Historical Jesus

[Kapyong]

Gospel timing

The modern consensus places G.Mark probably in the 70s, G.Matthew and G.Luke probably in the 80s, with G.John probably from the 90s. (None by any eye-witness. There are zero writings from anyone who ever met or saw Jesus.)

But even those dates are not certain – the earliest Christian writings (about 30 books from Paul to the Epistle of the Apostles c.140) make no mention of the Gospels or their Christian stories like the miracles or empty tomb or the virgin birth. Just Paul’s undated unplaced unconnected crucifixion and resurrection beliefs.

Christian Aristides writing in 138-161 (or maybe 117-138), describes a singular written work, named simply “the Gospel”, which had only been preached “for a short time”, suggesting a recent creation.

The first Christian to clearly quote from gospel writings in his possession was Justin Martyr in the 150s, (also the first to mention the empty tomb.) Writings he called “Memoirs of the Apostles” which were also called “Gospels” – but still un-named and un-numbered, and still somewhat different from modern Gospels.

The first pagan writer to review a Gospel was Celsus in the 170s – who rejected it as “fabrications” and “monstrous lies” which were “based on myths”. (Christians burned his book, only fragments remain.)

Also in the 170s Tatian numbered the still un-named Gospels as four with his harmony From Four (the DiaTessaron), presumably the four he inherited from his mentor Justin Martyr.

Finally – the first Christian writer to name the canonical four Gospels was Iraneus in the 180s.

So –
The Gospels and their contents do not enter the written records – either of Christians or otherwise – until mid 2nd century. All originally anonymous and only named in the 180s. All of unknown provenance.

Even if they were written as early as the 70s, they remained un-mentioned by the wider Christian community until early-mid second century. After that, they get mentioned and quoted ad nauseum to this very day.

The Gospels, even so compromised and contradicting, are the critical sources for the Life of Jesus – yet they only appeared about a century after his time, from unknown authors from unknown places who never met the alleged Jesus.

G.Mark was the first, as G.Luke and G.Matthew copy whole slabs word-for-word, with changes suiting their changing dogmas. (G.John is the latest and most supernatural and least reliable.) But G.Mark can be clearly seen as religious literature crafted from scenes and characters of the Jewish scriptures, with a sprinkling of Homer, and showing literary constructions such as chiasms (nested mirrored themes.)

Turtles all the way down.
I think the historicity of Jesus is headed the same way as for Adam and Eve, next was Moses, with Solomon and David now dead in the water.

Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Whether some sect thought he was a purely supernatural being or not doesn't make a difference though because even if that were true which it isn't, it doesn't change that he appeared to be a physical person. Also that doesn't equate to them thinking that Jesus wasn't real but just that God was making himself appear as a human.
I wasn't unaware of them, you were unaware that counter-arguments could exist.

YOU claimed that all early Christians believed that Jesus was a normal person.
Your claim was false.

Now you pretend otherwise ?

You are a liar.

 

[Jerrymander]

It sprang from the same place as the ancient Greek mysteries, or the ancient Egyptian religion of Isis and Osiris, or belief in Bacchus, or many more beliefs and faiths and religions.

Where's your proof that those beliefs appeared as suddenly as Jesus did. Paul was writing in the 50s just twenty years after Pilate, the man who is said to have killed Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

Where's your proof that those beliefs appeared as suddenly as Jesus did. Paul was writing in the 50s just twenty years after Pilate, the man who is said to have killed Jesus.

Happy to hear you talk about proof.

Where's your proof that Bible Paul was writing anything in the 50s?

There is no proof that Bible Paul was writing in the 50s.

There never was any proof of Bible Paul's existence.

 

[dejudge]

...........Pilate, the man who is said to have killed Jesus.

No, No, No!!! Bible Pilate is the man who is said to have found no fault with Bible Jesus.


Luke 23:4

Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

John 19.4

Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know thatI find no fault in him.

