Luke 6.13-15

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes….

Acts 1.13

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes……..

An apostle called James the brother of the Lord as claimed in Galatians 1.19 is without corroboration inside the very NT.

Apologetic Christians writers outside the NT also claimed or implied their Jesus had no brother called James the apostle.

In writings attributed to Papias it is claimed " Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus ………. was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James;

Jerome De Viris Illustribus

James who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord….

In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews" James the brother of Jesus called Christ was stoned to death c 62-63 CE. See Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. In Christian writings James the brother of the Lord was still alive c 68-69 CE or after the death of a supposed apostle Peter. See the Preface to the Recognitions. It is claimed Clement wrote a letter to James the Lord's brother after the death of the supposed apostle Peter. James, the brother of Jesus in Antiquities is not the same character the apostle James the brother of the Lord in the Bible. The apostle James, the Lord's brother, is completely without historical corroboration and attestation.

People scoff at Eisenman, but I don't understand why, it seems reasonable to me.

You don't understand why??? You are getting a dose of your own medicine!!! You are fringe and believe the absurd claims by Eiseman. It is utter rubbish that the supposed apostle James the brother of Lord is attested in or out the NT.

 

[dejudge]

That is ONE opinion, which you have latched on to because it supports your agenda. It is NOT the generally accepted opinion of any other scholars in the very link you yourself provided.

It is a fact that it was proven that the word "Christians" was corrupted in Annals 15.44 and it is a fact that Tacitus did not mention anyone by the name of Jesus in all his existing writings.

The existing Christian writings were not set down until 50 to 100 years after the alleged birth of Jesus – plenty of time for the growth of the mythology that accrued around the Jesus figure.

What??? The existing Christian writings were composed 50-100 years after he was born of a Ghost?

When was Jesus born of a Ghost??

Virgin births and resurrecting corpses are NOT believable characters. But attribution of such things in a gullible society decades after the event, is the most likely explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere.

What nonsense!!

Millions of People up to July 9 2020 believe their Jesus, their Lord and Savior, was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, that he resurrected and ascended into heaven.

It is completely evident with the millions of believers today that it does not require an actual historical character to start a Christian religion.

The solution is that people made up stories about a character called Jesus, the Son of God and that people in antiquity and up to today believe those stories.

Those who believed the stories were called Christians.

You have the Bible stories of Jesus that Christians believed.

What's the problem??

Certainly virgin-born miracle workers and resurrecting god/men were plausible in the nonscientific era of wonders and magic – but only for gods and heroes and the like. Which is why those who were flogging the Jesus story embellished it, because they wanted potential converts to believe Jesus was a god. But this doesn’t mean that there wasn’t an actual flesh and blood figure at the core of the story.

What you say that does not make Jesus a figure of history.

Christian writers admitted Jesus cult Christianity started with the belief that their Jesus was God came down from heaven and lived in the daughter of man.

Look in the very NT.

Read Acts of the Apostles.

The Jesus cult of Christian began when their supposed Jesus was not on earth.

The Bible apostles got the power to preach the Gospel only after their Jesus ascended to heaven in a cloud and they were filled by the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.

Bible Jesus was in heaven when the Jesus cult started in Acts.

The Jesus cult started with belief in a supernatural Jesus not a mere man whose body would have rotted in the grave.

 

[dejudge]

What HJ book do you recommend that makes an actual case for historicity, starting from a position that it isn't assumed in the first place?

This is most laughable!!!

You have been arguing for HJ for years and have not found an HJ book where the HJ argument is not starting from assumptions in the first place!!

Why did you ask when you know no-one will be able to find such a book??

 

[IanS]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to match quoted post

But have you read any books that makes a comprehensive case that there really was a HJ? The only things I've read that come close are Dr Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" and Dr EP Sanders' excellent "The Historical Figure of Jesus", both of which disappointingly seemed to me to be based on assumptions that have been around forever.

Don't get me wrong. I think the assumptions can be backed up by the evidence. I just haven't seen them backed up. So I keep an open mind towards the idea of ahistoricity. That's not to say that the popular side of mythicism (e.g. the "Zeitgeist" movie) isn't as nutty as Creationism. The arguments by IanS and dejuror are good examples of the more irrational side of mythicism. But Dr Carrier and Earl Doherty have at least made comprehensive cases. There is nothing similar on the HJ side as far as I know. I'd love to know differently.

