Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

It must be gratifying that the evidence supports what you expected it to support <sarcasm>. This is what I regard as 'confirmation bias':

"Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views or prejudices one would like to be true".

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

Actually it is those who argue for an HJ who are motivated by wishful thinking. People who argue that Jesus of Nazareth really existed are either superstitious or make unevidenced assumptions.

This is a partial list of the facts.

1. There is no historical evidence for the supposed Jesus of Nazareth.
2. There is no historical evidence for the family of Jesus of Nazareth.
3. There is no historical evidence for the disciples/apostles of Jesus.
4. There is no historical evidence for NT Paul.
5. There is no historical evidence for any NT author.
6. The stories of Jesus of Nazareth, his disciples and Paul are fiction.
7. Every mention of Jesus in non-apologetic sources is a forgery.
8. No Jewish writer of antiquity mentioned any Jewish Christian c27-100 CE.
9. There is no known early Jewish Christian writer .
10. Extant Jewish writings from the 1st century do not mention Jesus.

Based on the existing evidence I argue that Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed and that the character was fabricated sometime in the 2nd century.

 

[maximara]

Cerinthus was also preaching that Christ, as a dove, entered into Jesus when he was baptized and the Christ flew away after Jesus died.
(...)
Cerinthus Jesus Christ was a " birdman"--half man half dove or some other fraction.

And the Oracle of Delphi, who we know existed, was supposedly possessed by the spirit of prophecy. That doesn't make her half human half spirit.

It must be gratifying that the evidence supports what you expected it to support <sarcasm>. This is what I regard as 'confirmation bias':

"Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views or prejudices one would like to be true".

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

And when we compare the Christ Myth Theory to the Philosophical Myth Jesus as being historical the later has the former beat in terms of confirmation bias not by a mile but by at least 1000 years. It was only with the coming of the Christ Myth Theory that scholars finally started to abandon the "water-walking, transfiguring, son of a ghost without a human father, who resurrected and ascended in a cloud after appearing to his disciples" Jesus that dejudge keeps banging on about.

I say stated because it seems like any scholar that publishes via Eerdmans seems to believe in that Jesus. "This view [Christ Myth theory] states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." New Flash there Eerdmans, but Troy actually existed and the Norse's Vinland actually existed.

As I said before if you didn't have scholars going silly and trying to prove that the "water-walking, transfiguring, son of a ghost without a human father, who resurrected and ascended in a cloud after appearing to his disciples" Jesus was a historical person the more radical parts of the Christ Myth Theory wouldn't keep getting traction.

 

[dejudge]

And the Oracle of Delphi, who we know existed, was supposedly possessed by the spirit of prophecy. That doesn't make her half human half spirit.

The Oracle of Delphi is irrelevant to determine the existence/non-existence of any character mentioned in the NT including Jesus of Nazareth.

And when we compare the Christ Myth Theory to the Philosophical Myth Jesus as being historical the later has the former beat in terms of confirmation bias not by a mile but by at least 1000 years. It was only with the coming of the Christ Myth Theory that scholars finally started to abandon the "water-walking, transfiguring, son of a ghost without a human father, who resurrected and ascended in a cloud after appearing to his disciples" Jesus that dejudge keeps banging on about.

It is actually stated in the Christian Canon that Jesus of Nazareth was a water-walking, transfiguring son of a ghost, that resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

I cannot abandon the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a fabricated character- one of belief and never of history.

I say stated because it seems like any scholar that publishes via Eerdmans seems to believe in that Jesus. "This view [Christ Myth theory] states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." New Flash there Eerdmans, but Troy actually existed and the Norse's Vinland actually existed.

The existence/non-existence of Troy is completely irrelevant to determine the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

As I said before if you didn't have scholars going silly and trying to prove that the "water-walking, transfiguring, son of a ghost without a human father, who resurrected and ascended in a cloud after appearing to his disciples" Jesus was a historical person the more radical parts of the Christ Myth Theory wouldn't keep getting traction.

Some Scholars have gone silly by inventing stories that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in heaven.

No such story exists anywhere in any Christian writing in or out the NT.

The NT Canon specifically states that Jesus of Nazareth, the water-walking, transfiguring, son of a Ghost, the Logos and God Creator was crucified on earth after a trial with the Sanhedrin and Pilate before he resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Mark 15:1

And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

Where did Scholars get their silly stories of a heavenly crucifixion of Jesus?

