The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

Yes, this has been covered many times before. I'm not even sure what it has to do with what I posted.

I was more referring to the Ebionite view of Jesus as the "True Prophet", definitely not an ethereal celestial sub-lunar demi-god. That, and their enmity towards Paul and his "vision".

Now, tell us about the Marcionites view?

Tell us about the Valentinians view?

Tell us about all the views of the so-called Heretics?

The Ebionite view of Jesus was a LIE according to "Against Heresies".

The fact that there were MULTIPLE IRRECONCILABLE claims about the nature and origin of Jesus is evidence from antiquity that there was NO established historical data for the character called Jesus of Nazareth.

In addition, there is NO contempoary manuscript or No contemporary evidence to show that the cult called Ebionites was initiated in the 1st century.

It does not logical follow that the character called Jesus, the Son of God, was a man becuase the Ebionites believe so.

People have ALWAYS believed Jesus of Nazareth existed WITHOUT evidence just like the Ebionites.

 

[Peregrinus]

So, then, still wrapping yourself tightly in the fallacy that absence of evidence gives evidence of absence?

It's been widely accepted for centuries that we have no original texts from the period in question on the topic in question. To leap from that to claims that the texts we do have are fiction is delusional.

 

[Brainache]

Now, tell us about the Marcionites view?

Tell us about the Valentinians view?

Tell us about all the views of the so-called Heretics?

The Ebionite view of Jesus was a LIE according to "Against Heresies".

The fact that there were MULTIPLE IRRECONCILABLE claims about the nature and origin of Jesus is evidence from antiquity that there was NO established historical data for the character called Jesus of Nazareth.

In addition, there is NO contempoary manuscript or No contemporary evidence to show that the cult called Ebionites was initiated in the 1st century.

It does not logical follow that the character called Jesus, the Son of God, was a man becuase the Ebionites believe so.

People have ALWAYS believed Jesus of Nazareth existed WITHOUT evidence just like the Ebionites.

Except there is this from the DSS:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q171_pesher_psalms.html

...
Column 2 - "Forty Years" from Teacher to Desolation

2:5-9 Yet a little while (Heb: me'at, mem-ayin-tet) and the wicked one will be no more. I will discern his place but he will not be there (Psalm 37:10).

"Its pesher refers to all wickedness at the end of 40 years (Heb:Mem = 40). They will be finished and no wicked man will be found on the earth."

"Then the meek will inherit the earth and enjoy all the abundance that peace brings" (37:11).

This refers to the company of the poor who endure the time of error but are delivered from all the snares of Belial. Afterwards they will enjoy all the [ . . . ] of the earth and grow fat on every human luxury.
...

That's a first century Apocalyptic document. They use the term "the company of the poor" (Hebrew: "Ebionim", Greek: "Ebionite") to describe themselves.

Whether or not you accept that the Teacher of Righteousness was "Jesus", there was a first century group of Messianic Apocalyptic Jews who called themselves "Ebionites".

 

[dejudge]

....That's a first century Apocalyptic document. They use the term "the company of the poor" (Hebrew: "Ebionim", Greek: "Ebionite") to describe themselves.

Whether or not you accept that the Teacher of Righteousness was "Jesus", there was a first century group of Messianic Apocalyptic Jews who called themselves "Ebionites".

What!!! When will your bizarre logic end.

Ebionites existed therefore Jesus existed??

Jews exist therefore their God exist??

Please, please, please!!! What utter nonsense you write.

Well, Marcionites existed therefore Jesus was a Phantom!!!

How much longer can you continue with your absurdities?

We are aware of the names of the so-called Heretical cults and we already know that you have no evidence for an historical Jesus and already know you have discredited your OWN sources.

The DSS cannot help the HJ argument at all.

The HJ argument is presently dead due to lack of "oxygen" [historical data].

The HJ argument fatally suffocated.

 

[Brainache]

What!!! When will your bizarre logic end.

...

 

[IanS]

So, then, still wrapping yourself tightly in the fallacy that absence of evidence gives evidence of absence?

