Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

It is folly as you can't prove a negative........

Based on your absurdity one cannot argue that the claim the God of the Jews created Adam and Eve is false.

 

[maximara]

Based on your absurdity one cannot argue that the claim the God of the Jews created Adam and Eve is false.

You ignored the other part:

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 burden here is several fold:
1) The Old Testament has to be shown to be historically accurate (we know that in several places it isn't)
2) The existence of a Garden of Eden, an Adam, and an Eve must be proven in the time period normally given (c, 8,000 BC for the young earth creationist crowd)
3) An mundane explanation of how the children of Adam and Eve avoided the inbreeding coefficient

And the list goes on.

 

[dejudge]

You ignored the other part:

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 burden here is several fold:
1) The Old Testament has to be shown to be historically accurate (we know that in several places it isn't)
2) The existence of a Garden of Eden, an Adam, and an Eve must be proven in the time period normally given (c, 8,000 BC for the young earth creationist crowd)
3) An mundane explanation of how the children of Adam and Eve avoided the inbreeding coefficient

And the list goes on.

Again, based on your absurdity one cannot argue that the claim the God of the Jews created Adam and Eve is false.

The burden of proof for those who argue for creationism cannot in any way relieve me of arguing that the creation story is false based on existing evidence.

The baseless refrain that one cannot prove a negative is just absurd.

I hope you can prove that your eye is not your foot.

 

[maximara]

Again, based on your absurdity one cannot argue that the claim the God of the Jews created Adam and Eve is false.

Your don't understand. The Burden is showing God of the Jews created Adam and Eve is true not the other way around.

For example, someone saying Jesus was actually a high tech spaceman would be asked to show evidence to support such a claim.

It should never be the burden to to prove something false. The burden should always be on the person making the claim.

It was not doing this that resulted in Aristotle dominating Wester thought for so long even when it could be proved he was wrong because things did not dehave the way he said they did.

 

[Delvo]

The analogy is no good because Adam and Eve have already been thoroughly proven false, whether there was a burden to do so or not.

 

[dejudge]

Your don't understand. The Burden is showing God of the Jews created Adam and Eve is true not the other way around.

For example, someone saying Jesus was actually a high tech spaceman would be asked to show evidence to support such a claim.

It should never be the burden to to prove something false. The burden should always be on the person making the claim.
....

No-body here is arguing that NT Jesus was actually a high tech spacemen.

The people who initially claimed NT Jesus of Nazareth was a water-walking, transfiguring son of a ghost which resurrected and ascended in a cloud are all dead.

I argue that NT Jesus of Nazareth as described in the NT is a figure of fiction.

It was not doing this that resulted in Aristotle dominating Wester thought for so long even when it could be proved he was wrong because things did not dehave the way he said they did.

What a contradiction!!!

You have admitted that a negative can be proven.

 

[dejudge]

The analogy is no good because Adam and Eve have already been thoroughly proven false, whether there was a burden to do so or not.

All you have done is to confirm that the baseless assertion that no-one can prove a negative is utterly false.

 

[KayBur]

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?

Well, these personalities are not deified. There is still evidence of their activities. We read about Caesar in history books; he was minted on coins of those times that are found in excavations. Ptolemy's existence is evidenced by his writings. Neither in the first nor in the second case there are any references to divine nature, unprecedented miracles and the like.

 

[maximara]

Well, these personalities are not deified. There is still evidence of their activities. We read about Caesar in history books; he was minted on coins of those times that are found in excavations. Ptolemy's existence is evidenced by his writings. Neither in the first nor in the second case there are any references to divine nature, unprecedented miracles and the like.

Actually it depends on what you mean by "deified" as Apotheosism was the thing back then. Heck, the whole stick of WWII Japan was the Apotheosing of their current Emperor ie "the god Emperor of Japan" and that was just over 80 years ago.

Besides there was someone who did supposedly did everything Jesus did except get crucified: Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE – c100 CE). It is to the point he is often called "the pagan Christ"

Unlike the Gospels The Life of Apollonius of Tyana has a named author and gives its sources:

*A book on the youth of Apollonius, written by Maximus of Aegae
*Memoirs written by a disciple of Apollonius, Damis.
*The "Memorabilia of Apollonius of Tyana, magician and philosopher", written by a Moeragenes, although Philostratus considers that account rather unreliable.
*Local knowledge from towns like Ephesus, Tyana, Aegae, and Antioch.

If you really want a trip into gonzoland there is the theory that Apollonius wasn't a parallel to Jesus but rather was Jesus! Yet this idea hs been bounding around since at least the fourth-century (Heriocles).

 

[dejudge]

Actually it depends on what you mean by "deified" as Apotheosism was the thing back then. Heck, the whole stick of WWII Japan was the Apotheosing of their current Emperor ie "the god Emperor of Japan" and that was just over 80 years ago.