 

[Tassman]

And the Oracle of Delphi, who we know existed, was supposedly possessed by the spirit of prophecy. That doesn't make her half human half spirit.

Indeed, the Oracle of Delphi existed and she spouted gibberish judiciously interpreted by a priest. But such gibberish often changed the course of history. For example, Alexander the Great conquered the entire known world on the basis of being told by the Oracle that he was invincible.

But this does not make her abilities “real” any more that the historical figure of Jesus embodied the magical crap of the NT that coalesced around him. But, in both instances, they existed.

 

[maximara]

Indeed, the Oracle of Delphi existed and she spouted gibberish judiciously interpreted by a priest. But such gibberish often changed the course of history. For example, Alexander the Great conquered the entire known world on the basis of being told by the Oracle that he was invincible.

But this does not make her abilities “real” any more that the historical figure of Jesus embodied the magical crap of the NT that coalesced around him. But, in both instances, they existed.

I agree that at some level Jesus existed but then so did Remsburg. His point and that of the Christ mythers of his time was not so much Jesus didn't exist as a human being but the possibly that the connection between the Jesus of the NT and the one of history may have been effectively nil.

As rationalwioi's Christ Myth Theory page points out:

For the most part, the no human being behind the New Testament version is presented as the Christ myth theory, ignoring Volney's confused memories of an obscure historical figure version.

In fact, as the John Frum cargo cult shows, even in as short a time as some 11 years after a message starts being noticed by unbelievers, the question of the founder being an actual person or a renamed existing deity is already unclear[3] and in a few more years the oral tradition has forgotten the possible human founder (illiterate native named Manehivi who caused trouble using that name from 1940 to 1941 and was exiled from his island as a result) and replaced him with a version (literate white US serviceman who appeared to the village elders in a vision on February 15, late 1930s) better suited to the cult

--

This is what Drews, John M. Robertson, John Remsburg, and (nearly a century later) G. A. Wells were on about. Personally, I think the Jesus of the NT is a composite character - formed out of various would be messiahs as far back as the Teacher of Righteous in the 1st century BCE.

 

[dejudge]

Indeed, the Oracle of Delphi existed and she spouted gibberish judiciously interpreted by a priest. But such gibberish often changed the course of history. For example, Alexander the Great conquered the entire known world on the basis of being told by the Oracle that he was invincible.

But this does not make her abilities “real” any more that the historical figure of Jesus embodied the magical crap of the NT that coalesced around him. But, in both instances, they existed.

You have no historical evidence whatsoever that there was an historical Jesus. Your assertions about the existence of Jesus are really worthless.

Just saying Jesus existed is nothing more than superstition and/or imagination.

Jesus of Nazareth was all fiction -fake magic crap --stupid ghost stories.

 

[dejudge]

I agree that at some level Jesus existed but then so did Remsburg. His point and that of the Christ mythers of his time was not so much Jesus didn't exist as a human being but the possibly that the connection between the Jesus of the NT and the one of history may have been effectively nil.

Which Jesus of history are you talking about? What connection? Where? When, Who?.......??????

When did the real Jesus of Nazareth live?

Who wrote about the real Jesus of Nazareth?

Jesus of Nazareth has no connection in historical writings.

 

[dejudge]

Personally, I think the Jesus of the NT is a composite character - formed out of various would be messiahs as far back as the Teacher of Righteous in the 1st century BCE.

The NT itself tells us where they got their Jesus stories from.

It is documented.

Look in the NT and OT. They are usually bound together.

The authors clearly stated that their Jesus was derived from the words of the prophets in Hebrew Scripture and not only named the books of the prophets but also quoted them word for word.

The last words of the supposed Jesus in the Gospels are clear examples that the Jesus story was not based on historical events but from whatever passage of Hebrew Scripture each author decided to use.

The last words of Jesus in gMark 15.34 are " My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me".

Those words were copied word for word from Psalms 22 verse 1.

Psalms 22.1

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?...

Now, look at gLuke.

What are the last words of his Jesus in gLuke 23.46?

"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"

Where did those words come from?

The Psalms.

Psalm 31:5

Into thine hand I commit my spirit..

The Jesus character was fabricated as a fulfilment of supposed prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

It is documented in the NT.

Matthew 1:22

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet...

But even worse, Jesus of Nazareth is the fulfilmemt of false prophecies.

In essence, Jesus of Nazareth was a fiction character derived fiction.

 

[Brainache]

Would it help if we told you that you have reached the secret number of repetitions required to prove your case?