It's been widely accepted for centuries that we have no original texts from the period in question on the topic in question. To leap from that to claims that the texts we do have are fiction is delusional.

The biblical texts, i.e. the canonical gospels and Paul's letters, mention the actions of Jesus scores times, possibly a hundred times in their various mentions of what he did and what he said etc. But almost every single mention has been shown to be quite certainly fictional.

If there is anything in the gospels about Jesus that might reasonably be thought as non-fictional, then the problem remains that those gospels were anonymously written by people who had never known Jesus and could only therefore have been repeating earlier religious beliefs about Jesus.

And in Paul's letters it's quite obvious, and really not arguable, that the author was describing a Jesus figure known only to him as a religious belief from divine revelation and "according to scripture". There is no human Jesus there known to Paul.

As for all the later non-biblical writing from people such as Tacitus and Josephus etc., - none of those authors could possibly have known Jesus, so what they wrote could only have been hearsay repetition of whatever had been written earlier in gospels or letters and/or preached as beliefs by Christians on the streets. But none of these authors were in any position to provide evidence of Jesus, because they had never known anyone called Jesus.

If you disagree with that, then we can go over it again for the 836th time and you can tell us what you claim to be evidence of a human Jesus ever known to any of those authors who produced the extant copies (we cannot know what was written in any hypothetical non-existent "original" copies from some supposedly much earlier dates).

But if none of those authors had ever known Jesus, and they clearly had not (as even all Christian bible scholars agree), then it's impossible for any of them to provide their own evidence of Jesus. The best they could do would be to repeat what some other named person had claimed to be evidence of knowing Jesus ... but none of those authors ever name anyone who credibly claimed to be their source of information on Jesus.

The problem is that complete lack of evidence for a human Jesus ever known to anyone at all.

 

[Brainache]

OK IanS, none of that is evidence against a HJ, nor is it evidence for Carrier's ethereal sub-lunar Jesus (manufactured from David's sperm up in the sky!)...

Now for something completely different...


The Life of Brian & The Apocalyptic Jesus

I finally found a video from that "What have the Pythons ever done for us?" HJ conference that Kings College gave last year...

 

[maximara]

Oh boy, the Alexander Jannaeus horse beating just will not die.

I think most of us are burned out on going over it yet again, so I'll post a link to my old post.

Yes, I should let it go, but I'm a bit of a masochist on this point.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10049579&postcount=177

And yet the Alexander Jannaeus point is restated in scholarly works even to the present day.

"Perahia's pupil, relying on the support of Epiphanius, who sets the birth of Jesus in the reign of Alexander (Jannaeus) and Alexandra, that is, in the time of Ben Perahia or Ben Tabai." (Efrón, Joshua (1987) Studies on the Hasmonean Period - Brill Academic Pub Page 158)

The Historical Jesus: Five Views a 2009 Christian work edited by James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy and printed by InterVarsity Press also contains the birth of Jesus in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus thing. (Page 80)

And yes it is in Carrier's OHJ (2014)

Digging around I even found reference to this 'strange belief of the Jews' as far back in the 12th century CE...by a Christian! If Jews didn't believe this why did Christian believe they did and why does it keep pooping up as an actual Jewish belief in scholarly peer reviewed publications like the above Brill publication or Carrier's own OHJ.

If the idea has no merit as you are claiming why does it keep presented by scholars?

 

[maximara]

So, then, still wrapping yourself tightly in the fallacy that absence of evidence gives evidence of absence?

It's been widely accepted for centuries that we have no original texts from the period in question on the topic in question. To leap from that to claims that the texts we do have are fiction is delusional.

It not just that we have no records but what we do have doesn't match up with the Christian account.

The birth stories range from ad hoc to logistic insanity so they are likely fiction.

The Sanhedrin trial account is totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century so odds are it is fictional

The idea that the Pontius Pilate who according to Josephus was not afraid to use armies to crush potential unrest (he sent a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry to Mount Gerizim to deal with the Mosus who had planned to "show them the sacred vessels which were buried there") would suddenly cow before a mob is ridiculous to insane so odds are that is fictional.