What HJ book do you recommend that makes an actual case for historicity, starting from a position that it isn't assumed in the first place?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 11. Do not respond to discussions of ignore lists where that is not the subject of the thread

... but whether it's from you or from any of the pro-HJ posters here, what is constantly being offered as evidence of Jesus, is actually only ever evidence of peoples 1st century (or quite likely, most if not all of it is 3rd or 4th century and later) religious mythical beliefs about Jesus ... and I say they are "mythical" beliefs because all of those beliefs are accounts of events that culminated in various miracles ... the beliefs were all claiming that supernatural religious things kept happening (and that is certainly fiction/myth).

If you really wanted to understand why so many highly educated people (in these threads, and in various books), who really do not have any particular bias to exercise against Jesus (unlike most of those who do say Jesus was real), are sceptical about whether or not he was a real person, then I would encourage anyone in your position to engage in a properly constructive educational way with people of opposing views are not ever trying just to annoy you or to be rude to you or personalising their remarks in any way at all ...

... if you cannot even engage with people like that, then I think in all fairness it has to be said that you burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid what for you may be an uncomfortable process of slow realisation that your arguments and beliefs for a HJ are not actually sound at all.

 

[Brainache]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to match quoted post

... but whether it's from you or from any of the pro-HJ posters here, what is constantly being offered as evidence of Jesus, is actually only ever evidence of peoples 1st century (or quite likely, most if not all of it is 3rd or 4th century and later) religious mythical beliefs about Jesus ... and I say they are "mythical" beliefs because all of those beliefs are accounts of events that culminated in various miracles ... the beliefs were all claiming that supernatural religious things kept happening (and that is certainly fiction/myth).

If you really wanted to understand why so many highly educated people (in these threads, and in various books), who really do not have any particular bias to exercise against Jesus (unlike most of those who do say Jesus was real), are sceptical about whether or not he was a real person, then I would encourage anyone in your position to engage in a properly constructive educational way with people of opposing views are not ever trying just to annoy you or to be rude to you or personalising their remarks in any way at all ...

... if you cannot even engage with people like that, then I think in all fairness it has to be said that you burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid what for you may be an uncomfortable process of slow realisation that your arguments and beliefs for a HJ are not actually sound at all.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12. Address arguments rather than attack arguers

I still can't find these "detailed explanations" of the MJ case. I hope they account for all the evidence and explain things better than that hopeless HJ case, because otherwise, what's the point?

 

[dejudge]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12. Address arguments rather than attack arguers

I still can't find these "detailed explanations" of the MJ case. I hope they account for all the evidence and explain things better than that hopeless HJ case, because otherwise, what's the point?

GDon who has been arguing for an HJ for years now admit the HJ arguments so far are disappointing based on assumptions that have not been backed.

But have you read any books that makes a comprehensive case that there really was a HJ? The only things I've read that come close are Dr Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" and Dr EP Sanders' excellent "The Historical Figure of Jesus both of which disappointingly seemed to me to be based on assumptions that have been around forever.
Don't get me wrong. I think the assumptions can be backed up by the evidence. I just haven't seen them backed up.

So I keep an open mind towards the idea of ahistoricity. ...….

HJ arguments are and will be forever products of baseless assumptions.

 

[IanS]

OK - just on this idea that people here (some people at least) seem to find it hard to believe that what we now call “Christianity” could have ever started unless Jesus was a real person -

I think it was Tassman who made a number of recent posts insistently saying that it was a remarkable thing that Christianity seems to have begun (so he said) at the precise same time that Jesus was supposed to have lived, and he presented that observation as being far too much of a coincidence for it to be anything other than true … i.e. in Tassman's belief, true that Jesus must have been real otherwise Christianity would not have begun at that time (i.e. around 30AD) …

... but as several of us immediately pointed out to him, his logic there is entirely fallacious and is getting everything completely backwards!

That's not a coincidence at all. Firstly it's the exact same source, ie the bible, which is telling you that Jesus lived around 30AD and also telling you that the new preaching was called "Chrsitianity"! It's the same source telling you that what was being preached by Jesus was to be called "Christian".

However, from as far back as at least 600BC the OT had prophecised the coming of a "Christ" as the messenger from God to save the fortunes of the people of Israel. So the "Christ" belief was certainly not new with Jesus ... it had been universal teaching/belief for at least 600 years by then!

