Historical Jesus

[GDon]

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.

That's it exactly. As I posted earlier in response to someone's point, the way the argument is framed by the question "Do you believe in a HJ?" misrepresents the debate.

The question is: "What is the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity based on an analysis of the data that we have?"

If the answer is: "Looking at the existing data, the most likely explanation is an MJ" (which seems to be Doherty's position), then that's fine. We can discuss the data.

If the answer is: "Looking at the existing data, an MJ fits as the better explanation over an HJ" (which is Dr Carrier's position), then that's fine. We can discuss the data.

If the answer is: "Looking at the existing data, we can't determine either way", then that's fine. We can discuss the data.

But to say "We need MORE data, for example evidence that someone actually met Jesus before we can make a decision on the existing data" raises the bar much higher than for any other figure in history. It's pointless to argue over the existing data under such a restriction.

Do we have enough existing data to come to some kind of a conclusion? Carrier's use of Bayes Theorem in his evaluation of the data makes for a useful thought experiment. It suggests that we do indeed have enough data to come to some kind of conclusion. For Carrier, a case for a HJ can indeed be made with the existing data, but it's just that he sees the MJ side as stronger. Fair enough. Of course, as the existing data gets re-examined and additional evidence becomes available, we can re-evaluate.

 

[dejudge]

That's it exactly. As I posted earlier in response to someone's point, the way the argument is framed by the question "Do you believe in a HJ?" misrepresents the debate.

The question is: "What is the best explanation for the origin of Christianity based on an analysis of the data that we have?"

If the answer is: "Looking at the existing data, the best explanation is an MJ" (which seems to be Doherty's position), then that's fine. We can discuss the data.

If the answer is: "Looking at the existing data, an MJ fits as the better explanation over an HJ" (which is Dr Carrier's position), then that's fine. We can discuss the data.

If the answer is: "Looking at the existing data, we can't determine either way", then that's fine. We can discuss the data.

But to say "We need MORE data, for example evidence that someone actually met Jesus before we can make a decision on the existing data" raises the bar much higher than for any other figure in history. It's pointless to argue over the existing data under such a restriction.

Carrier's use of Bayes Theorem in his evaluation of the data makes for a useful thought experiment. It suggests that we do indeed have enough data to come to some kind of conclusion. For Carrier, a case for a HJ can indeed be made with the existing data, but it's just that he sees the MJ side as stronger. Fair enough. Of course, as additional evidence becomes available, we can re-evaluate.

Your post resolves nothing.

You have already admitted that the HJ arguments you have seen so far are disappointing based on assumptions that have not been backed up.

You have no data to back up the admitted assumptions made in HJ arguments.

What is the best explanation for HJ arguments based on assumptions?

Failed worthless arguments.

 

[Jerrymander]

Your post resolves nothing.

You have already admitted that the HJ arguments you have seen so far are disappointing based on assumptions that have not been backed up.

You have no data to back up the admitted assumptions made in HJ arguments.

What is the best explanation for HJ arguments based on assumptions?

Failed worthless arguments.

Was that response necessary or do you like being rude to people. We know what you think, you don't need to keep repeating it.

 

[Tassman]

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) …

That's not the argument. The argument is that an actual historical figure is the most likely explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere - with all the magical embellishments added as the story grew in the telling. It's not proof nor is it claimed to be, merely the most probable explanation.

The alternative is your bizarre claim that a host of unidentified people suddenly, for no apparent reason, decided to examine the Hebrew scriptures for evidence of a messianic figure that morphed into the magical, resurrecting miracle worker that began the Jesus movement. Not that there is any substantive evidence supporting this speculation, nor is it taken seriously by the majority of scholars.

 

[dejudge]

That's not the argument. The argument is that an actual historical figure is the most likely explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere - with all the magical embellishments added as the story grew in the telling. It's not proof nor is it claimed to be, merely the most probable explanation.

An HJ cannot be the best explanation at all when you have no historical evidence.

The best explanation is just as Christian writers stated that the Jesus cult of Christians originated in stories about a supernatural character called Jesus Christ who was God came down from heaven and was born of a Virgin.

There is no need to fabricate a mundane character from your imagination.

Christian writers have explained everything.

Their writings have survived.

The stories that Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews was fabricated -propaganda -to explain the reason for the destruction of the Temple and the Fall of Jerusalem.