You have said it often enough, there is no need to tell anyone ever again. The committee will be along soon to present you with your crown, sash and giant medal.

Now you can walk down the street comfortable in the knowledge that the world committee of super-smart internextspurts has awarded you their highest honour.

There is no need to post about it ever again.

Congratulations and Godspeed dejudge, you magnificent bastard...

 

[dejudge]

It is extremely important to understand that all the NT Gospels were written after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE but were falsely claimed to have been written by apostles and their followers before the fall of Jerusalem.

Now, what is the known actual catastrophic event in the Gospels that was supposedly prophesied by Jesus??

The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

So, the author of the Gospels knew or most likely heard about the destruction of the Temple before they wrote their bogus after the fact prophesy

Mark 13:2

And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

People who believed that the Gospels were really written by the apostles of Jesus would be deceived into believing that the prophecies of the supposed Jesus had been fulfilled.

Up to this very day, the Christian Church has not revealed the real names of the NT authors and when they actually lived.

If they were to do so then it would easily be recognize that the entire NT is indeed completely non-historical with regards to Jesus and that his supposed prophecies of were fabricated after the events had already occurred.

 

[dejudge]

This is a valid argument --Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was not human.

P1: Human beings have human fathers.
P2: Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was fathered by a ghost.

Conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was not human.

 

[maximara]

It is extremely important to understand that all the NT Gospels were written after the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE but were falsely claimed to have been written by apostles and their followers before the fall of Jerusalem.

Now, what is the known actual catastrophic event in the Gospels that was supposedly prophesied by Jesus??

The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

So, the author of the Gospels knew or most likely heard about the destruction of the Temple before they wrote their bogus after the fact prophesy

Up to this very day, the Christian Church has not revealed the real names of the NT authors and when they actually lived.

If they were to do so then it would easily be recognize that the entire NT is indeed completely non-historical with regards to Jesus and that his supposed prophecies of were fabricated after the events had already occurred.

The Gospels were anonymous ie the Church has no freaking idea who actually wrote them. Heck, the best that can be shown is the Gospels as we currently know them existed sometime before 180 CE. And the author of those works firmly put Jesus' crucifixion 42-44 CE well after Paul's vision of the crucified Jesus. The real hoot is he cites the Gospels themselves (Luke and John) to prove it!

This is a valid argument --Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was not human.

P1: Human beings have human fathers.
P2: Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was fathered by a ghost.

Conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was not human.

P2: Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, and Plato were all stated as being born of virgins ie fathered by a ghost

Conclusion: Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, and Plato were not human.

Is that nonsense? Of course it is. But it shows that if your logic is flawed your conclusion is going to be nonsensical.

 

[KayBur]

Actually it is those who argue for an HJ who are motivated by wishful thinking. People who argue that Jesus of Nazareth really existed are either superstitious or make unevidenced assumptions.

This is a partial list of the facts.

1. There is no historical evidence for the supposed Jesus of Nazareth.
2. There is no historical evidence for the family of Jesus of Nazareth.
3. There is no historical evidence for the disciples/apostles of Jesus.
4. There is no historical evidence for NT Paul.
5. There is no historical evidence for any NT author.
6. The stories of Jesus of Nazareth, his disciples and Paul are fiction.
7. Every mention of Jesus in non-apologetic sources is a forgery.
8. No Jewish writer of antiquity mentioned any Jewish Christian c27-100 CE.
9. There is no known early Jewish Christian writer .
10. Extant Jewish writings from the 1st century do not mention Jesus.

Based on the existing evidence I argue that Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed and that the character was fabricated sometime in the 2nd century.

This sounds healthy. If evidence of the existence of the pharaohs, Roman emperors, has come down to us, then if there were biblical personalities, there would also be evidence of their existence. Not just a couple of books written, but some physical evidence (evidence, some objects that you can touch).

 

[Roger Ramjets]

This sounds healthy. If evidence of the existence of the pharaohs, Roman emperors, has come down to us, then if there were biblical personalities, there would also be evidence of their existence. Not just a couple of books written, but some physical evidence (evidence, some objects that you can touch).

Yeah, this argument sounds healthy. So what 'physical' evidence, ie. 'objects that you can touch' (not just 'books') do we have for Ptolemy XV or Julius Caesar?

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, this argument sounds healthy. So what 'physical' evidence, ie. 'objects that you can touch' (not just 'books') do we have for Ptolemy XV or Julius Caesar?