And that same Christ belief was exactly what Paul was preaching (apparently from around 35AD).

So why did people believe preachers like Paul, even though Paul made clear that he'd never known any such “Christ” of the past? Well they believed it because by that date (e.g. 30AD), there were apparently many preachers like Paul in Judea, saying that the older traditional views of messiah prophecy from the OT had been misunderstood, and that they now had a new correct interpretation of those OT prophets, which said that the promised “Christ” would be a priestly leader warning the faithful to gather in readiness of what was then claimed to be the imminent day of Gods apocalypse … and that's not guesswork – that is exactly what Paul was preaching, and in the Dead Sea scrolls, according to the book by Stephen Hodge (which I have referenced here before about 5 or 6 times already), he says that writing from the Scrolls between about 200BC all the way through to about 70AD shows that by that time, i.e. from about 200+ years before Paul or Jesus, there were many preachers in that region preaching different variations of that newer apocalyptic priestly interpretation of messiah prophecy …

… so in case the point is not super-clear (which it jolly well should be) – it's obvious from all of that, that versions of “Christianity” such as Paul was preaching, had (according to Hodge) been commonplace in the region for at least 200 years before anyone heard of Jesus and Christianity … although a term like “Christianity” only means belief in the long prophecised (from 600BC) “Christ” (i.e. the “Messiah”) … so that word “Christianity” just sounds like an entirely general name for such long held beliefs anyway.

But even apart from all of that – it is a well known type of logical fallacious argument, i.e. an erroneous piece of reasoning/argument, to claim that Jesus must surely have existed just because you cannot personally think of another better explanation for why “Christianity” existed – that is called the fallacy of “argument from ignorance” or more kindly put the “argument from personal incredulity” … that's not a valid argument. And it's even less of a valid argument to proceed from that false basis to claiming that your opponents must therefore produce an explanation that satisfies you as to why Jesus and Christianity became believed at that time …

… there is zero obligation on any HJ-sceptics here to provide you with a guess as to why Jesus and Christianity became prevalent at a time that was said to be around 30AD. Your critics here have no obligation whatsoever to do any such thing.

OK, so just to summarise all of that -

1 Contrary to what Tassman kept posting –

- there is no coincidence about Jesus being said to have lived around the same time that some people may have started using the term "Christianity".

2 Contrary to recent claims here -

- there is no obligation on any sceptics to guess at how Christianity started without a real Jesus

3 The claim in 2 (above) is a well known logical fallacy. That is – the claim is completely invalid.

4 According to the book by Hodge - the “Christ” belief that Paul was preaching was very similar to a number of variations of Christ belief being preached in that region from as far back as 200 years or more before Paul & Jesus.

 

[Jerrymander]

That's not a coincidence at all. Firstly it's the exact same source, ie the bible, which is telling you that Jesus lived around 30AD and also telling you that the new preaching was called "Chrsitianity"! It's the same source telling you that what was being preached by Jesus was to be called "Christian".

The bible is not "one source". Its a collection of ancient writings that people decided to put together. That's one strike against you.

However, from as far back as at least 600BC the OT had prophecised the coming of a "Christ" as the messenger from God to save the fortunes of the people of Israel. So the "Christ" belief was certainly not new with Jesus ... it had been universal teaching/belief for at least 600 years by then!

A "Christ" who was killed and rose from the dead? Nope.

And that same Christ belief was exactly what Paul was preaching (apparently from around 35AD).

So why did people believe preachers like Paul, even though Paul made clear that he'd never known any such “Christ” of the past? Well they believed it because by that date (e.g. 30AD), there were apparently many preachers like Paul in Judea, saying that the older traditional views of messiah prophecy from the OT had been misunderstood, and that they now had a new correct interpretation of those OT prophets, which said that the promised “Christ” would be a priestly leader warning the faithful to gather in readiness of what was then claimed to be the imminent day of Gods apocalypse … and that's not guesswork – that is exactly what Paul was preaching, and in the Dead Sea scrolls, according to the book by Stephen Hodge (which I have referenced here before about 5 or 6 times already), he says that writing from the Scrolls between about 200BC all the way through to about 70AD shows that by that time, i.e. from about 200+ years before Paul or Jesus, there were many preachers in that region preaching different variations of that newer apocalyptic priestly interpretation of messiah prophecy …

All you're doing is stating that back then there were making different prophecies about the messiah. Where are the people actually making up a messiah? Where are the dying-and-rising messiahs pre-Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is dead in the water.