Hippolytus Treatise Against the Jews

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?
Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf?
Was it on account of the idolatry of the people?
Was it for the blood of the prophets?
Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel?

By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

People who believed those stories were called Christians.

It was believed that since the Jewish Temple was destroyed c 70 CE that the prophesied Jewish Messiah must have already come based on Hebrew Scripture.

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.

Jesus, the water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting and son of a Ghost born of a virgin who was crucified because of the Jews was just a story invented after the destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Those who believed that teaching are called Christians and have become famous.

 

[IanS]

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.

No! Tassman was talking about the religion called "Christianity" and saying it was strong evidence of Jesus that "Christianity" appeared at the exact same date that Jesus was talked about. But that's a ridiculous claim as evidence of Jesus ... and several of us pointed that out to him ... and he still never understood the problem ... and in fact most of the HJ posters here then picked that up to claim that there could be no good explanation of Christianity ever appearing unless Jesus was a real person!

You, and your fellow HJ people have been claiming, along with Tassman, that the appearance of what became called "Christianity" is evidence of Jesus ... and where all the HJ-posters here were claiming that sceptics could not explain the rise of Christianity unless Jesus was indeed a real person ... and that sort of reasoning just goes to show the complete & utter ineptitude of the HJ arguments being presented here ... it probably shows why people still falsely believe that they have good evidence for a HJ, ie because they have no conception of what genuine credible evidence is for anything ... they think that any mention of anything is evidence that the thing is actually true/real! ...

... just because anyone says something, just because people believe things, just because people wrote gospels and letters about supernatural religious beliefs, that is no evidence at all that any of their beliefs were ever true.

Um, an actual Jesus?

No! They did not get it from an actual Jesus. Who was it that ever met an “actual Jesus” - answer; nobody! The people we are talking about who wrote about their belief in Jesus, had never known any such person … they did not get the belief from a living human Jesus. People writing after the earliest NT writing, eg after Paul's letters, got the belief from that earlier writing … and the earliest writers such as Paul actually tell us that he got it from divine revelation and from scripture, and definitely not from ever meeting any real Jesus and where he is insistent that nobody else told him about it either! … he got it from what he believed was OT biblical prophecy.

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?

Well for start – Jesus was always described as constantly supernatural. It's simply untrue, and quite blatantly so for people here to keep saying that he did human things because in each miracle story he walked to some place, spoke to some afflicted person and then produced the miracle … that's a claim of a miracle story. And frankly it's insulting peoples intelligence to try claiming these are not miracle stories because the supernatural Christ walked & talked and ate supper. So in the gospels and letters, Jesus is very similar indeed to all of the other gods ever claimed in any religion … and in all of that NT biblical writing it is claimed he was the Son of God in heaven … that is a claim saying that Jesus was actually a god or in fact he was Yahweh himself in a different form that was required when that God needed to descend to the Earth.

So that's the first thing to note – ie Jesus is like all the other thousands of supernatural gods of religion. And they are all fictional.

But even if you talk just about Jewish religion – King David was iirc said to be the messiah in the OT, but now even Christian biblical scholars agree that David may well have been just a figure of fiction … in which case David would be a fictional invention claimed as the promised “messiah”.

But even apart form all that – you are yet again making the fallacy of “argument from personal ignorance & incredulity”. You are claiming that just because you can't conceive of a how or why religious fanatics in that region between 1000BC and (say) 200AD would ever do something as untrue as invent stories of a supernatural scion of God descending to Earth as the promised religious saviour, that there it must be true that Jesus was really the messiah! And you are again insisting that sceptics must explain in a way that convinces you (when clearly you can never be convinced by anything that you do not already believe in this subject), how & why people may have simply invented the stories of a supernatural Jesus … but there is no obligation for any sceptics here to explain that to you … all that any sceptic has to do is ask you for the evidence of Jesus ever being known to anyone … and the fact is that you have no such evidence of a real Jesus at all … (but in any case, sceptics here have repeatedly explained how & why the Jesus stories were invented … as Randel Helms showed, for a start they were clearly being created from much earlier prophecy in the OT … and Paul even tells you that was what he was doing!).