 

[Tassman]

It sprang from the same place as the ancient Greek mysteries, or the ancient Egyptian religion of Isis and Osiris, or belief in Bacchus, or many more beliefs and faiths and religions.

The ancient Greco/Roman myths etc. evolved over centuries, they didn’t just spring up out of virtually nowhere as X’tianity seems to have done.

Why do YOU think Christianity is special ?

X’tianity is not “special”, but it is not comparable to ancient mythology.

Perhaps because it is YOUR faith ?

I’m a confirmed atheist – always have been.

It's not that Roman sources are illegitimate - but their CONTENTS.
Do you believe what is found the Roman book The Golden Ass ?
No ?
Because its contents are not believable.
Just like the Gospels.

The gospels were written during a gullible era of wonders and magic, but this is not to say that they weren’t grounded in an historical figure. E.g. there are many legendary accounts surrounding the life of Alexander the Great and he too was deified. But these accretions don’t mean he didn’t exist. We know he did.

The Gospels are myths, not history.

The most probable explanation is that the gospels are greatly embellished stories which coalesced around a mere mortal man over time.

 

[dejudge]

The ancient Greco/Roman myths etc. evolved over centuries, they didn’t just spring up out of virtually nowhere as X’tianity seems to have done.

Multiple cults of Christians sprang out of nowhere which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel story of Jesus as detailed in writings like "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies' attributed to Hippolytus, Prescription against the Heretics' attributed to Tertullian and First Apology attributed to Justin Martyr.

X’tianity is not “special”, but it is not comparable to ancient mythology.

The belief of the Jesus cult Christians is compatible with Greek/Roman mythology and was admitted in Christian writings.

Justin's First Apology XXI

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven,we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

I’m a confirmed atheist – always have been.

Such a claim does not help to determine the historicity/non-historicity of Bible Jesus.

The gospels were written during a gullible era of wonders and magic, but this is not to say that they weren’t grounded in an historical figure. E.g. there are many legendary accounts surrounding the life of Alexander the Great and he too was deified. But these accretions don’t mean he didn’t exist. We know he did.

You seem to have forgotten that there are accounts of the Devil conversing with Bible Jesus at the Jewish Temple and the angel Gabriel talking to Mary in the Bible but that does not mean they existed.

The most probable explanation is that the gospels are greatly embellished stories which coalesced around a mere mortal man over time.

You have no historical evidence whatsoever to support such a probability.

There is no historical record of Bible Jesus on earth at anytime or anywhere. All we have are complete fictional accounts of a water walking, transfiguring, son of a Ghost, the Logos, God creator who ascended to heaven in a cloud.

In addition, all characters associated with Bible Jesus are also without a trace of history, like his family, apostles and Paul are completely unknown in all historical sources.

The existing evidence support the argument that Bible Jesus was a product of belief- never history- similar to the belief in Jewish/Greek/Roman mythology.

 

[Lupus]

Your argument is void of logic.

I wasn't arguing that at all in the quote.

YOU claimed that all early Christians believed that Jesus was a normal person.
Your claim was false.

Now you pretend otherwise ?

You are a liar.

No, I said

Yes, but all of them accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

that he was real. Do you know what I intend better than I do?

That wasn't what you asked, but OK: a preacher who seems to have given the Romans the idea that he was mixing his Jewish theology with rebelliousness against Rome built up a following of a few thousand people, which got attacked by the Romans. The Romans recorded that he escaped, but the other survivors then faced the dilemma that they had lost, which was something a messiah wasn't supposed to do, but they couldn't accept the idea that they might have been wrong about all that, so they figured out that it must have all really been a secret win. Later, there was also another guy who emerged in Jerusalem preaching a much more depressed & depressing theology in which there was no winning and the Romans were about to ruin everything, and parts of his story got combined with his predecessor's as if he was the same guy, which he even could have actually been, with some psychological changes resulting from his earlier experiences.

What do you think is unbelievable about Jesus being the same person for different parts? Also Jesus dying couldn't be a loss because his kingdom is not earthly but heavenly. I've never got the sense that the gospels are depressing, besides maybe that the road to heaven is narrow.

