Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Your statements are getting worse with every post.

You seem to have no idea what "heresy" means and no idea it is written that Simon Magus the heretic called himself a God and was worshiped as a God by his followers who were called Christians.

Do you even read the replies people write to you?

Calling yourself "God" while preaching about Jesus is a Christian Heresy.

Calling yourself "God" while preaching some other religion that has nothing to do with Jesus is not a Christian Heresy. It is a different religion entirely and therefore not heresy at all. They might call it a false religion, or a pagan belief, but not heresy.

It has to be a distortion of the mainstream beliefs to qualify as heresy.

 

[dejudge]

Do you even read the replies people write to you?

Calling yourself "God" while preaching about Jesus is a Christian Heresy.

Calling yourself "God" while preaching some other religion that has nothing to do with Jesus is not a Christian Heresy. It is a different religion entirely and therefore not heresy at all. They might call it a false religion, or a pagan belief, but not heresy.

It has to be a distortion of the mainstream beliefs to qualify as heresy.

Absolute rubbish!!!

 

[llwyd]

That "Historical Jeeps" thread in History, Literature and the Arts (an interesting and questionable combination in itself) brought to mind that this question has pretty much nothing to do with religion or philosophy. It is an empirical question, immune to positions of faith or philosophy. So, why not change the subforum?

 

[Brainache]

Absolute rubbish!!!

Refusing to admit that you are wrong is not the same as being right.

 

[Brainache]

That "Historical Jeeps" thread in History, Literature and the Arts (an interesting and questionable combination in itself) brought to mind that this question has pretty much nothing to do with religion or philosophy. It is an empirical question, immune to positions of faith or philosophy. So, why not change the subforum?

Good question.

I think the MJ faction want people to think that accepting the HJ as most likely is a religious position.

 

[Tassman]

The existence of a non-historical Christian Canon does not mean that Jesus and a Jesus cult existed in the time of Pilate.

The books of the NT have been dated by scholars to range from the 50’s (Paul) to 100 CE (John’s gospel). So, regardless of their historical accuracy or lack thereof, they existed. This indicates that the X’tian "Jesus cult" religion also existed at this time.

In addition, I never ever ever stated anywhere that Constantine created the Christian religion.

What you have said repeatedly is that the Xtian religion did not exist until the time of the 4th century emperor Constantine. This is demonstrably incorrect as the undoubted existence of the 1st century X’tian holy books indicates.

 

[dejudge]

Christian writings of antiquity clearly show that there were many so-called Heretics who did not preach about Jesus of Nazareth the son of the Ghost born of a virgin called Mary without a human father.

Irenaneus "Against Heresies"XI

They [the Valentinians] also maintain that there was another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced for the re-establishment of the Pleroma.

Irenaeus Against Heresies

XI 2. Secundus again affirms that the primary Ogdoad consists of a right hand and a left hand Tetrad, and teaches that the one of these is called light, and the other darkness. But he maintains that the power which separated from the rest, and fell away, did not proceed directly from the thirty Aeons, but from their fruits.

Against Heresies XI

3. There is another, who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows: There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things, surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature, whom I call Monotes (unity). Together with this Monotes there exists a power, which again I term Henotes (oneness)....

Irenaeus "Against Heresies" 1.

But the followers of Ptolemy say that he [Bythos] has two consorts, which they also name Diatheses (affections), viz., Ennoae and Thelesis. For, as they affirm, he first conceived the thought of producing something, and then willed to that effect. Wherefore, again, these two affections, or powers, Ennoea and Thelesis, having intercourse, as it were, between themselves, the production of Monogenes and Aletheia took place according to conjunction.

Justin's First Apology

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us...

 

[dejudge]

The books of the NT have been dated by scholars to range from the 50’s (Paul) to 100 CE (John’s gospel). So, regardless of their historical accuracy or lack thereof, they existedd. This indicates that the X’tian "Jesus cult" religion also existe at this time.

The earliest manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles [Papyri 46 ]have been dated between 150-225 CE by paleography.

No manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles have been dated to the 50's by paleography.

Christianity existed since at least the time of Claudius but it was those who followed Simon Magus not the son of the Ghost.

What you have said repeatedly is that the Xtian religion did not exist until the time of the 4th century emperor Constantine. This is demonstrably incorrect as the undoubted existence of the 1st century X’tian holy books indicates.