Besides there was someone who did supposedly did everything Jesus did except get crucified: Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE – c100 CE). It is to the point he is often called "the pagan Christ"

Unlike the Gospels The Life of Apollonius of Tyana has a named author and gives its sources:

*A book on the youth of Apollonius, written by Maximus of Aegae
*Memoirs written by a disciple of Apollonius, Damis.
*The "Memorabilia of Apollonius of Tyana, magician and philosopher", written by a Moeragenes, although Philostratus considers that account rather unreliable.
*Local knowledge from towns like Ephesus, Tyana, Aegae, and Antioch.

If you really want a trip into gonzoland there is the theory that Apollonius wasn't a parallel to Jesus but rather was Jesus! Yet this idea hs been bounding around since at least the fourth-century (Heriocles).

It is hardly likely that Apollonius was NT Jesus of Nazareth.

It is claimed NT Jesus of Nazareth, the son of the ghost, was crucified under Pilate sometime around the 15th year of Tiberius when he was about 30 years of age.

Apollonius of Tanya is claimed to have lived up to or around the end of the 1st century c 100 CE.

Unlike NT Jesus of Nazareth it is stated that Apollonius of Tanya had a human father.

The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, by Philostratus.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/aot/laot/laot03.htm
Book 1.4

APOLLONIUS’ home, then, was Tyana, a Greek city amidst a population of Cappadocians. His father was of the same name, and the family descended from the first settlers..

Book 1.7

When he reached his fourteenth year, his father brought him to Tarsus, to Euthydemus the teacher from Phoenicia.

Book 1. 13

NOW when he heard that his father was dead, he hurried to Tyana, and with his own hands buried him hard by his mother's sepulcher, for she too had died not long before; and he divided the property....

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

Apollonius of Tyana (Ancient Greek: Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Τυανεύς; c. 15 – c. 100 AD),[1] sometimes also called Apollonios of Tyana, was a Greek Neopythagorean philosopher from the town of Tyana in the Roman province of Cappadocia in Anatolia.

 

[dejudge]

It is interesting to note that Halley's comet which has a planetary period between 74-80 years and can be seen with the naked eye is documented to have been seen 12 BCE which is during the reign of King Herod the Great and at 66 CE around the time of the Jewish War.


http://infoman16.tripod.com/Article...as surrounded by a,two or more smaller comets

In 12 BC it was followed by Chinese astrologers for 56 days (26 August - 20 October) through the constellations of Gemini to Scorpio.

It returned in AD 66 (Perihelion: 26 January) and was first sighted by the Chinese on 31 January, later appearing in Capricorn and disappearing around 10 April.

Cassius Dio in Roman History when writing about events at 12 BCE did mention a comet was seen.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10883/pg10883.html

Cassius Dio Roman History Vol. 4

The star called comet stood for several days over the City and was finally dissolved into flashes of light.

In War of the Jews it is stated that there was indeed a comet seen about the time of the War of the Jews c 66-70 CE.

http://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=josephus/War/WE06#05

Josephus' War of the Jews

A star like a sword had stood above the city for a whole year, and a comet too.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I never said he did. Only that there were stories about a man named Jesus. You know, historical fiction. We will never know if only small bits were made up or everything outside of the locations were fabricated.

 

[dejudge]

I never said he did. Only that there were stories about a man named Jesus. You know, historical fiction. We will never know if only small bits were made up or everything outside of the locations were fabricated.

We will never know if everything about Adam and Eve were made up.

 

[maximara]

I never said he did. Only that there were stories about a man named Jesus. You know, historical fiction. We will never know if only small bits were made up or everything outside of the locations were fabricated.

That was Remsburg's point though he though there was enough to show that a man called Jesus existed thought he also felt the Gospels told effectively nothing about the man.

 

[dejudge]

That was Remsburg's point though he though there was enough to show that a man called Jesus existed thought he also felt the Gospels told effectively nothing about the man.

There is no evidence at all to show that NT Jesus of Nazareth was a man. It is specifically stated that NT Jesus of Nazareth was born of a ghost without a human father.

Remburg's opinion is rather useless without historical evidence.


Matthew 1:18--
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Ignatius To the Ephesians -- For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.
Aristides' Apology --- And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

Justin's Dialogue With Trypho --And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost.
Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ ----As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Origen's Against Celsus --and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost
Eusebius Church History ----the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, as the account of the holy Gospels show.

NT Jesus of Nazareth was always a non-historical character.

 

[Tassman]

There is no evidence at all to show that NT Jesus of Nazareth was a man. It is specifically stated that NT Jesus of Nazareth was born of a ghost without a human father.

