Historical Jesus

[Jerrymander]

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

I'm asking if you apply the same standards to other ancient works.

 

[dejudge]

I'm asking if you apply the same standards to other ancient works.

I am so extremely delighted that you mention Julius Caesar and Aristotle because you have exposed the very fundamental problem with the HJ argument.

There is no historical source of antiquity, when writing about events occurring c 27-110 CE, which mentions Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Bible Paul, the pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee are all unknown.


Now, examine Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6400/6400-h/6400-h.htm#link2H_4_0002

Suetonius not only wrote about the life and death of Julius Caesar but also mentioned some of his writings.

Suetonius' Life of Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar himself is one of the most eminent writers of the age in which he lived. His commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars are written with a purity, precision, and perspicuity, which command approbation.
They are elegant without affectation, and beautiful without ornament....

And again, Suetonius in the very same Life of Julius Caesar mentions Aristotle and some of his writings.

Suetonius' Life of Julius Caesar

During a voyage which he undertook to Sicily, he wrote his treatise on Topics, or the Art of finding Arguments on any Question.

This was an abstract from Aristotle’s treatise on the same subject and though he had neither Aristotle nor any other book to assist him, he drew it up from his memory, and finished it as he sailed along the coast of Calabria...

Suetonius wrote about the life, death and writings of Julius Caesar and also mentions Aristotle.

All writings of Julius Caesar must be during his lifetime [100-44BCE]
All writings of Aristotle must be during his lifetime [384-322BCE]

No historical source of antiquity mentioned the life and death of Bible Jesus of Nazareth the son of the Ghost when writing about events between c 27-110 CE.

The life and death of Bible Jesus of Nazareth is without historical corroboration.

No historical source mentioned the fabricated convert called Paul and his epistles when writing about events between c27-110 CE.

The life, death and writings of Paul the fabricated convert are without historical corroboration.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the fabricated convert never ever existed. They are all fiction characters invented no earlier than the 2nd century.

 

[Jerrymander]

I am so extremely delighted that you mention Julius Caesar and Aristotle because you have exposed the very fundamental problem with the HJ argument.

There is no historical source of antiquity, when writing about events occurring c 27-110 CE, which mentions Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Bible Paul, the pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee are all unknown.


Now, examine Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6400/6400-h/6400-h.htm#link2H_4_0002

Suetonius not only wrote about the life and death of Julius Caesar but also mentioned some of his writings.

Suetonius' Life of Julius Caesar

And again, Suetonius in the very same Life of Julius Caesar mentions Aristotle and some of his writings.

Suetonius' Life of Julius Caesar

Suetonius wrote about the life, death and writings of Julius Caesar and also mentions Aristotle.

All writings of Julius Caesar must be during his lifetime [100-44BCE]
All writings of Aristotle must be during his lifetime [384-322BCE]

No historical source of antiquity mentioned the life and death of Bible Jesus of Nazareth the son of the Ghost when writing about events between c 27-110 CE.

The life and death of Bible Jesus of Nazareth is without historical corroboration.

No historical source mentioned the fabricated convert called Paul and his epistles when writing about events between c27-110 CE.

The life, death and writings of Paul the fabricated convert are without historical corroboration.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the fabricated convert never ever existed. They are all fiction characters invented no earlier than the 2nd century.

When were the earliest copies of Suetonius dated?

 

[Tassman]

Now, examine Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

Suetonius not only wrote about the life and death of Julius Caesar but also mentioned some of his writings.

The oldest surviving copy of The Twelve Caesars was made in Tours in the late 8th or early 9th Century AD, and is currently held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. That's considerably longer than "The earliest manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles [Papyri 46 ]which have been dated between 150-225 CE." And yet you don't invalidate Suetonius on the basis of age of the manuscript as you do regarding the Pauline epistles. .

 

[dejudge]

When were the earliest copies of Suetonius dated?

Again, you have exposed the fundamental flaw of the HJ argument.

No historical source of antiquity mentioned Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the pharisee.

Suetonius is mentioned by Pliny the younger in his letters to Trajan.

In fact, Pliny the younger was a contemporary of Suetonius.

Examine Pliny's letter to Trajan.

http://attalus.org/old/pliny10b.html#95


Pliny to Trajan.

[94] L To Trajan.