There are contemporary statues and coins with Julius Ceaser name and image on them. There are no contemporary writings or contemporary images of Jesus. There are contemporary writings of Ptolemy as well as others about him.

But it doesn't really matter. Neither of which are claimed to be supernatural or the giver of everlasting life.

 

[dejudge]

The Gospels were anonymous ie the Church has no freaking idea who actually wrote them...

How is it possible that up to this very day that the Church has no idea when and who originally wrote their own books of the NT when they knew the names of all the so-called heretics and knew what and when they had written their supposed heresies??

See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus - Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus and Prescription Against the Heretics attributed by Tertullian.

It is clear that the Church or apologetics introduced fake authors to make it appear that the NT writers were earlier than the so-called heretics when in fact the NT writings were late.

Heck, the best that can be shown is the Gospels as we currently know them existed sometime before 180 CE. And the author of those works firmly put Jesus' crucifixion 42-44 CE well after Paul's vision of the crucified Jesus. The real hoot is he cites the Gospels themselves (Luke and John) to prove it!

NT authors do not at all put the crucifixion of their Jesus at c 42-44 CE.

NT authors who mentioned the crucifixion of their Jesus claimed he was crucified when Pilate was governor of Judea.

Pilate was governor c 27-37 CE.

The author of gLuke implies the crucifixion of his Jesus occurred sometime around c 30 CE or around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

Luke 3:1

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea...

By the way, the Pauline writer in 1 Corinthians claimed he was seen of a resurrected being but it is not known when the fictitious event occurred

P2: Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, and Plato were all stated as being born of virgins ie fathered by a ghost

Conclusion: Caesar Augustus, Alexander the Great, and Plato were not human.

Is that nonsense? Of course it is. But it shows that if your logic is flawed your conclusion is going to be nonsensical.

I don't know why you keep repeating known fiction about the Caesar Augustus??

You ought to show that it is documented by historians that the father of Augustus Caesar was Caius Octavius.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6400/6400-h/6400-h.htm#link2H_4_0003

Suetonius Life of Augustus

His father Caius Octavius was, from his earliest years, a person both of opulence and distinction: for which reason I am surprised at those who say that he was a money-dealer 108, and was employed in scattering bribes, and canvassing for the candidates at elections, in the Campus Martius. For being bred up in all the affluence of a great estate, he attained with ease to honourable posts, and discharged the duties of them with much distinction....

Valid argument 1.
P1: Human beings have human fathers.

P2: Augustus had a human father.

Conclusion: Augustus was human.


Valid argument 2.

P1: Human beings have human fathers.

P2: NT Jesus of Nazareth was fathered by a ghost.

Conclusion: NT Jesus of Nazareth was not human.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is true fiction.

 

[acbytesla]

How is it possible that up to this very day that the Church has no idea when and who originally wrote their own books of the NT when they knew the names of all the so-called heretics and knew what and when they had written their supposed heresies??

See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus - Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus and Prescription Against the Heretics attributed by Tertullian.

It is clear that the Church or apologetics introduced fake authors to make it appear that the NT writers were earlier than the so-called heretics when in fact the NT writings were late.




NT authors do not at all put the crucifixion of their Jesus at c 42-44 CE.

NT authors who mentioned the crucifixion of their Jesus claimed he was crucified when Pilate was governor of Judea.

Pilate was governor c 27-37 CE.

The author of gLuke implies the crucifixion of his Jesus occurred sometime around c 30 CE or around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

Luke 3:1


By the way, the Pauline writer in 1 Corinthians claimed he was seen of a resurrected being but it is not known when the fictitious event occurred



I don't know why you keep repeating known fiction about the Caesar Augustus??

You ought to show that it is documented by historians that the father of Augustus Caesar was Caius Octavius.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6400/6400-h/6400-h.htm#link2H_4_0003

Suetonius Life of Augustus

Valid argument 1.
P1: Human beings have human fathers.

P2: Augustus had a human father.

Conclusion: Augustus was human.


Valid argument 2.

P1: Human beings have human fathers.

P2: NT Jesus of Nazareth was fathered by a ghost.

Conclusion: NT Jesus of Nazareth was not human.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is true fiction.

I don't trust any of the information regarding the character Jesus to be reliable. But that doesnt mean there wasn't a Jesus. I think it is folly to attempt to disprove his existence. At best any can do is expose information that suggests he was only a fictional character.
But that doesn't prove there wasn't a Jesus. Only that the stories were not entirely true.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

There are contemporary statues and coins with Julius Ceaser name and image on them.