Of course there are, to a far greater extent than any other I'm familiar with. Christianity claims to have the explanations for everything, not just bits & pieces.

Now that I think about you're right in many ways (why events happen and mental illness). I suppose God creating everything makes more sense than a myth because you can think about it abstractly, or is less specific. It still doesn't claim to explain the physical world with Aristole's four elements being the medieval view.

That's far from unique.
Millennia, but it doesn't matter, since others have that too, and sometimes even more/bigger books and even longer history...

I was answering what makes Christianity superior to primitive pagan religions with the most obvious things.

and also because the whole subject is irrelevant because how good or bad or right or wrong an idea is has no correlation with how long it's been around, when it was written, how much was written about it, or how many people have talked/written about it.

I wasn't trying to use that as proof of Christianity being correct, just to knock on Paganism.

I'd have to show that god is real first, that's a premise. I don't think I'll do that yet.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The nonsensical doctrine of the Holy Trinity (i.e. three persons in one god) and the ludicrous Hypostatic Union (i.e. Jesus simultaneously fully god and fully man) were the embarrassing outcomes.

Which they could so easily have avoided with little effort (assuming the entire thing was made up in the second century). So why didn't they? What was the reasoning behind it, if there was no HJ who had to be accommodated?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

the whole subject is irrelevant because how good or bad or right or wrong an idea is has no correlation with how long it's been around, when it was written, how much was written about it, or how many people have talked/written about it.

Not entirely true. An idea which has been practiced for a long time probably has some utility, whereas a new one is unproven. At its birth Christianity was new, and its ideas unproven. But (with modifications to the worst parts) it has stood the test of time - unlike other religions whose ideas were worse.

This is no coincidence. Christianity is a modification of Judaism specifically crafted to make the 'ideas' better. It is a major reason for its popularity.

 

[dejudge]

Not entirely true. An idea which has been practiced for a long time probably has some utility, whereas a new one is unproven. At its birth Christianity was new, and its ideas unproven. But (with modifications to the worst parts) it has stood the test of time - unlike other religions whose ideas were worse.

This is no coincidence. Christianity is a modification of Judaism specifically crafted to make the 'ideas' better. It is a major reason for its popularity.

Christianity is a corruption of Judaism and did not survive because the fables were modified. The cult survived because their beliefs were accepted by the Roman government and were spread by force in the Roman Empire.

If the Roman Government had accepted Marcionism or any other religion then people today would probably not even hear about the fables called Gospels and the Epistles.

By the way, Judaism has survived up to this very day.

Christianity was always a non-Jewish religion and was accepted by those who formerly believed in the Gods of the Greeks and Romans.

Jews regarded the Christian Jesus story as shameful mythology like those of the Greeks.

See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho [the Jew].

Dialogue with Trypho [the Jew] LXVII

And Trypho answered........... in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs......

 

[Delvo]

What do you think is unbelievable about Jesus being the same person for different parts?

Based on the next quote after this one, I suspect you mean different parts of the Gospels. But I was actually referring not to parts of the Gospels but to the distinction between two specific guys who are described by a non-Christian, non-Biblical writer, Josephus Flavius. So the main reason to think they're two separate guys is because the source describes them separately, plus some amount of time passed between when one was last heard of and when the other was first heard of.

One of them is not named, but he managed to build up a following of a few thousand people, preaching primarily at the Mount Of Olives, about bringing on a new better era for the Jewish people based on Old Testament parallelism. They got attacked & mostly killed, but the leader is said to have been among the scattered survivors.