Sir, I have long admired the character and literary abilities of Suetonius Tranquillus, a man of the highest integrity, probity, and learning ; he has been my constant companion, and I have begun to love him the better as I have learned to know him the more thoroughly.

There are two reasons why the privileges of the ius trium liberorum should be conferred upon him. .....

[95] L Trajan to Pliny.

...... I have granted your request, and I have ordered a note to be entered on my diaries that I have bestowed the privilege of the ius trium liberorum upon Suetonius Tranquillus on the customary understanding.

The Pliny letter to and that from Trajan corroborate that Suetonius was a figure of history in the time of Trajan therefore all writings of Suetonius would be during the time period in which he lived c 69-122 CE.

As expected Pliny the younger did not write about Bible Jesus of Nazareth or Paul the Pharisee --they were fiction characters--they never ever existed.

 

[Tassman]

As expected Pliny the younger did not write about Bible Jesus of Nazareth or Paul the Pharisee --they were fiction characters--they never ever existed.

Why would they? At that time Jesus of Nazareth or Paul the Pharisee would have been minor members of the utterly insignificant, exclusive and despised Jewish sect.

 

[dejudge]

As expected Pliny the younger did not write about Bible Jesus of Nazareth or Paul the Pharisee --they were fiction characters--they never ever existed.

Why would they? At that time Jesus of Nazareth or Paul the Pharisee would have been minor members of the utterly insignificant, exclusive and despised Jewish sect.

You make stuff up.

According to Christian writings there were thousands of believers shortly after Bible Jesus ascended in a cloud and the apostles were filled with a Holy Ghost on the day on Pentecost.

In Acts of the Apostles and other NT books there were believers in Jerusalem, Macedonia, Rome, Corinth, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, Pisidia, Pamphylia, Pergamos Thyatira, Sardis, Laodicea, Attallyia, Phenice, Samaria, Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, Bythinia, Smyrna, Galatia, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Philippi and Colosse.



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 the Epistle to the Romans it is claimed their belief in Jesus was known throughout the whole world.

Romans 1:8

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

There were supposed to be thousands of believers and faith of the Jesus cult should have been known throughout the whole world based on the NT.

Christians writings state that the twelve disciples had preached the Gospel to the whole world.

Justin's Apology

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God

There is no mention of Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee in historical writings about events from 27-110 CE.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee never ever existed. They are products of fiction.

Jesus of Nazareth was the son of a Ghost and Bible Paul was a fabricated convert.

 

[Tassman]

You make stuff up.

According to Christian writings there were thousands of believers shortly after Bible Jesus ascended in a cloud and the apostles were filled with a Holy Ghost on the day on Pentecost.

But that’s not the argument. We are all agreed that the NT stories were greatly exaggerated and embellished with miracles and wonders and other fantastical crap. The only argument is whether or not there were historical figures at their core.

 

[llwyd]

But that’s not the argument. We are all agreed that the NT stories were greatly exaggerated and embellished with miracles and wonders and other fantastical crap. The only argument is whether or not there were historical figures at their core.

And the consensus of actual professional historians is that there are. So, on balance, the academic consensus is that there was a charismatic historical preacher that these largely rather fantastic tales are based on. As a lay person this sounds eminently common sensical, surely a rather Occamian conclusion.

 

[Kapyong]

And the consensus of actual professional historians is that there are.

Nope.

Actually 99% of them are biblical scholars, NOT historians.

Biblical scholars with deep personal life-long faith in Jesus.

The most biased persons on the planet.

 

[dejudge]

But that’s not the argument. We are all agreed that the NT stories were greatly exaggerated and embellished with miracles and wonders and other fantastical crap. The only argument is whether or not there were historical figures at their core.

That's not my argument at all.

I am arguing that the Jesus stories are not exaggerations but complete fiction with regards to Bible Jesus, his supposed family, his apostles and the so-called Paul.

None of them ever existed.

They are all fictional characters invented no earlier than the 2nd century.

Jesus cult Christians all agreed that their Jesus was supernatural but his flesh was questioned.

Tertullian's On the Flesh Of Christ

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed. It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.

Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?

Bible Jesus, his family, apostles and Paul were always non-historical characters and that is precisely why you will never ever be able to ever produce any historical evidence for their existence. Never.