Have a look at what Wiki says about ancient Jewish prophetic beliefs in the coming of a saviour messiah, and note things like what it says there about the Book of Daniel (circa mid 2nd cent, BC) -

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


Main article:*Book of Daniel
The Book of Daniel (mid-2nd c. BCE) was quoted and referenced by both Jews and Christians in the 1st century CE as predicting the imminent end-time.[20]*The concepts of*immortality*and*resurrection, with rewards for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, have roots much deeper than Daniel, but the first clear statement is found in the final chapter of that book: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt."[21]*Without this belief,*Christianity, in which the*resurrection of Jesus*plays a central role, would have disappeared, like the movements following other charismatic Jewish figures of the 1st century.[22]



And finally, apart from all of the above - what you are doing here is trying to re-run all the same old claims, all of which have been answered here many, MANY times, and in considerable detail ... you are trying to re-run every argument an infinite number of times, indefinitely over & over again ... all of these answers have been given literally hundreds of times in these threads, and this has now got to stop - there is a bottom line here and that is -

- you have zero evidence of a living human Jesus ever existing.

Just post evidence that truly shows Jesus as a human person who anyone ever claimed to have known.

If you cannot do that, then your belief in HJ is a belief made upon faith alone.

 

[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?

Gdon, I know you are refusing to respond, but others here can read these posts (inc. the sceptics replies), and that includes people who read these threads without ever posting anything. So whilst I don't expect to persuade you or the other pro-HJ posters here, there is a wider audience to be considered here. But having said that -

- if you think (or in fact now concede in the above) that people who you are relying on as the most expert academics in this field, such as Ehrman and Sanders (and we could include countless others such as Dominic Crossan who have written extensively about Jesus), if even they in their books specifically claiming to produce the evidence are in your own words “disappointingly seemed to me to be based on assumptions that have been around forever”, then how on eEarth are you then concluding that “I think the assumptions can be backed up by the evidence. I just haven't seen them backed up.” ?? …

… you are saying there in unmistakable terms, that the very people who you insist must be believed as experts far beyond any sceptics here (and indeed far beyond academics in other fields who have written to explain why they are far from convinced by the claimed evidence offered by biblical scholars such as Ehrman, Sanders, Crossan and the rest), actually have NOT shown you any convincing evidence even in the very books where they claim to show you all the evidence!

There is a massive claim of evidence from those authors. Indeed a claim so strong that they all claim it to be absolute certainty. But as you yourself have discovered, what they are claiming as all the evidence, is in fact no such evidence at all! None!

What they are claiming to be such enormous evidence of Jesus, is only ever evidence of peoples religious beliefs in Jesus. But that comes from biblical writers who had never known any such Jesus. Those writers had none of their own evidence to give! All they could do was to make un-evidenced claims to say that a supernatural Jesus was once known to people of the past … but where none of those other people ever wrote a single word to confirm that they had ever said anything of the sort.

We are talking here entirely and purely about religious belief in Jesus. And that was overwhelmingly a belief in supernatural divine prophesies existing from many hundreds of years BC.

 

[Jerrymander]

No! They did not get it from an actual Jesus. Who was it that ever met an “actual Jesus” - answer; nobody! The people we are talking about who wrote about their belief in Jesus, had never known any such person … they did not get the belief from a living human Jesus. People writing after the earliest NT writing, eg after Paul's letters, got the belief from that earlier writing … and the earliest writers such as Paul actually tell us that he got it from divine revelation and from scripture, and definitely not from ever meeting any real Jesus and where he is insistent that nobody else told him about it either! … he got it from what he believed was OT biblical prophecy.

You still keep repeating the "never meant an actual Jesus" or ""divine revelation", as if its an argument against HJ. It isn't. Paul believed Jesus used to be human and met his followers and brother. PEROID.

Well for start – Jesus was always described as constantly supernatural. It's simply untrue, and quite blatantly so for people here to keep saying that he did human things because in each miracle story he walked to some place, spoke to some afflicted person and then produced the miracle … that's a claim of a miracle story. And frankly it's insulting peoples intelligence to try claiming these are not miracle stories because the supernatural Christ walked & talked and ate supper. So in the gospels and letters, Jesus is very similar indeed to all of the other gods ever claimed in any religion … and in all of that NT biblical writing it is claimed he was the Son of God in heaven … that is a claim saying that Jesus was actually a god or in fact he was Yahweh himself in a different form that was required when that God needed to descend to the Earth.

Yeah another variation of the "people claimed he was supernatural, therefore myth" talking point. No one in scholarship takes that idea seriously. Just New Athiest polemics. Jesus was portrayed as an earthly human. He is not depicted living in some divine realm but with with family and friends and killed by earthly rulers. In the first three gospels, he takes about the Kingdom of God and never outright claims to be God. Only in John does he do that.