Parts of why I find him similar to the Bible's Jesus involve things a lot of Christians might not have really noticed about the Bible. For example, the Bible says Jesus spent an unknown amount of his childhood in Egypt, which would make it likely that by the time he got back to Palestine he was speaking their language with an Egyptian accent and thus would be perceived as Egyptian, and Paul once got asked whether he was "the famous Egyptian preacher" because what he was saying sounded similar to a Egyptian's preaching... and the guy in this story told by Josephus is not named but referred to only as "the Egyptian". Also, in the scene where the Romans capture Jesus in the Bible, it's not like a couple of cops sent to arrest a criminal; it's a Roman cohort, about a thousand soldiers. And this is the same event to which the Bible says Jesus had told his followers (of whom there were thousands by then) to bring swords, and where somebody got an ear cut off. That's a battle, just not without much being said about what happened to anyone else at the battle but the main characters, so it lines up with the battle that Josephus says The Egyptian was in. The only difference then is that Josephus ends that story there with the Egyptian's escape, and the Bible has more, but that's where another guy Josephus describes comes in...

I've never got the sense that the gospels are depressing, besides maybe that the road to heaven is narrow.

I wasn't referring to the Gospels. I was referring to the preaching of a particular guy in Jerusalem who was described by Josephus. He kept saying destruction was coming for Jerusalem, the Jewish people, and their temple, at the hands of the Romans, largely because the Jewish authorities were screwing everything up. Not all of the preaching in the Gospels is like this, but parts are.

Also, this guy was named Jesus (son of Ananias), and was captured by Jewish authorities & handed over to the Romans, and was beaten in both cases but didn't say anything in his own defense in either case, and was interviewed by the Roman governor & found harmless, and was supposed to be released, all of which also overlaps with part of the Gospel story. Then instead of weird impossible shenanigans ending up getting him executed anyway, he was released to go on preaching as he saw fit, until he got killed by a Roman projectile during a siege. (After mostly just saying "woe to this, woe to that" for a while, his final line before dying was supposedly a switch to "and woe to me also", a bit reminiscent of "my God why have you forsaken me".)

I'm quite sure that guy existed. I'm also quite sure that the slightly earlier guy codenamed "the Egyptian" existed. It's not impossible or unbelievable that they'd both be the same guy. It just doesn't seem likely. Either way, though, whether those are really one guy or two, my conclusion is that both of their stories got incorporated into the Christians' story, ascribed to one Christian character.

Also Jesus dying couldn't be a loss because his kingdom is not earthly but heavenly.

That's the story the survivors came up with afterward.

 

[dejudge]

That's the story the survivors came up with afterward.

Also Jesus dying couldn't be a loss because his kingdom is not earthly but heavenly.

Well, in the Bible it is claimed Jesus is not dead. He survived the crucifixion.
When did Bible Jesus die after he survived?

 

[Tassman]

Christianity is a corruption of Judaism and did not survive because the fables were modified. The cult survived because their beliefs were accepted by the Roman government and were spread by force in the Roman Empire.

The cult survived OK for over 300 years before Constantine adopted and promoted it – primarily as a means of unifying the empire. Not that this worked out very well, the Xians being a quarrelsome lot.

If the Roman Government had accepted Marcionism or any other religion then people today would probably not even hear about the fables called Gospels and the Epistles.

Maybe. Who knows?

By the way, Judaism has survived up to this very day.

So has Xianity “survived up to this very day” – more’s the pity. It’s the biggest religion in the world.

Christianity was always a non-Jewish religion and was accepted by those who formerly believed in the Gods of the Greeks and Romans.

Not so. The original Xianity of the Jerusalem Church under James was very much a Jewish sect. It was Paul who made it a Gentile religion – much to the disquiet of the original followers.

Jews regarded the Christian Jesus story as shameful mythology like those of the Greeks.

Xianity was a rival religion so of course the Jews didn’t like it – especially when the hated Romans, who had destroyed their temple, made it the primary religion of the empire.

 

[dejudge]

So has Xianity “survived up to this very day” – more’s the pity. It’s the biggest religion in the world.

Non-Christian religions far exceed the Jesus cult Christian religion. About 70% of the world's population are either Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto or non-believers.

The Jesus cult religion will ultimately become irrelevant and be abandoned since it is found to be completely useless fairy tales like those of the Greeks and Romans.