I never ever ever said such a thing. You write fiction.

I have said repeatedly that there were people called Christians since the time of Claudius who worshiped Simon Magus as a God as stated in First Apology attributed to Justin Martyr.

Jesus the son of the Ghost character was fabricated sometime in the 2nd century or at least after the writings of Philo, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

The Jesus cult of Christians is a 2nd century cult which started around c117-138 CE.

 

[Tassman]

The earliest manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles [Papyri 46 ]have been dated between 150-225 CE by paleography.

No manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles have been dated to the 50's by paleography.

Surely you are not seriously suggesting that the NT writings can only be dated via paleography? No historian relies solely on paleography for ANY historical document from ANY historical period. There are numerous methods for dating ancient writings using the ‘historical method’, which comprises techniques and guidelines long used to research histories of the past. And the books of the New Testament are almost universally dated c.50’s and 60’s for the unquestioned authentic Pauline epistles and c.70 to 100 CE for the gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

 

[dejudge]

Surely you are not seriously suggesting that the NT writings can only be dated via paleography? No historian relies solely on paleography for ANY historical document from ANY historical period. There are numerous methods for dating ancient writings using the ‘historical method’, which comprises techniques and guidelines long used to research histories of the past. And the books of the New Testament are almost universally dated c.50’s and 60’s for the unquestioned authentic Pauline epistles and c.70 to 100 CE for the gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

There are such thing as unquestioned Pauline writings. All NT writings have been questioned. Scholars have argued that all the Epistles under the name of Paul are forgeries. There are no existing authentic Epistles. All NT manuscripts are copies dated by paleography to no earlier than the 2nd century..

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

There is no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever, that any Epistle in the NT was written 50-60 CE.

No person, Scholar or not, atheist or not, can show that any Epistle in the NT was written 50-60CE using any method [paleography or not].

Bible Paul is a fabricated convert as clearly seen in Acts of the Apostles.

No such convert ever existed.

 

[Tassman]

There are such thing as unquestioned Pauline writings. All NT writings have been questioned. Scholars have argued that all the Epistles under the name of Paul are forgeries. There are no existing authentic Epistles. All NT manuscripts are copies dated by paleography to no earlier than the 2nd century..

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

There is no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever, that any Epistle in the NT was written 50-60 CE.

No person, Scholar or not, atheist or not, can show that any Epistle in the NT was written 50-60CE using any method [paleography or not].

Bible Paul is a fabricated convert as clearly seen in Acts of the Apostles.

No such convert ever existed.

The books of the NT have been dated by the vast majority of scholars in the 50’s (Paul) to 100 CE (John’s gospel).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

What you are touting is marginalized scholarship; your own link says so. It is only posited by the radical Dutch school of theology of which the eminent scholar Robert Van Voorst says (reflecting the scholarly consensus): "their arguments were stoutly attacked in the Netherlands, especially by other scholars, but largely ignored out it”.

 

[dejudge]

The books of the NT have been dated by the vast majority of scholars in the 50’s (Paul) to 100 CE (John’s gospel).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

What you are touting is marginalized scholarship; your own link says so. It is only posited by the radical Dutch school of theology of which the eminent scholar Robert Van Voorst says (reflecting the scholarly consensus): "their arguments were stoutly attacked in the Netherlands, especially by other scholars, but largely ignored out it”.

I have exposed your fiction that existence of Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles are unquestioned.

It is a fact that Scholars have argued that the Pauline Epistles are forgeries and that the character Paul is not a figure of history.

It is a fact that there is no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever, for the supposed Paul and that his conversion is a product of fiction.

It is a fact that there is no historical corroboration that Epistles were written c 50-60 CE.

In Acts of the Apostles it is claimed thousands of Jews converted to Christianity after their resurrected Jesus ascended in a cloud and that Paul, after being blinded by a bright light and talking to the ascended Jesus, persecuted them however there is no historical record, none, zero, of a single Jew who was a member of a resurrected Jesus cult in that time.

No NT manuscript or Christian writing has ever been found in Jerusalem ,Galilee or Judaea about Jesus, the disciples, Paul and a new Jewish religion where Jews worshiped a man as a God.

Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee are characters of fiction and all the NT Epistles are forgeries or false attribution.