The Romans' behavior regarding the disappearance of Jesus body is totally out of character. As Carrier pointed in one of his lectures you have the option that either Jesus somehow survived execution (an idea the 1986 movie The Inquiry touches on) or somebody stole the body (a capital crime). And yet no effort to see if Jesus might still be alive and about or who may have stolen the body is made by the Romans. So odds are that part is fiction.

Then you come to the geography. It's on par with people who put the United States in Asia.

As I pointed out some time ago it would be as if one took an account of English First officer Edward James Truman dealing with would be saboteurs under a full moon aboard the Titanic before it hits the iceberg on April 14, 1912 at face value. Yes there was a Titanic that hit an iceberg on April 14, 1912 but everything else in that is fiction. And the Jesus story has much the same problem.

Duncker John serves no other function other then to show how important Jesus is so him being a historical person is no more relevance to Jesus then Sigmund Freud has to Sherlock Holmes in The Seven Percent Solution.

Similarly Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin, and Romans are so out of character based on what non Christians sources tell us that it is clear they (like the Titanic example above) are being used as historical set pieces. And if everything from geography to social-political factors in the Jesus story can be shown to be fiction then the whole underpinning that Jesus is historical in any meaningful way is knocked away.

 

[maximara]

OK IanS, none of that is evidence against a HJ, nor is it evidence for Carrier's ethereal sub-lunar Jesus (manufactured from David's sperm up in the sky!)...

And Kusche's Parrot squawks yet again. For those who don't know this is a phrase I coined based on David Kusche's comment about 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."

Any "evidence against a HJ" point is a Kusche's Parrot. The burden of proof should have been on those who say Jesus is a meaningly historical person (opposed to Robin Hood and King Arthur who have "candidates" all over the place)

We question the existence of people like Sun Tzu (Sun Wu), Confucius (Kong Qiu), and even Muhammad who have far better evidence for historical existence then for Jesus.

For Sun Tzu and Confucius we have an actual historian using actual historical records and commenting on issues he is having with said records and for Muhammad we have a monk's personal notes c 636 CE mixed in with his copying of the gospels that talks of the "many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives". In 660 we have Sebeos who in Armenian chronicles records the accounts of fugitives who tell him of about "certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth"

These guys are of questionable historicity but Jesus is a sure thing?!?

 

[Brainache]

And Kusche's Parrot squawks yet again. For those who don't know this is a phrase I coined based on David Kusche's comment about 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."

Any "evidence against a HJ" point is a Kusche's Parrot. The burden of proof should have been on those who say Jesus is a meaningly historical person (opposed to Robin Hood and King Arthur who have "candidates" all over the place)

We question the existence of people like Sun Tzu (Sun Wu), Confucius (Kong Qiu), and even Muhammad who have evidence for historial existance far better then that of Jesus.

Well either these Jesus stories were based on a human teacher, or they weren't. There is nothing extraordinary about the proposition that fanciful tales were told about a certain man. It's a very ordinary kind of conclusion to arrive at, given the historical and cultural context.

Carrier's ideas have less support and require all kinds of weird interpretations. Like Paul telling his followers that Jesus was built from David's sperm up in the sky! That is just bizarre.

Now tell me about John Frum again...

 

[Peregrinus]

possible clarification

I would submit that what dejudge means by "fiction" and what most of us would mean by that term are quite apart from one another; that is where he becomes delusional. Serious scholars do not denigrate the entire corpus because of documented discrepancies; each manuscript presents a unique view and framework. Admittedly, the canonical gospels give radically varying accounts of events surrounding the start of Jesus' ministry, the entry into Jerusalem, the Passover meal & its preparations, the "trials," the actual day & hour of execution, etc. It's quite likely no more than a very flew scribes/chroniclers in the 1st Century had known or even had heard of one another. Historical writing as we think of it certainly varies by orders of magnitude from the aims of writers of the early Christian era. Were one of us in a time-bubble hovering over the Levant during biblical times, very, very little would appear as now reported.

Again, "fiction" as we see it and think of it is only a partially accurate measure of the poetic license regularly employed by ALL writers of the biblical period.

