Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

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.

We know what you posted. It is fiction.

.... 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.

All Bible Paul Epistles have been questioned and found to be forgeries by many Scholars and it has been argued by Scholars that Bible Paul had no real existence.

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

No Scholar, atheist or not, none whatsoever, has ever been able to present a shred of historical evidence to contradict the argument that all the so-called Pauline Epistles are forgeries and that Bible Paul had no existence.

I already know that there may be billions of people who believe Bible Jesus and Paul existed however they have no and never had any historical evidence at all, none whatsoever.

I am dealing with historical evidence not with the number of believers [Scholars or not]

 

[Brainache]

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

Irenaeus Against Heresies

Against Heresies XI


Irenaeus "Against Heresies" 1.


Justin's First Apology

The fact that these people were called "heretics" disproves your argument, because to be considered heretical a belief has to be different from some other belief which is considered "orthodox". So the presence of a "heresy" requires the existence of an "orthodoxy".

You are trying to use the existence of heretics to argue that there was no orthodoxy. Your argument defeats itself.

Well done.

 

[Jerrymander]

I would like dejudge to explain how committed he is to paleography as the end all be all of dating. Is he aware that the earliest copies of many ancient works are dated hundreds of years later including Plato?

 

[Brainache]

I would like dejudge to explain how committed he is to paleography as the end all be all of dating. Is he aware that the earliest copies of many ancient works are dated hundreds of years later including Plato?

Good luck with that. Dejudge doesn't explain, he declares, he insults, he rants, but he doesn't explain.

 

[dejudge]

The fact that these people were called "heretics" disproves your argument, because to be considered heretical a belief has to be different from some other belief which is considered "orthodox". So the presence of a "heresy" requires the existence of an "orthodoxy".

You are trying to use the existence of heretics to argue that there was no orthodoxy. Your argument defeats itself.

Well done.

Your argument is ridiculously baseless.

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...

 

[Brainache]

Your argument is ridiculously baseless.

Justin's First Apology

OK, so who was Justin saying that Marcion was laughing at? Would it be the people who believed in the same stories about Jesus that we have all heard of?

You know this does nothing to disprove a HJ. It just shows that there were some people whose beliefs didn't match the majority.

Give it up.

 

[dejudge]

I would like dejudge to explain how committed he is to paleography as the end all be all of dating. Is he aware that the earliest copies of many ancient works are dated hundreds of years later including Plato?

The dating of Papyri 46 [the Pauline Epistles] c150-225 CE was done through paleography.

There are no other manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles dated to 50-60 CE.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

There could not have been any so-called Pauline Epistles dated to c 50-60 CE when they were written at least after Acts of the Apostles and likely no earlier than c 175 CE [after Celsus' True Discourse].

 

[dejudge]

OK, so who was Justin saying that Marcion was laughing at? Would it be the people who believed in the same stories about Jesus that we have all heard of?

You know this does nothing to disprove a HJ. It just shows that there were some people whose beliefs didn't match the majority.

Give it up.

What you say does not show that Bible Jesus the water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator, the firstborn of the dead did exist.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed. Bible Jesus of Nazareth was pure fiction, the son of the Holiest Ghost [the son of the talking cloud]

Mark 9:7

And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son hear him.

 

[Brainache]

What you say does not show that Bible Jesus the water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator, the firstborn of the dead did exist.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed. Bible Jesus of Nazareth was pure fiction, the son of the Holiest Ghost [the son of the talking cloud]

Mark 9:7

I wasn't trying to show that the miraculous son of God existed. I was just demonstrating the uselessness of your argument.

You haven't shown anything except that ancient people told miraculous stories about a bloke called Jesus. That does nothing to advance your case that it was all fabricated centuries later.

Once again your argument falls at the first hurdle.

 

[dejudge]

I wasn't trying to show that the miraculous son of God existed. I was just demonstrating the uselessness of your argument.

You haven't shown anything except that ancient people told miraculous stories about a bloke called Jesus. That does nothing to advance your case that it was all fabricated centuries later.

Once again your argument falls at the first hurdle.

Your statement does not show that Bible Jesus existed.

There is nothing else to show about Bible Jesus, his apostles and Paul but fiction.

John 6:19

So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.

Bible Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee for over three and a half miles in gJohn.

The NT is not history- there is nothing to show but total fiction with respect to Jesus, the apostles and Paul.

Bible Jesus is a fiction character and Paul was a fabricated convert --they never ever existed.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement does not show that Bible Jesus existed.

There is nothing else to show about Bible Jesus, his apostles and Paul but fiction.

John 6:19

Bible Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee for over three and a half miles in gJohn.

The NT is not history- there is nothing to show but total fiction with respect to Jesus, the apostles and Paul.

Bible Jesus is a fiction character and Paul was a fabricated convert --they never ever existed.

If so, you have done nothing to prove it.

 

[dejudge]

If so, you have done nothing to prove it.

I am arguing that Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles and Paul were figures of fiction based on the existing evidence.

Christians writings do actually state Jesus of Nazareth was born of a ghost without a human father, that he walked on water for over three miles, that he transfigured in the presence of resurrected Elijah and Moses, ate fish and bread after he was dead for three days , and then ascended in a cloud.

In addition, there is no historical evidence at all to show that anyone of those characters existed.

Based on the existing evidence I have no reasonable doubt that the Christian Jesus of Nazareth, his apostles and Paul are total fiction.

You seem not to know what fiction is!!!

You could easily prove Bible Jesus existed if you only, only could find historical evidence.

You never can, never will.