 

[Delvo]

The consensus about their age doesn't matter if that consensus is based on unsound thinking and continues to be accepted merely because that's what age everybody has always said they are, rather than because it makes sense.

The only reasons I have seen given for the dates of Paul's Epistles are references to the overall story of Paul's life, such as "he must have written this book while he was in this city, which means the book was written in one of these two years, because that's when he was in that city". But, even if the reason for thinking he wrote it in that city is correct, where's the basis for thinking Paul was in that city during those years? The only source that exists for any of Paul's life story that they're trying to place each book in is the Epistles themselves (and Luke & Acts, which contradict them sometimes).

The dating of all of these books looks like a huge tangle of internal self-references. Everything in the web is dated by its links to another point in the same web. But there's little sign of why we should think the whole web belongs in one area on the real-world historical timeline and not somewhere else on it. Yes, you can say from internal self-references that two events in that story are, for example, 16 years apart, but what makes that span 33-49 instead of 52-68 or 66-82 or 9-25? The New Testament story has so many internal connections that maybe the whole thing could be dated reliably with just one solid reliable connection to the rest of the outside world, but I don't know of one yet.

In the quest to find such an external connection, what we do have so far does not look like it supports the conventional early dates. In fact it points toward everything in the story having happened a few decades later than is usually said.

• Jesus is supposed to have been crucified in 33, but secular sources indicate a period from 4 to 44 with no crucifixions.
• He was included among a group identified as rebels against Rome (often mistranslated as "robbers", which wasn't a crucifying offense like rebellion was), but rebellion against Rome wasn't an early-30s thing.
• His story resembles a couple of guys Josephus wrote about, but their stories happened in the 60s (maybe 50s for one of them).
• Other minor side-points that don't affect the main plot of the story much & don't get noticed much but are in there, such as the civil unrest over a mob attack on a man named Stefanus, also look like equivalent stories that are found in secular sources, but, again, those are dated to decades later than the Biblical counterparts are usually said to have happened.
• I think one New Testament book claims that Paul met Nero, but Nero was such a classic icon of pure evil to Christians for the first few centuries that meeting him is exactly the kind of story that would be added as an embellishment whether the rest of the story it got added to was true or not.
• The New Testament's Jesus story also includes several details about the history & culture of the years 1-33 that are so wildly wrong and unrealistic that they wouldn't have been accepted so soon after the times they were supposed to have happened in. These include, for example, the census (ordered by the wrong Emperor and involving travel which it wouldn't and couldn't have involved based on thousand-year genealogies which nobody had), the behavior of Pilate and the crowd at crucifixion, and the slaughter of Palestine's male babies & toddlers. You couldn't get away with trying to sell such stories for the first few generations after the alleged events because everybody would think "Wait, I've heard my parents/grandparents/great-grandparents who were around at the time talking about life back then, and that's not what they said happened". So the fact that these tales got accepted anyway indicates that they weren't being told that way until a safely long interval afterward, when audiences could think of them as part of a distant past that they had no other contact with and no way to refute.
• The New Testament has Saul persecuting Christians at a time when they weren't really having anything in particular done to them. The earliest historical era in which Roman power came down on them in any form is the Jewish rebellion in the late 60s, which, again, would put everything a few decades later than it's usually said to be.
• Speaking of the Jewish revolt: the New Testament books that are usually said to have been written after it don't react to it at all; the before & after books show no difference as if they'd been written before & after such an upheaval. That makes perfect sense, but only if it didn't need to be referred to as a separate new thing from the Jesus story because it wasn't a separate new thing; it's what they were already talking about in the first place so none were written before it.

That tells me that the writing of the books, like the entire rest of this story, happened a few decades later than the usual consensus. A sound case for the usual standard dating will need to give us more to go on than just "well, it's what they all say". It will need to make the case for why they say that.

 

[dejudge]

The fables of Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles and Paul are placed in the time of Herod the Great to Festus a governor of Judaea as stated in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles where it is claimed there were thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem sometime between Pilate and Festus, governors of Judea c 27-62 CE.

There is simply no historical record of any Jew in Jerusalem who was a member of the Jesus cult from that time period.

Acts 2:41

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 4:4

Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

Acts 21:20

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law..