But even if you talk just about Jewish religion – King David was iirc said to be the messiah in the OT, but now even Christian biblical scholars agree that David may well have been just a figure of fiction … in which case David would be a fictional invention claimed as the promised “messiah”.

David was never considered a messiah. How could he? The messiah was supposed to bring back the monarchy. David WAS the monarchy. Even if he was fictional, which is disputed. He probably wasn't made up out of nothing by someone who lived close to the time he was said to live.

But even apart form all that – you are yet again making the fallacy of “argument from personal ignorance & incredulity”. You are claiming that just because you can't conceive of a how or why religious fanatics in that region between 1000BC and (say) 200AD would ever do something as untrue as invent stories of a supernatural scion of God descending to Earth as the promised religious saviour, that there it must be true that Jesus was really the messiah! And you are again insisting that sceptics must explain in a way that convinces you (when clearly you can never be convinced by anything that you do not already believe in this subject), how & why people may have simply invented the stories of a supernatural Jesus … but there is no obligation for any sceptics here to explain that to you … all that any sceptic has to do is ask you for the evidence of Jesus ever being known to anyone … and the fact is that you have no such evidence of a real Jesus at all … (but in any case, sceptics here have repeatedly explained how & why the Jesus stories were invented … as Randel Helms showed, for a start they were clearly being created from much earlier prophecy in the OT … and Paul even tells you that was what he was doing!).

Its not argument from incredulity, its Occam's Razor. You're the one trying to find convoluted explanations for the origins of the Jesus tradition.

Have a look at what Wiki says about ancient Jewish prophetic beliefs in the coming of a saviour messiah, and note things like what it says there about the Book of Daniel (circa mid 2nd cent, BC) -

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


Main article:*Book of Daniel
The Book of Daniel (mid-2nd c. BCE) was quoted and referenced by both Jews and Christians in the 1st century CE as predicting the imminent end-time.[20]*The concepts of*immortality*and*resurrection, with rewards for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, have roots much deeper than Daniel, but the first clear statement is found in the final chapter of that book: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt."[21]*Without this belief,*Christianity, in which the*resurrection of Jesus*plays a central role, would have disappeared, like the movements following other charismatic Jewish figures of the 1st century.[22]

That explains the origin for belief in resurrection among Jews and Christians. Nothing about the messiah being resurrected. Again, you are repeating Christian doctrine that these prophecies refer to the messiah when that was never believed pre-Jesus.

I'll leave it on what Paul says.

1 Corinthians 1:23: "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,"

 

[IanS]

You still keep repeating the "never meant an actual Jesus" or ""divine revelation", as if its an argument against HJ. It isn't. Paul believed Jesus used to be human and met his followers and brother. PEROID.
....
....

< the rest of that post snipped to avoid yet more waste of space>

I am sorry, but I really do think from your posts that you must be an absolutely fanatical Christian who simply cannot see past is own faith beliefs. Just look above at your highlighted sentence where you say “Paul believed Jesus used to be human and met his followers and brother. PEROID.” …. that is just about the most absurd claim in this entire thread (or it would be, except that it's probably only number 68 on the list of your top 100 absurd claims ... claims that you have made in virtually every post here!) …

… you are outright claiming it to be absolute certain fact that Paul believed (actually “knew”, according to your next sentence!) Jesus to be a real human person, and that he definitely met the actual brother of Jesus … but that is all completely untrue from you (and for about the 20th time here from you), because none of that is remotely anywhere near even approaching any known fact!

OK, so it's absolutely impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with someone writing like a religious fanatic in the way that you are …

… just show where/how you have proved as an actual fact that (a) James was definitely the family brother of the biblical Jesus, and (b) show how it is fact that Paul knew Jesus was a real ordinary human preacher.

Just show proofs for your two claims a & b … do not do anything else here, just give the proofs for that.

 

[Jerrymander]

IOK, so it's absolutely impossible to have any sort of rational discussion with someone writing like a religious fanatic in the way that you are …

… just show where/how you have proved as an actual fact that (a) James was definitely the family brother of the biblical Jesus, and (b) show how it is fact that Paul knew Jesus was a real ordinary human preacher.

Just show proofs for your two claims a & b … do not do anything else here, just give the proofs for that.