There is no historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Even in the NT, the so-called Paul became converted while he was blinded by a bright light and heard a voice.

Saul/Paul only required belief in a voice.

Examine Acts.

Acts 9.3

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks...

Examine Galatians
Galatians 1.15-17

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus...

The so-called Paul had no interest whatsoever in anyone who claimed to be an apostle of Jesus and did not need them because he heard from his resurrected Jesus who was in heaven.

Belief is the basis for the Jesus cult of Christians not history.

Romans 10. 9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

It is documented.

Belief in the resurrection [a non-historical event] is the fundamental requirement to become a Jesus cult Christian.

 

[IanS]

The bible is not "one source". Its a collection of ancient writings that people decided to put together. That's one strike against you.

No, the bible is NOT a "Strike" against what I said -

- I said the bible is the source that told us about Jesus, and also the source that describes "Christianity". It's what Tassman was using to say that it was an amazing coincidence that we first hear of Jesus at the same time when we first hear of Christianity ... but he (Tassman) is hearing about both Jesus & Christinity from that same bible as his source!

Look - where do you think anyone got the idea of Jesus from if not from the biblical writing?

Honestly, some of things you post (actually it's all the things you post) are one list of mistakes after another.

 

[Jerrymander]

No, the bible is NOT a "Strike" against what I said -

- I said the bible is the source that told us about Jesus, and also the source that describes "Christianity". It's what Tassman was using to say that it was an amazing coincidence that we first hear of Jesus at the same time when we first hear of Christianity ... but he (Tassman) is hearing about both Jesus & Christinity from that same bible as his source!

I believe what @Tassman is saying is that the earliest reports of Jesus (Paul) are dated a few decades after he is said to lived (during the reign of Pilate in the gospels). Paul and the gospels are independent sources.

Look - where do you think anyone got the idea of Jesus from if not from the biblical writing?

Um, an actual Jesus?

You said they they're were a bunch of people making different prophecies about what the messiah who be in Paul's time but where are actual examples of messiahs being completely made up? We know of other people whose supporters have claimed was the messiah. Are they made up too?

 

[IanS]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12. Do not discuss your ignore list in threads where that is not the subject.

But have you read any books that makes a comprehensive case that there really was a HJ? The only things I've read that come close are Dr Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" and Dr EP Sanders' excellent "The Historical Figure of Jesus", both of which disappointingly seemed to me to be based on assumptions that have been around forever.

Don't get me wrong. I think the assumptions can be backed up by the evidence. I just haven't seen them backed up. So I keep an open mind towards the idea of ahistoricity. That's not to say that the popular side of mythicism (e.g. the "Zeitgeist" movie) isn't as nutty as Creationism. The arguments by IanS and dejuror are good examples of the more irrational side of mythicism. But Dr Carrier and Earl Doherty have at least made comprehensive cases. There is nothing similar on the HJ side as far as I know. I'd love to know differently.

What HJ book do you recommend that makes an actual case for historicity, starting from a position that it isn't assumed in the first place?

I'm sorry that you think what I have written is irrational (you cannot really think it's "mythicism" though, since I have never said Jesus was just a myth, and have on the contrary said many times that I have no idea if he was real or not). The posts are simply explaining why I do not think that evidence claimed here by the pro-HJ posters is actually any sort of evidence to show Jesus was actually real. And I have also explained why I think that all the evidence that we do actually have, and there is now a huge amount of it, is very strongly against the existence of a HJ that was ever known to anyone as a living person ... and I just phrase it that way because I am not saying that the evidence is against the existence of a HJ, since for one thing it's pretty much impossible to find evidence of something not existing, but I put it that way to emphasise that the evidence is very much against what any of those biblical writers said about Jesus ... or if you prefer, to put that yet another way - the evidence is only evidence of peoples beliefs & where those beliefs were belief in constant supernatural happenings of a religious nature.

The other issue is about me saying that I've tried to cover these things in some considerable detail. And what I mean by that, is (a) that I have honestly tried to explain what I mean when I write explanatory sentences, and (b) I am not doing as many pro-HJ posters do in so many of these HJ threads and just writing back with curt dismissive, but content-less, one line replies.