 

[dejudge]

And the consensus of actual professional historians is that there are. So, on balance, the academic consensus is that there was a charismatic historical preacher that these largely rather fantastic tales are based on. As a lay person this sounds eminently common sensical, surely a rather Occamian conclusion.

Scholars have never ever conceded that Bible Jesus was a figure of history.

 

[maximara]

And the consensus of actual professional historians is that there are. So, on balance, the academic consensus is that there was a charismatic historical preacher that these largely rather fantastic tales are based on. As a lay person this sounds eminently common sensical, surely a rather Occamian conclusion.

The problem is they are not "professional historians" but rather biblical scholars

Moreover, some such as Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, state that Biblical Studies in its current state doesn't properly follow the historical method, and has major systemic problems so bad that the field needs a total overhaul on how it does things.

"Despite the weight that theologians place on the words and deeds of the great figures in the Bible (Abraham, Moses, and David), research indicates that these figures are not as "historical" as once thought. There is no independent evidence for the life or teachings of Jesus in the first century CE, which means that most modern Christians are not even following Jesus' teachings." and this is coming from a professor of Religious Studies!

If you want a long piece on just how dysfuntional the "evidence" is read Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ over at Rationalwiki.

 

[Brainache]

Nope.

Actually 99% of them are biblical scholars, NOT historians.

Biblical scholars with deep personal life-long faith in Jesus.

The most biased persons on the planet.

The problem is they are not "professional historians" but rather biblical scholars

Moreover, some such as Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, state that Biblical Studies in its current state doesn't properly follow the historical method, and has major systemic problems so bad that the field needs a total overhaul on how it does things.

"Despite the weight that theologians place on the words and deeds of the great figures in the Bible (Abraham, Moses, and David), research indicates that these figures are not as "historical" as once thought. There is no independent evidence for the life or teachings of Jesus in the first century CE, which means that most modern Christians are not even following Jesus' teachings." and this is coming from a professor of Religious Studies!

If you want a long piece on just how dysfuntional the "evidence" is read Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ over at Rationalwiki.

Do you guys see the lengths you are going to defend your faith in the Mythical Jesus?

You have condemned an entire branch of Academic Study as completely biased. They have to be, right? Otherwise they would agree with all the internet experts who spent a few hours watching youtube videos, instead of relying on years of tedious study...

You keep demanding a different standard for Jesus than for anyone else, why? Are you worried that if he existed as some kind of charismatic preacher, that it would be evidence for the truth of Christianity? Why?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

 

[dejudge]

The problem is they are not "professional historians" but rather biblical scholars

Moreover, some such as Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studie at Iowa State University, state that Biblical Studies in its current state doesn't properly follow the historical method, and has major systemic problems so bad that the field needs a total overhaul on how it does things.

"Despite the weight that theologians place on the words and deeds of the great figures in the Bible (Abraham, Moses, and David), research indicates that these figures are not as "historical" as once thought. There is no independent evidence for the life or teachings of Jesus in the first century CE, which means that most modern Christians are not even following Jesus' teachings." and this is coming from a professor of Religious Studies!

If you want a long piece on just how dysfuntional the "evidence" is read Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ over at Rationalwiki.

Do you guys see the lengths you are going to defend your faith in the Mythical Jesus?

You have condemned an entire branch of Academic Study as completely biased. They have to be, right? Otherwise they would agree with all the internet experts who spent a few hours watching youtube videos, instead of relying on years of tedious study...

You keep demanding a different standard for Jesus than for anyone else, why? Are you worried that if he existed as some kind of charismatic preacher, that it would be evidence for the truth of Christianity? Why?

You seem to have a very short memory.

It is a Professor of Religious Studies, a Biblical Scholar, Hector Avalos who admitted that his colleagues use flawed and specious techniques and that they are not being honest about their findings

https://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362

Second, Avalos criticizes his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still relevant in today's world. In effect, he accuses his profession of being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith communities.

"Paul as Herodian" by Eisenman and "Did Jesus Exist?" by Ehrman are perfect examples of extremely flawed and baseless hypotheses using the Christian Bible [Jewish mythology] , including Acts of the Apostles, [useless fiction] as credible historical sources .

In "Did Jesus Exist?" Ehrman admits that "the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small" yet used the very same NT accounts of Jesus as credible independent sources for his HJ argument.