Not so. The original Xianity of the Jerusalem Church under James was very much a Jewish sect. It was Paul who made it a Gentile religion – much to the disquiet of the original followers.

That is all baseless rubbished fiction propagated in the non-historical Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. There was never ever any Jerusalem Church under anyone named James the apostle.

No historical source of antiquity mentioned a single known Jew in any part of the habitable earth who was a Jesus cult Christian up to at least the time of Constantine.

Please, the Jews did not ever accept the Jesus fables in the NT up to at least the 5th century.

Xianity was a rival religion so of course the Jews didn’t like it – especially when the hated Romans, who had destroyed their temple, made it the primary religion of the empire.

The Jesus cult Christianity was a rival religion against the mythological beliefs of the Greeks and Romans which was eventually accepted by them sometime in the 4th century.

When Jesus cult Christianity was adopted by the Romans immediately the worship of Emperors as Gods was abandoned which is also evidence that the Jesus cult do not worship man as God.

The Lord Jesus was always about God who came down from heaven.

 

[Tassman]

Non-Christian religions far exceed the Jesus cult Christian religion.

But this does not alter the fact that the world’s largest SINGLE religion is Xianity – which was the point.

The Jesus cult religion will ultimately become irrelevant and be abandoned since it is found to be completely useless fairy tales like those of the Greeks and Romans.

Hopefully, ALL belief systems grounded in unverifiable supernatural concepts will be abandoned – as is already happening in the more enlightened secular nations such as Norway.

No historical source of antiquity mentioned a single known Jew in any part of the habitable earth who was a Jesus cult Christian up to at least the time of Constantine.

Nonsense. Constantine did not adopt Xianity until the 4th century and Xianity (and its holy books) existed long prior to then. Even the latest of the canonical books, John’s gospel, is dated at c.100 CE.

The Jesus cult Christianity was a rival religion against the mythological beliefs of the Greeks and Romans which was eventually accepted by them sometime in the 4th century.

No, it was not a “rival religion” specifically, it was seen as a fulfillment of Jewish prophesy. Although, early Christianity inevitably absorbed many of the shared religious, cultural, and intellectual traditions of the Greco-Roman world.

The Lord Jesus was always about God who came down from heaven.

No, it wasn’t. Initially Jesus was a Jewish end-time preacher (one of many) proclaiming that the kingdom of God was imminent. He was executed by Rome – probably for causing political trouble – and his disciples claimed had risen from the dead. Whatever their experience was (probably similar to Paul’s vision), it motivated them to spread the so-called 'good news' – and the rest is history.

 

[dejudge]

No historical source of antiquity mentioned a single known Jew in any part of the habitable earth who was a Jesus cult Christian up to at least the time of Constantine.

Nonsense. Constantine did not adopt Xianity until the 4th century and Xianity (and its holy books) existed long prior to then. Even the latest of the canonical books, John’s gospel, is dated at c.100 CE.

The Christian Bible or Canon is not an historical source. You know the supposed holy books are riddled with fiction, superstition and implausibility.

Historical sources of antiquity do not mention any known Jew who was a Jesus cult Christian up to at least Constantine.

No, it was not a “rival religion” specifically, it was seen as a fulfillment of Jewish prophesy. Although, early Christianity inevitably absorbed many of the shared religious, cultural, and intellectual traditions of the Greco-Roman world.

The Jesus cult religion was not a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. The Jews expected their Messianic ruler around c 66-70 CE based on their Scriptures as corroborated by Josephus War of the Jews, Tacitus Histories and Suetonius Life of the Twelve Caesars.

No, it wasn’t. Initially Jesus was a Jewish end-time preacher (one of many) proclaiming that the kingdom of God was imminent. He was executed by Rome – probably for causing political trouble – and his disciples claimed had risen from the dead. Whatever their experience was (probably similar to Paul’s vision), it motivated them to spread the so-called 'good news' – and the rest is history.