And by the way, I also have E.P.Sanders book (which I have read ... many years ago), Doherty's first book, 3 of Carriers books inc. On The Historicity of Jesus, 2 books from Bart Ehrman inc. Did Jesus Exist, as well as about half a dozen others from sceptical authors like G.A. Wells, Alvar Ellegard and Hector Avalos (plus about 6 books on the Dead Sea Scrolls (of which the best by far is the small book I mentioned by Hodge ... which is not at all an atheist book and which says nothing at all about Jesus mythicism). So I have now read quite a lot on this subject ... and if it looks as if most of it is books from sceptics (called "mythicists"), that's really because I already knew what pro-HJ posters were saying on the old Richard Dawkins forum 12 years ago, and I wanted to see how convincing the "mythicist" books were in making a case against what almost everyone believed, or just took for granted, about the reality of Jesus.

And all that I have posted on this subject, both here in this thread, in previous threads here, and what is now many thousands of posts over that last 12 years, is all exactly the same main points made in all of those sceptic books … so if you really think I am posting “irrational mythicism” then you must also be dismissing almost all that any sceptical author of those above books has written as all just “irrational mythicism”.

 

[dejudge]

I believe what @Tassman is saying is that the earliest reports of Jesus (Paul) are dated a few decades after he is said to lived (during the reign of Pilate in the gospels). Paul and the gospels are independent sources.

The earliest NT story about Jesus is found in the short gMark. The Pauline writer claimed he was a persecutor of the believers in Christ and that Jesus had already resurrected.

The Pauline story of his resurrected Jesus was fabricated by himself since he claimed not to have received his gospel from any man.

You said they they're were a bunch of people making different prophecies about what the messiah who be in Paul's time but where are actual examples of messiahs being completely made up? We know of other people whose supporters have claimed was the messiah. Are they made up too?

The story of the water-walking, transfiguring Jesus, the son of a Ghost, God Creator and Messiah who resurrected and ascended to heaven must have been made.

It is irrelevant whether or not there were other made up characters before, during, or after the time of Pilate.

 

[Brainache]

I'm sorry that you think what I have written is irrational (you cannot really think it's "mythicism" though, since I have never said Jesus was just a myth, and have on the contrary said many times that I have no idea if he was real or not). The posts are simply explaining why I do not think that evidence claimed here by the pro-HJ posters is actually any sort of evidence to show Jesus was actually real. And I have also explained why I think that all the evidence that we do actually have, and there is now a huge amount of it, is very strongly against the existence of a HJ that was ever known to anyone as a living person ... and I just phrase it that way because I am not saying that the evidence is against the existence of a HJ, since for one thing it's pretty much impossible to find evidence of something not existing, but I put it that way to emphasise that the evidence is very much against what any of those biblical writers said about Jesus ... or if you prefer, to put that yet another way - the evidence is only evidence of peoples beliefs & where those beliefs were belief in constant supernatural happenings of a religious nature.

A few pages ago Delvo posted a very long list of all of the various Jesus stories (yes there are a lot of them, from various sources) and their content. It turns out that most of those Jesus stories were just Jesus talking, giving his little parabolic spin to various religious teachings. He is not depicted (generally) as any more miraculous than many "Holy Men" of the time.

AFAICT you simply ignored this list and continue to insist that "Biblical Writing" is a single useless source. This is a denial of everything that serious Scholars (Christian or otherwise) actually study. Your contention seems to be that Academic rigour is never applied in this subject. If so, I think you are wrong.

The other issue is about me saying that I've tried to cover these things in some considerable detail. And what I mean by that, is (a) that I have honestly tried to explain what I mean when I write explanatory sentences, and (b) I am not doing as many pro-HJ posters do in so many of these HJ threads and just writing back with curt dismissive, but content-less, one line replies.

I'm sorry if you think I'm curt or dismissive. I admit that I sometimes lose patience...

Having said that, I'm often asking questions which I genuinely think you may not have considered, like the one about the Jewish Bible Scholars, why aren't they all saying that Jesus was made-up from OT Prophecies? (it's their book after all, they should know who is and isn't prophesied in it) Not one of them AFAIK has argued for a MJ. This is a serious question which has been consistently ignored, will you respond to it now?