I see. So unless your face appeared on a coin or a statue was made of you, you didn't exist? I now totally understand why people say Jesus is a myth.

There are contemporary writings of Ptolemy as well as others about him.

Writings are the same as books, so they don't count as physical evidence - unless they are on a coin. Writings can be forged or made up, unlike coins and statues which always depict real people.

If only we would find contemporary coins with the head of Jesus on them, or a statue of him, we would know that he existed. But we haven't, which proves he is a myth! But the Roman god Janus (the one with 2 heads) was totally a real person. We know this because...

 

[dejudge]

I don't trust any of the information regarding the character Jesus to be reliable. But that doesnt mean there wasn't a Jesus. I think it is folly to attempt to disprove his existence. At best any can do is expose information that suggests he was only a fictional character.
But that doesn't prove there wasn't a Jesus. Only that the stories were not entirely true.

What you say doesn't prove Jesus existed.

You seem not to understand the difference between proof and an argument.

No-one has ever proven NT Jesus of Nazareth did exist so there is no need to disprove what has never been proven.

If NT Jesus of Nazareth did not exist then there would be no evidence of his existence.

That is exactly what is found.

All entities deemed to be non-historical have no historical evidence.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is not the only entity that has been deemed to be non-historical due to lack of historical evidence.

I can argue that NT Jesus did not exist due to lack of historical evidence.

It is completely reasonable to argue that Jesus was not a figure of history just like the God Creator, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah and hundreds of other entities found in Jewish, Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythology.

 

[maximara]

I don't trust any of the information regarding the character Jesus to be reliable. But that doesnt mean there wasn't a Jesus. I think it is folly to attempt to disprove his existence. At best any can do is expose information that suggests he was only a fictional character.
But that doesn't prove there wasn't a Jesus. Only that the stories were not entirely true.

It is folly as you can't prove a negative. Here is a collection of "historical" but nobody Jesuses to illustrate what I mean by that:

1) In the time of Pontius Pilate some crazy ran into the Temple trashing the place and screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before some guard ran him through with a sword. Right place right time...and that is it. No preaching, no followers, no crucifixion, nothing but some nut doing the 1st century equivalent of suicide by cop.

2) Paul's teachings ala John Frum inspired others to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their spin on Paul's visions with one of them getting crucified by the Romans by his troubles whose teachings are time shifted so he is before Paul. (John Robertson actually came up with a variant of this in 1900 with this Jesus being inspired by Paul's writings rather then teachings)

3) You could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of Jewish wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50.

You can't prove any of these aren't the "real" Jesus. The real problem is the same one David Kusche presented for the supposed myth of the Bermuda Triangle:

"Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid and if they have left anything out."

The rationalwioi article Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ looks at the "proof" and it is in really bad shape. Either something is unprovable (ad hoc) or when we can cross reference it it doesn't match with other records.

I see. So unless your face appeared on a coin or a statue was made of you, you didn't exist? I now totally understand why people say Jesus is a myth.

Writings are the same as books, so they don't count as physical evidence - unless they are on a coin. Writings can be forged or made up, unlike coins and statues which always depict real people.

Always? No. There are plenty of statues or Greek and Roman gods and unless you buy into Euhemerus's expansion of Herodotus' idea of myth being distortions of historical evenst. The Mercury dime is an example of a coin that depicted a person who never existed. This is an unrealistic expectation of history.

This and similar views are the result of misunderstanding the historical method. To grossly oversimplify:

All other things being equal, the closer a piece of evidence is to an event the more it is valued. These approach yields these descending levels of evidence:

1) Contemporary evidence: Material that dates to the time the person or event actually happened - such as documents, media coverage, or eyewitness accounts.

2) Derivative evidence: Material that incorporates or relies on contemporary evidence that has since been lost, such as accounts of events written in ancient times.

3) Comparative evidence: Material that gives details that can be checked against known phenomena of the time.

Historians evaluate this evidence in two primary ways:

Source criticism: This entails determining the reliability of a given source, procedures regarding contradictory evidence, and quality of possible eyewitness evidenceincluding indirect witnesses and oral tradition. Historical Anthropology tries to take this to the next level by looking at cultural dynamics that could influence what events are recored as well of how they are reported though being formed in the 1960s the field is quite young.

Synthesis: historical reasoning - This entails argument for superior explanations (that is, determining which theories are more likely to explain a given bit of evidence?) sometimes using statistical inference and/or argument by analogy.