 

[Brainache]

I am arguing that Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles and Paul were figures of fiction based on the existing evidence.

Christians writings do actually state Jesus of Nazareth was born of a ghost without a human father, that he walked on water for over three miles, that he transfigured in the presence of resurrected Elijah and Moses, ate fish and bread after he was dead for three days , and then ascended in a cloud.

In addition, there is no historical evidence at all to show that anyone of those characters existed.

Based on the existing evidence I have no reasonable doubt that the Christian Jesus of Nazareth, his apostles and Paul are total fiction.

You seem not to know what fiction is!!!

You could easily prove Bible Jesus existed if you only, only could find historical evidence.

You never can, never will.

There are countless examples from the ancient world of miraculous abilities attributed to real people. The fact that such things were written about Jesus still says nothing either way about his historicity.

You seem to not know what historical research is.

 

[Tassman]

There are countless examples from the ancient world of miraculous abilities attributed to real people. The fact that such things were written about Jesus still says nothing either way about his historicity.

Yes indeed. Apollonius of Tyana being a notable example. He was a charismatic teacher and miracle worker and an exact contemporary of Jesus.

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

 

[dejudge]

There are countless examples from the ancient world of miraculous abilities attributed to real people. The fact that such things were written about Jesus still says nothing either way about his historicity.

You seem to not know what historical research is.

What you say does not show that the son of the Ghost was a real human being. People of antiquity and even today believe Ghosts and Gods are really real and that Ghosts could impregnate Virgins.

Examine Plutarch's Romulus.

There was an oracle of Tethys in Tuscany which Tarchetius consulted, and received an answer that a virgin should give herself to the apparition, and that a son should be born of her, highly renowned, eminent for valour, good fortune, and strength of body.

Bible Jesus the myth Savior of Rome was born of a Ghost and a Virgin like Romulus--the myth founder of Rome.

 

[Brainache]

What you say does not show that the son of the Ghost was a real human being. People of antiquity and even today believe Ghosts and Gods are really real and that Ghosts could impregnate Virgins.

Examine Plutarch's Romulus.



Bible Jesus the myth Savior of Rome was born of a Ghost and a Virgin like Romulus--the myth founder of Rome.

I'm not arguing that the son of a ghost existed.

You still haven't done anything to show that it was all fabricated centuries later.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not arguing that the son of a ghost existed.

You still haven't done anything to show that it was all fabricated centuries later.

You cannot and never will be able to show that Bible Jesus the son of the Ghost and a Virgin was really real.

I have shown that people of antiquity believed Ghosts and Gods impregnated virgins.

I have shown that all existing manuscripts of Jesus the son of the Ghost are dated to the 2nd century or later.

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

In the Christian Bible the sons of Gods impregnated 'daughters of men' in Genesis.

Genesis 6:4

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God born of a Ghost without a human father is a myth character. Bible Jesus never ever existed.

 

[Jerrymander]

The dating of Papyri 46 [the Pauline Epistles] c150-225 CE was done through paleography.

There are no other manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles dated to 50-60 CE.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

There could not have been any so-called Pauline Epistles dated to c 50-60 CE when they were written at least after Acts of the Apostles and likely no earlier than c 175 CE [after Celsus' True Discourse].

Do you apply that same logic to other ancient works? Did Julius Caesar wrote the Commentarii de Bello Gallico (earliest copy 9 century)? Did Aristotle write his works (earliest copy also 9th century)?

 

[Delvo]

Do you apply that same logic to other ancient works? Did Julius Caesar wrote the Commentarii de Bello Gallico (earliest copy 9 century)? Did Aristotle write his works (earliest copy also 9th century)?

The dating of the originals for those is based on separate evidence, outside the text of the copies. For the books of the New Testament, what's the separate evidence, outside the text of the copies, that can be used to date them back to the 50s?

 

[dejudge]

Do you apply that same logic to other ancient works? Did Julius Caesar wrote the Commentarii de Bello Gallico (earliest copy 9 century)? Did Aristotle write his works (earliest copy also 9th century)?

Who is arguing about the writings of Julius Caesar or Aristotle?

It is absolutely ridiculous to argue that Bible Jesus existed because you believe someone wrote Commentarii de Bello Gallico.

This is a partial list of my findings so far.

1. Bible Jesus is claimed to be the water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost without a human father in Christian writings.

2. All manuscripts of Bible Jesus of Nazareth stories, including the apostles and Paul, are dated no earlier than the 2nd century.

3. People of antiquity believed for hundreds of years prior to and after the time of Pilate that Ghosts and Gods had impregnated virgins.

4. No historical source of antiquity mentions Bible Jesus of Nazareth, his family, his apostles and Paul.

5. All NT writings are associated with fiction, forgeries or false attribution.

6. Historical writings of antiquity which mention Bible Jesus and Paul are forgeries. [Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and the Paul/Seneca letters.]

7. In the NT, Bible Paul's conversion is fabricated.

8. In the NT itself, there is no corroboration at all that Bible Paul wrote Epistles at any time or anywhere.

9. Christian writings admit that the Jesus cult started with the belief that God came down from heaven and impregnated a virgin.

10. Christian writings admit that there were people called Christians who were not believers in or followers of Bible Jesus.

11. There is no historical record that Jews worshiped men as Gods or a dead man as a God at any time in their history.

12. Jesus cult Christians do not worship men as Gods. Roman Emperors were no longer deified as soon as the Roman Government adopted the teachings of the Jesus cult.

Based on my findings so far I have no reasonable doubt that Bible Jesus, the apostles and Paul did not ever exist.