 

[Tassman]

Bible Jesus, his family, apostles and Paul were always non-historical characters and that is precisely why you will never ever be able to ever produce any historical evidence for their existence. Never.

Very few on a skeptic site such as this are going to argue that the Jesus as presented in the bible really existed. But this does not necessarily mean that there was no historical figure at the core of Christianity.

You are engaging in the false dichotomy fallacy by claiming an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional logically valid option. Namely, that an ordinary man existed who attracted some followers and preached some nonsense, which subsequently, rather improbably, grew into a major world religion.

It happens.

After all, the Jews have existed for 3,000 years with religious beliefs similarly grounded in the most absurd mythology (Adam and Eve/Noah’s ark etc. etc. etc.) and purported historical events such as the Exodus, which never happened.

 

[dejudge]

Very few on a skeptic site such as this are going to argue that the Jesus as presented in the bible really existed. But this does not necessarily mean that there was no historical figure at the core of Christianity.

What you say does not mean Bible Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

You are engaging in the false dichotomy fallacy by claiming an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional logically valid option. Namely, that an ordinary man existed who attracted some followers and preached some nonsense, which subsequently, rather improbably, grew into a major world religion.

What you say does not mean Bible Jesus of Nazareth actually existed.

It is completely reasonable to argue that Bible Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction based on the existing evidence.

After all, the Jews have existed for 3,000 years with religious beliefs similarly grounded in the most absurd mythology (Adam and Eve/Noah’s ark etc. etc. etc.) and purported historical events such as the Exodus, which never happened.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever that thousands of Jews were worshiping a man named Jesus of Nazareth as a God in the 1st century or around c27-110CE.

In fact, it is stated in Jewish writings of antiquity that the Jews refused to worship Roman Emperors as Gods.

In Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius" it is stated that the Jews did not worship Gaius as a God and this is corroborated in "Antiquities of the Jews" attributed to Josephus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book40.html

On Embassy to Gaius.

Your loyal and excellent fellow citizens, the only nation of men upon the whole face of the earth by whom Gaius is not esteemed to be a god, appear now to be even desiring to plot my death in their obstinate disobedience, for when I commanded my statue in the character of Jupiter to be erected in their temple, they raised the whole of their people, and quitted the city and the whole country in a body.......

In Christian writings it is also shown that they [Christians] do not worship men as Gods.


Examine To Autolycus

You will say, then, to me, "Why do you not worship the king?" Because he is not made to be worshipped, but to be reverenced with lawful honour, for he is not a god, but a man appointed by God, not to be worshipped, but to judge justly.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth was always a non-historical character, a transfiguring Son of a Ghost who had no real family and apostles. Bible Paul was a fabricated convert as shown in the Christian Bible.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Bible Jesus of Nazareth was always a non-historical character, a transfiguring Son of a Ghost who had no real family and apostles. Bible Paul was a fabricated convert as shown in the Christian Bible.

Now you are just spamming.

Your absurd argument has been addressed many times and yet you continue to push it - with religious fervor. Determined to be right no matter how silly it becomes, thinking yourself more knowledgeable than all the experts in the field, shouting down anyone who disagrees with your fringe theories - the same traits we see in nutty theists and CTers. What is you problem?

 

[Tassman]

What you say does not mean Bible Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

I've never said he was. Merely that it is more probable that there was an historical figure at the core of X'tianity than a completely invented character.

It is completely reasonable to argue that Bible Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction based on the existing evidence.

In that case you have to explain why, at this particular moment in history the Jesus movement began.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever that thousands of Jews were worshiping a man named Jesus of Nazareth as a God in the 1st century or around c27-110CE.

Nobody is arguing that thousands of people were X'tians. The movement, like most movements, began very small.

In fact, it is stated in Jewish writings of antiquity that the Jews refused to worship Roman Emperors as Gods.

In Christian writings it is also shown that they [Christians] do not worship men as Gods.

Jesus as god is a concept that evolved over several centuries as the Doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. three persons in one god) and the Hypostatic Union (i.e. Jesus as fully god and fully man) was formulated.

Bible Jesus of Nazareth was always a non-historical character, a transfiguring Son of a Ghost who had no real family and apostles. Bible Paul was a fabricated convert as shown in the Christian Bible.

Sigh.