Nice weasel wording, I should that Paul believed Jesus had a human life and now your demanding I show that he thought Jesus was an "ordinary" preacher. I showed that Paul claimed to have met James the brother of Jesus and now you demanding that I prove that he was actually Jesus' brother. This making up the rules as you go is giving me a headache. Seriously, read up on ancient history and how historians do it. Don't just repeat New Athiest polemics and sea lioning. Why don't you say "Jesus can't exist because we don't have his birth certificate". That would be as effective as all your other arguments.

You've been told the evidence that convinces scholars that Jesus likely existed historically. If you're not convinced by it, that's your problem.

 

[IanS]

Nice weasel wording, I should that Paul believed Jesus had a human life and now your demanding I show that he thought Jesus was an "ordinary" preacher. I showed that Paul claimed to have met James the brother of Jesus and now you demanding that I prove that he was actually Jesus' brother. This making up the rules as you go is giving me a headache. Seriously, read up on ancient history and how historians do it. Don't just repeat New Athiest polemics and sea lioning. Why don't you say "Jesus can't exist because we don't have his birth certificate". That would be as effective as all your other arguments.

You've been told the evidence that convinces scholars that Jesus likely existed historically. If you're not convinced by it, that's your problem.

I just quoted to you your own exact words. And you are still trying to deny it!

Here (again) is your own exact statement -

You still keep repeating the "never meant an actual Jesus" or ""divine revelation", as if its an argument against HJ. It isn't. Paul believed Jesus used to be human and met his followers and brother. PEROID.

There you say “Paul believed Jesus used to be human and met his followers and brother. PEROID.” … there you categorically claim that Paul met the actual brother of Jesus, "PERIOD"! That is a claim presented by you as absolute fact. That claim means that Paul must have actually KNOWN Jesus was human because you say it's fact that he met his human brother!

Please give your proof that -

(a) Paul certainly met the human brother of Jesus

(b) your proof that therefore Paul did not merely “believe” Jesus was human, but according to your claim he must have “Known" for a fact that he was human since you have proved that he met his actual human brother!

Please produce you proofs for a & b.

 

[Brainache]

What am I, chopped liver?

 

[dejudge]

You still keep repeating the "never meant an actual Jesus" or ""divine revelation", as if its an argument against HJ. It isn't. Paul believed Jesus used to be human and met his followers and brother. PEROID.

The Epistles state that Bible Jesus was the Son of God made of a woman and God Creator. PERIOD.

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..

Colossians 1. 16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him..

Bible Jesus in the Epistles was a supernatural being. PERIOD.

 

[IanS]

That's not the argument. The argument is that an actual historical figure is the most likely explanation for the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere - with all the magical embellishments added as the story grew in the telling. It's not proof nor is it claimed to be, merely the most probable explanation.

No! What I described above was indeed your argument, and I quoted it back to you at least 3 times in direct replies to you.

Your argument was that because (according to you) Christianity began at the same time as we heard about the existence of Jesus, that was evidence that Jesus was real ... and as I said directly above ;- several of us immediately pointed out that your claim/belief about that was completely illogical and invalid.

The alternative is your bizarre claim that a host of unidentified people suddenly, for no apparent reason, decided to examine the Hebrew scriptures for evidence of a messianic figure that morphed into the magical, resurrecting miracle worker that began the Jesus movement. Not that there is any substantive evidence supporting this speculation, nor is it taken seriously by the majority of scholars.

Well, that is yet another example of pro-HJ posters deliberately and repeatedly making completely untrue claims about what sceptical posters have said here. What you just claimed above is 100% the opposite of the truth about what I have posted. And I have explained that to you several times already here. Specifically (for the N-th time) -

(1) - it was not "SUDDEN" that people started to examine the ancient scriptures for messiah prophecies - That had been standard religious practice & religious teaching for at least 600 years by the time of Paul & Jesus !!

(2) - it was certainly not for "NO APPARENT REASON" ... they were doing it because they (almost all observant Jews) wanted to understand and believe the meaning of the prophets predictions for the coming of the great God-given saviour Christ.

(3) - there most certainly is "Substantive Evidence" for it, and it is not "SPECULATION", and that most certainly IS known and agreed by ALL "BIBLICAL SCHOLARS" that it was absolutely standard practice & ubiquitous throughout Judaism for devout believers to scour the OT and other scriptures searching for the clues & true understanding of messiah prophecy ... and in fact ALL known evidence from biblical writing shows that is not just what the gospel writers and the letter writers were of course going, but those writers such as Paul actually specifically and repeatedly say exactly that!