In writings attributed to Philo and Josephus it is shown that Jews did not worship men as Gods and refused to worship Gaius [Caligula] as a God and preferred to be martyred instead.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever of a new religion in Judaea where thousands of Jews were worshiping a man as a God since 27-62 CE.

The NT is a compilation of non-historical fables of Jesus, the apostles and Paul which are without a shred of historical corroboration in all non-apologetic writings about that time period 27-62 CE.

 

[Jerrymander]

The earliest manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles [Papyri 46 ]have been dated between 150-225 CE by paleography.

No manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles have been dated to the 50's by paleography.

So Julius Caesar didn't write Commentarii de Bello Gallico since the earliest copies are from the 9th century?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

So Julius Caesar didn't write Commentarii de Bello Gallico since the earliest copies are from the 9th century?

Since the earliest copy we have was made by French monks at Fleury abbey, I say yes. Those early Christians were a duplicitous lot. I bet they made the whole thing up on the spot!

 

[dejudge]

So Julius Caesar didn't write Commentarii de Bello Gallico since the earliest copies are from the 9th century?

Who's arguing about what you believe was written by Julius Caesar??

I am arguing that Bible Jesus never ever existed and that Bible Paul was a fabricated convert, that the so-called Pauline Epistles are forgeries or falsely attributed and composed no earlier than c 175 CE or after True Discourse attributed to Celsus.

In effect, the so-called Pauline writings are non-historical garbage composed directly to deceive their audience.

In Acts of the Apostles it is claimed Saul the fabricated convert, later called Paul , persecuted Jewish believers of which there were thousands but there is absolutely no historical evidence at all of a single Jew who worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God in all historical sources.

It is also claimed in Acts of the Apostles that a great company of Priests were converted to the Jesus cult but again, there is no historical evidence of a single Jewish Priest as a Jesus cult Christian in non-apologetic writings of antiquity.

In the so-called Pauline Epistles it is claimed that Bible Paul was commissioned to preach the Gospel to the uncircumcision but such a claim is contradicted in Acts of the Apostles.

In Acts of the Apostles, Bible Paul the fabricated convert would go directly to the synagogues of Jews to proselytize them.

Acts 17.1 -In Thessalonica Bible Paul goes to a synagogue of the Jews to proselytize.

Acts 17.16-17 In Athens Bible Paul goes to the synagogue of the Jews to proselytize.

Acts 18. 1-4 In Corinth,Bible Paul goes to the synagogue of the Jews to proselytize.

Acts 18.19 In Ephesus Bible Paul goes to the synagogue of the Jews to proselytize.

Acts 19.8 In Ephesus, Paul Bible spent 3 months proselytizing in the synagogue of the Jews.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever of any Jew of any synagogue who became a Jesus cult Christian because of Bible Paul's teachings c 27-62 CE.

Bible Jesus, the apostles and Paul are all fabricated - they never ever existed.

 

[dejudge]

Since the earliest copy we have was made by French monks at Fleury abbey, I say yes. Those early Christians were a duplicitous lot. I bet they made the whole thing up on the spot!

Well, did they make up these on the spot???

Eusebius' Church History 2.16 1.

And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria....

Eusebius' Church History 3.4.8.

And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.

Eusebius 3.24 12.

John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

Eusebius' Church History 3. 5.

Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.

Irenaeus' "Against Heresies"

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome.....

 

[Tassman]

I have exposed your fiction that existence of Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles are unquestioned.

No. I acknowledged that the authorship of the ‘authentic’ Pauline Epistles was questioned but that this “questioning” has only been considered fringe scholarship at best.

It is a fact that Scholars have argued that the Pauline Epistles are forgeries and that the character Paul is not a figure of history.

Only a handful of scholars have argued that the mostly undoubted authentic Pauline Epistles are forgeries and that the character Paul is not a figure of history. The vast majority have not argued this.

Eminent scholar Gerd Lüdemann in ‘Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity (1996)’, comments while mentioning Jürgen Becker (Der Apostel der Völker, 1989), in footnote 232 that Detering's thesis (Urchristentum im Zwielicht, 1995) about the letters of Paul coming from the second century "is mistaken and is refuted by the existing sources."

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

 

[Jerrymander]

Who's arguing about what you believe was written by Julius Caesar??

So you don't think he actually wrote it?