For the umpteenth time, no one here is claiming that the legend and myths that accrued around the man Jesus are true – this is a skeptics group for Pete’s sake. Merely that at the core of the religion a real man (a non-magic or resurrecting man) existed. This is the view of the majority of scholars – both non-theist and theist today. The mythicist theory (with a few notable exceptions) is a largely discarded 19th century notion.

 

[dejudge]

For the umpteenth time, no one here is claiming that the legend and myths that accrued around the man Jesus are true – this is a skeptics group for Pete’s sake. Merely that at the core of the religion a real man (a non-magic or resurrecting man) existed. This is the view of the majority of scholars – both non-theist and theist today. The mythicist theory (with a few notable exceptions) is a largely discarded 19th century notion.

For the umpteenth and one more time what you say does not mean that there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth.

Your claim that legend and myths accrued around a man called Jesus is utterly baseless.

Telling me that plenty people (theist and non-theist) believe Jesus existed is completely worthless as evidence.

 

[maximara]

For the umpteenth time, no one here is claiming that the legend and myths that accrued around the man Jesus are true – this is a skeptics group for Pete’s sake. Merely that at the core of the religion a real man (a non-magic or resurrecting man) existed. This is the view of the majority of scholars – both non-theist and theist today. The mythicist theory (with a few notable exceptions) is a largely discarded 19th century notion.

That is not true as the "mythicist theory" has a range:

Volney and Dupuis did not agree on a definition of the Christ myth. Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account, which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths. Volney, on the other hand, allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated in a mythology that compiled organically. ("Stages of New Testament Criticism"; George A. Wells; Journal of the History of Ideas; Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1969) So from nearly the get-go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought:

1) There was no human being behind the person portrayed in the New Testament.
2) Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology.
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. - (Christ Myth Theory, Rationalwiki)

So far from being "discarded" the Volney side of the mythicist theory has become more and more mainstream as time has passed as more and more of the Gospel account is discarded on either naturalistic, social-political, or historical grounds.

As Carrier points out in his peer reviewed book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt the "real" Jesus is such a subject of interpretation that if you asked 100 people of what the flesh and blood Jesus was like you would effectively get 100 different answers.

Robert Price, in his Christ a Fiction? piece IMHO sums it up best:

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs."

The pro-historical side want people to forget about Volney side of the Christ Myth thoery because if they didn't they would have have to admit at a certain level the mythist theory was right.

 

[Tassman]

That is not true as the "mythicist theory" has a range:

Volney and Dupuis did not agree on a definition of the Christ myth. Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account, which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths. Volney, on the other hand, allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated in a mythology that compiled organically. ("Stages of New Testament Criticism"; George A. Wells; Journal of the History of Ideas; Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1969) So from nearly the get-go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought:

1) There was no human being behind the person portrayed in the New Testament.
2) Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology.
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. - (Christ Myth Theory, Rationalwiki)

So far from being "discarded" the Volney side of the mythicist theory has become more and more mainstream as time has passed as more and more of the Gospel account is discarded on either naturalistic, social-political, or historical grounds.

As Carrier points out in his peer reviewed book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt the "real" Jesus is such a subject of interpretation that if you asked 100 people of what the flesh and blood Jesus was like you would effectively get 100 different answers.

Robert Price, in his Christ a Fiction? piece IMHO sums it up best:

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs."

The pro-historical side want people to forget about Volney side of the Christ Myth thoery because if they didn't they would have have to admit at a certain level the mythist theory was right.

Nevertheless, my claim that the mythicist theory (with a few notable exceptions) is a largely discarded 19th century notion still stands. This applies to Volney and Dupuis The notable exceptions, as you note, are the likes of Richard Carrier and Robert Price et al.

 

[dejudge]

Nevertheless, my claim that the mythicist theory (with a few notable exceptions) is a largely discarded 19th century notion still stands. This applies to Volney and Dupuis The notable exceptions, as you note, are the likes of Richard Carrier and Robert Price et al.

Your baseless claim does not stand at all. It is actually the reverse. HJ arguments have been discarded over and over since the 19th century. This is now the the third quest for an historical Jesus.

The multiple quests for an historical Jesus have failed. For hundreds of years Scholars have not been able to present any historical evidence for an HJ and simply make up their own Jesus based on their imagination.

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

By late 19th century, hundreds of Lives of Jesus had been written. Some of these were purely sensational: They were not produced because any new data had appeared, but because some people read and interpreted the gospels in new ways.[1][2] These stories of the Lives of Jesus were often romanticized, highly psychological or included new elements which did not appear in any of the gospels or other historical documents. For example, Ernest Renan used the incident where Jesus rides a donkey during his Triumphal entry into Jerusalem to build a story in which Jesus the carpenter was a gentle prophet who had a donkey in Galilee and rode it while traveling between its different towns...