(4) what is actually “BIZZARE” here is that you have failed to understand any of the above even though it's been explained to you in unarguable terms hundreds of times! It's unarguable that biblical writers like Paul were certainly scouring ancient scripture for what they hoped to find as the true words of God, spoken through the prophets, to learn the true understanding of the promised saviour Christ … Paul's letters even tell you that, repeatedly! … and authors like Randel Helms have even written entire books about it showing exactly which passages the gospel writers were adapting from the OT to create stories of Jesus …

…. have you read the book by Helms? No? Why not! Get a copy and read the blinking thing!

 

[Tassman]

An HJ cannot be the best explanation at all when you have no historical evidence.

The evidence is the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere. It's not proof, merely the most probable explanation for the origins of the new religion.

The best explanation is just as Christian writers stated that the Jesus cult of Christians originated in stories about a supernatural character called Jesus Christ who was God came down from heaven and was born of a Virgin.

Why would they suddenly start doing this? All the magical embellishments were added as the story grew in the telling - unless you think they were based in fact and there from the very beginning. Personally, I don’t think so. And the stories had to come from somewhere.

There is no need to fabricate a mundane character from your imagination.

Christian writers have explained everything.

What these X’tian writers have described many decades after the alleged events are embellished hearsay and anecdotes.

Their writings have survived.

The stories that Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews was fabricated -propaganda -to explain the reason for the destruction of the Temple and the Fall of Jerusalem.

Nonsense. The destruction of the temple and the fall of Jerusalem marked the conclusion of a four-year campaign against the Jewish insurgency in Judea. The Romans destroyed much of the city, including the Temple.

Hippolytus Treatise Against the Jews

People who believed those stories were called Christians.

It was believed that since the Jewish Temple was destroyed c 70 CE that the prophesied Jewish Messiah must have already come based on Hebrew Scripture.

Jesus, the water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting and son of a Ghost born of a virgin who was crucified because of the Jews was just a story invented after the destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

And you cite the third century apologist Hippolytus’ Treatise Against the Jews to prove this. How would he know? He was just retrofitting the Jesus story to fit a few selected OT passages - a common practice of apologists even today. There’s a perfectly good explanation for the destruction of the temple without relying on apologist propaganda which is not in any way related to the Jesus myth.

 

[IanS]

The evidence is the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere. It's not proof, merely the most probable explanation for the origins of the new religion.


Why would they suddenly start doing this? All the magical embellishments were added as the story grew in the telling - unless you think they were based in fact and there from the very beginning. Personally, I don’t think so. And the stories had to come from somewhere.

.

You say it's so very sudden. But why do you think it was sudden?

Everyone in Judea had been expecting the Christ to appear for at least 600 years by then! That's not very "sudden" is it!!

And since about 200BC its seems (e.g. see Hodge, refs given before) numerous preachers in that specific small region had been preaching about an apocalyptically priestly messiah, which is the same as Paul was preaching over 200 years later ... that's not sudden at all, is it!

As I had said almost back amongst my very first few posts on the HJ threads over 12 years ago "the only minor mystery here seems to be the name Yehosua/Iesous (i.e. "Jesus")" ... but I just explained a few posts back the clear link between the two theophoric names "Yehosua" and "Emmanuel" ... and you can certainly find Emmanuel as the predicted Christ in much earlier OT scripture. See also Carrier re. Pliny mentioning a Christ actually named "Yehosua" even before any of Paul's letters ... so that would not have been at all sudden either!

But whatever anyone is talking about, whether it is Jesus and Christianity, or anything else, it has to start somewhere. Though of course it also almost always turns out that the more people study those earlier beginnings of anything, the more they find that roots and similarities etc. stretch much further back in time, but that is exactly the same as I've just pointed out with Christ and the ancient OT references etc. It was not “sudden”.

 

[Jerrymander]

@IanS Show evidence of a belief in an executed and rising messiah pre-Jesus or any tradition pre-Jesus of interpreting the "suffering servant" as a messianic prophecy. Show evidence of messiahs being made up whole-cloth. No more "just so" stories. If you can't do this then just give it up.

 

[dejudge]

The evidence is the sudden appearance of the Jesus movement from out of nowhere. It's not proof, merely the most probable explanation for the origins of the new religion.