Your story is made up. It is fiction derived from your imagination.

 

[Tassman]

The Christian Bible or Canon is not an historical source. You know the supposed holy books are riddled with fiction, superstition and implausibility.

Historical sources of antiquity do not mention any known Jew who was a Jesus cult Christian up to at least Constantine.

The books of the Xtian canon nevertheless existed long prior to Constantine adopting the religion in the fourth century. And the adherents were (at least early on) Jewish according to these holy books.

The Jesus cult religion was not a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. The Jews expected their Messianic ruler around c 66-70 CE based on their Scriptures as corroborated by Josephus War of the Jews, Tacitus Histories and Suetonius Life of the Twelve Caesars.

At the beginning of the Xtian era Judaism comprised several different groups – Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots Essenes etc. - and there was no fixed concept of a messiah. Although, apart from his own followers, the Jews of Jesus' day generally rejected him as the Messiah. But your own sources don’t question that the man himself actually existed.

Your story is made up. It is fiction derived from your imagination.

Well its undoubtedly highly embellished but the Jesus story emerged from somewhere; it didn't arise in a vacuum.

 

[dejudge]

The books of the Xtian canon nevertheless existed long prior to Constantine adopting the religion in the fourth century. And the adherents were (at least early on) Jewish according to these holy books.

Again, the Christian Canon is not an historical source regardless of when it was written.

The Christian Canon is a compilation of fiction about a water-walking, transfiguring son of a Ghost, Gods, Devils, angels, Holy Ghosts, demons and fiction characters.

No historical source of antiquity mention any Jews who were adherents of the Holy Ghost son called Jesus.

At the beginning of the Xtian era Judaism comprised several different groups – Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots Essenes etc. - and there was no fixed concept of a messiah. Although, apart from his own followers, the Jews of Jesus' day generally rejected him as the Messiah. But your own sources don’t question that the man himself actually existed.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius state that the Jews expected their Messianic rulers around the time of the Jewish War c 66-70 CE.

My sources like Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did not mention any character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Your own sources like the Christian Canon state Jesus was the son of a Holy Ghost without a human father who transfigured, walked on water, resurrected and ascended to heaven in a cloud after he created the universe.

Well its undoubtedly highly embellished but the Jesus story emerged from somewhere; it didn't arise in a vacuum.

Christian writers have told us how their religion was initiated.

The Christian religion started when people began to believe the story that God came down from heaven and was born of a Virgin.

Christian writers and even Jews admitted the Jesus story was nothing different to the fables of the Greeks and Romans.

Jesus of Nazareth is an amalgamation of ancient mythology in the Roman Empire.

 

[Tassman]

Again, the Christian Canon is not an historical source regardless of when it was written.

It does not have to be an historically accurate source for it to be the basis of the Jesus sect. And it existed two centuries before Constantine adopted Xianity, which is when you erroneously claim that Constantine began it.

The Christian Canon is a compilation of fiction about a water-walking, transfiguring son of a Ghost, Gods, Devils, angels, Holy Ghosts, demons and fiction characters.

Certainly, it is full of gross embellishments. The Hebrew scriptures are similarly filled with fanciful mythology - your point?

No historical source of antiquity mention any Jews who were adherents of the Holy Ghost son called Jesus.

The New Testament however does mention Jews who were adherents of Jesus – including a Pharisee, Paul.

My sources like Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did not mention any character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Well they do either indirectly or by implication.

Christian writers have told us how their religion was initiated.

The Christian religion started when people began to believe the story that God came down from heaven and was born of a Virgin.

Christian writers and even Jews admitted the Jesus story was nothing different to the fables of the Greeks and Romans.

Jesus of Nazareth is an amalgamation of ancient mythology in the Roman Empire.

Early Christianity inevitably absorbed many of the shared religious, cultural, and intellectual traditions of the Greco-Roman world but it did not start with the intention of starting a new pagan religion. It began with a peripatetic preacher who was executed and ultimately surrounded by fanciful stories and deified.