And by the way, I also have E.P.Sanders book (which I have read ... many years ago), Doherty's first book, 3 of Carriers books inc. On The Historicity of Jesus, 2 books from Bart Ehrman inc. Did Jesus Exist, as well as about half a dozen others from sceptical authors like G.A. Wells, Alvar Ellegard and Hector Avalos (plus about 6 books on the Dead Sea Scrolls (of which the best by far is the small book I mentioned by Hodge ... which is not at all an atheist book and which says nothing at all about Jesus mythicism). So I have now read quite a lot on this subject ... and if it looks as if most of it is books from sceptics (called "mythicists"), that's really because I already knew what pro-HJ posters were saying on the old Richard Dawkins forum 12 years ago, and I wanted to see how convincing the "mythicist" books were in making a case against what almost everyone believed, or just took for granted, about the reality of Jesus.

And all that I have posted on this subject, both here in this thread, in previous threads here, and what is now many thousands of posts over that last 12 years, is all exactly the same main points made in all of those sceptic books … so if you really think I am posting “irrational mythicism” then you must also be dismissing almost all that any sceptical author of those above books has written as all just “irrational mythicism”.

The problem is that even though you have read widely and deeply on the subject, your arguments often betray a profound lack of understanding of how Ancient History is actually studied.

There have been actual Historians and various experts come in and out of these threads over the years and every single one of them has told you that you are wrong. Most of them have taken some time and effort to explain why the HJ is generally considered an uncontroversial most likely explanation for the origins of Christianity. They are usually met with accusations of being "Closet Christians" and calls for "credible evidence of someone meeting a human Jesus" despite being told over and over again that the study of History doesn't work that way.

When one finds oneself opposed to every expert on a subject about which one is an outsider and an amateur, it might be time to reconsider your position. Something to think about, maybe?

History isn't an established set of "Facts" about "What Really Happened," it's an on-going public debate. It is ALL opinions. A Historian (Bible Scholar, whatever) publishes an Opinion about some aspect of the field. Other Scholars rip it apart if it isn't supported by the evidence, or not, if the Opinion is well-formed and well supported. And the debate moves on. It is all based on what is most plausible, most likely to have happened and that is all History ever can be.

Opinions change over time as new evidence emerges and new hypotheses are offered to explain it. These new Opinions have to account for the totality of the evidence that supported the old Opinions, plus whatever new evidence there is, not just one or two lines of possible interpolation here and there.

Like it or not, until someone puts together a MJ Hypothesis which not only accounts for all the evidence we have, but doesn't rely on inventing strange concepts like "cosmic sperm banks" or "sub-Platonic heavenly realms" (that no one has ever heard of, let alone based entire cults around) to explain common phrases like "seed of David", the HJ remains most likely.

That's all it is and all any Historical explanation ever can be: "most likely".
It's not rocket science.

PS: I think you should get a second opinion on your Dead Sea Scrolls info. It doesn't match my understanding of the material at all. I recommend Prof Robert Eisenman for all your DSS needs. He has the added bonus of being hated by the Establishment and he is better qualified than Carrier. Do yourself a favour and look him up...

 

[dejudge]

A few pages ago Delvo posted a very long list of all of the various Jesus stories (yes there are a lot of them, from various sources) and their content. It turns out that most of those Jesus stories were just Jesus talking, giving his little parabolic spin to various religious teachings. He is not depicted (generally) as any more miraculous than many "Holy Men" of the time.

The lists from Delvo was really a load of crap.

There are NT stories of the Devil talking to Jesus, an angel talking to Zacharias at the Jewish Temple and the angel Gabriel conversing with the Virgin Mary in Galilee.

It is most absurd to assume a character was a figure of history simply because it talked on earth.

How ridiculous.

Having said that, I'm often asking questions which I genuinely think you may not have considered, like the one about the Jewish Bible Scholars, why aren't they all saying that Jesus was made-up from OT Prophecies? (it's their book after all, they should know who is and isn't prophesied in it) Not one of them AFAIK has argued for a MJ. This is a serious question which has been consistently ignored, will you respond to it now?

Christian writers stated that it was agreed without question that their Jesus was supernatural but that his flesh was questioned.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.
It is His flesh that is in question.
Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.
Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?

How many times must we show that Christians themselves did not agree that their Savior existed in the flesh?

The fact the Christians were arguing for hundreds of years about the existence of their Savior in the flesh must mean there was no credible historical evidence for his existence.

In fact, the Christians who argued that their Savior existed in the flesh used passages from Hebrew Scripture that had nothing whatsoever to do with the birth of their Jesus.