You seem to have very little knowledge of the vast amount of cults in antiquity which must have suddenly appeared from out of nowhere.

The Valentinians, Marcosians, Marcionites, Basilidians, Carpocrites, Ptolemians, Colorbasians, Saturnilians, the cult of Justinus, the cult of Tatian, the Docetae, the cult of Monoimus and others started suddenly out of nowhere in the 1st and 2nd century and worshiped multiple versions of supernatural deities.

The sudden appearance of a cult is not evidence that the deity they worship was human.

The best explanation is just as Christian writers stated that the Jesus cult of Christians originated in stories about a supernatural character called Jesus Christ who was God came down from heaven and was born of a Virgin.

Why would they suddenly start doing this? All the magical embellishments were added as the story grew in the telling - unless you think they were based in fact and there from the very beginning. Personally, I don’t think so. And the stories had to come from somewhere.

Christians did state how their cult was started so what you say is really irrelevant.

It is stated in Christians writings that the Jesus cult originated with a story that God came down from heaven and was born of a Virgin and that those who believed the story were called Christians. See Aristides "Apology"

What these X’tian writers have described many decades after the alleged events are embellished hearsay and anecdotes.

The Jesus cult story is that their Jesus was God who came down from heaven and was born of a Virgin.

Your assumptions are really worthless at this stage since you will never ever be able to produce historical evidence for what you say - none whatsoever.

The stories that Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews was fabricated -propaganda -to explain the reason for the destruction of the Temple and the Fall of Jerusalem.

Nonsense. The destruction of the temple and the fall of Jerusalem marked the conclusion of a four-year campaign against the Jewish insurgency in Judea. The Romans destroyed much of the city, including the Temple.

It is documented that Christian writers themselves stated that reason for the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the Fall of Jerusalem was because their Jesus, the Son of God, was killed by the Jews.

Every Christian writer of antiquity who gave a reason for the destruction of the Temple claimed it was because the Jews killed their Jesus, the son of God.

And you cite the third century apologist Hippolytus’ Treatise Against the Jews to prove this. How would he know? He was just retrofitting the Jesus story to fit a few selected OT passages - a common practice of apologists even today. There’s a perfectly good explanation for the destruction of the temple without relying on apologist propaganda which is not in any way related to the Jesus myth.

So, how would you know in the 21st century? All you do is make stuff up from your imagination.

I do no such thing. I present what is found in writings of antiquity.

It is not only Hippolytus who claimed that the destruction of the Jewish Temple and Fall of Jerusalem was because the Jews killed their Jesus the son of God.

Christian writers like Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom and Eusebius also admitted that the killing of their son of God by Jews was the reason for the devastation of the Jewish Temple and Jerusalem.

All existing stories of Jesus of Nazareth are dated after the Fall of the Jewish Temple C 70. PERIOD.

The belief in the Jesus story that God came down from heaven and was born of a Virgin started after c 70 CE. PERIOD

Those who believed the stories were after c 70 CE. PERIOD

People who believed those stories were called Christians. PERIOD

The Jesus cult of Christians originated after c 70 CE. PERIOD

 

[IanS]

@IanS Show evidence of a belief in an executed and rising messiah pre-Jesus or any tradition pre-Jesus of interpreting the "suffering servant" as a messianic prophecy. Show evidence of messiahs being made up whole-cloth. No more "just so" stories. If you can't do this then just give it up.

Before I or anyone else gives you answers to the above (which, actually, we have already given here in some detail, several times ) you are now long overdue in failing to answer the previous 2 questions "a" and "b" from the previous posts, along with you also needing to explain why you made emphatic claims of having evidence for Jesus (actually you were in effect claiming an absolute proof of Jesus!) that you can't back up ... you were asked about those things first, so first we need your answers as to why you did all of that.

 

[Jerrymander]

Before I or anyone else gives you answers to the above (which, actually, we have already given here in some detail, several times ) you are now long overdue in failing to answer the previous 2 questions "a" and "b" from the previous posts, along with you also needing to explain why you made emphatic claims of having evidence for Jesus (actually you were in effect claiming an absolute proof of Jesus!) that you can't back up ... you were asked about those things first, so first we need your answers as to why you did all of that.

I already gave one reason, (sudden emergence of the Jesus movement and the unlikeliness of him being made upon from nowhere) and you repy with "but prophecies". So I refer back to my previous questions.