In short, canonical texts can in some degree reflect some events and some attitudes, even while not being squeakily accurate by our measure.

 

[dejudge]

So, then, still wrapping yourself tightly in the fallacy that absence of evidence gives evidence of absence?

It's been widely accepted for centuries that we have no original texts from the period in question on the topic in question. To leap from that to claims that the texts we do have are fiction is delusional.

Your statement is extremely bizarre.

You have not even realised that you have exposed that the HJ argument is hopelessly flawed.

If there are no original texts from the time period of the supposed historical Jesus then the HJ argument MUST be an argument from SILENCE.

The HJ argument MUST be un-evidenced and based on imagination.

My argument is that the Jesus CHARACTER and cult was initiated from the 2nd century or later.

There are MANUSCRIPTS from the 2nd century or later to SUPPORT my argument.

The HJ argument is baseless and was known to be so from the very start as soon as you admitted that you have NO contemporary manuscripts of the Jesus story.

There are hundreds of manuscripts and Codices from the 2nd century or later which describe Jesus of Nazareth as an Ascending, Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water Walking Son of a God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

Jesus of Nazareth was always a figure of myth and figure EXACTLY as the manuscripts and Codices state.

The supposed historical Jesus NEVER had any real history.

Essentially, HJ is a modern myth/fiction character primarily derived from the Christian Bible.

 

[Craig B]

My argument is that the Jesus CHARACTER and cult was initiated from the 2nd century or later.

There are MANUSCRIPTS from the 2nd century or later to SUPPORT my argument.

The HJ argument is baseless and was known to be so from the very start as soon as you admitted that you have NO contemporary manuscripts of the Jesus story.

My argument is that the Julius Caesar's campaign in Gaul was initiated from the 9th century or later.

There are MANUSCRIPTS from the 9th century or later to SUPPORT my argument.

The First Century BC Caesar War in Gaul argument is baseless and was known to be so from the very start as soon as you admitted that you have NO contemporary manuscripts of the Gaul War story.

 

[dejudge]

Well either these Jesus stories were based on a human teacher, or they weren't. There is nothing extraordinary about the proposition that fanciful tales were told about a certain man. It's a very ordinary kind of conclusion to arrive at, given the historical and cultural context.

When will your bizarre argument end? How in the world can you arrive at a conclusion WITHOUT the actual supporting evidence from antiquity?

In antiquity people in the Roman Empire believe Ghosts were actual figures of history.

You have forgotten that ROMULUS and REMUS the myth founders of Rome were born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Plutarch wrote about the Ghost born Romulus in the 1st century c 75 CE.

In antiquity, Ghost stories were extremely plausible and believable.

Plutarch's Romulus

For to Tarchetius, they say, king of Alba, who was a most wicked and cruel man, there appeared in his own house a strange vision, a male figure that rose out of a hearth, and stayed there for many days.

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.

Carrier's ideas have less support and require all kinds of weird interpretations. Like Paul telling his followers that Jesus was built from David's sperm up in the sky! That is just bizarre.

Your use of the Pauline Corpus to argue for an historical Jesus is completely bizarre after you admitted Paul was a liar and conman and that letters of the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or falsely attributed.

The Pauline writers stated Jesus was NOT a man but the LORD God from heaven--God's Own Son and God Creator.

Isn't it bizarre that you are using the words of an admitted liar as history WITHOUT contemporary corroboration?

Now tell me about John Frum again...

Tell me about Paul again?

He was NOT a Jew??

He was an Herodian?

Somebody is Lying!!!

 

[dejudge]

My argument is that the Julius Caesar's campaign in Gaul was initiated from the 9th century or later.
There are MANUSCRIPTS from the 9th century or later to SUPPORT my argument.

Well if that is your argument , then you can also argue that Satan was with Jesus in Jerusalem in the time of Pilate because we have Satan's OWN words in copies of the Gospels.

There are manuscripts with Satan's OWN words.

By the way, there is NO birth narrative for Satan so you can argue that he was born through human parents.

 

[maximara]

Well either these Jesus stories were based on a human teacher, or they weren't. There is nothing extraordinary about the proposition that fanciful tales were told about a certain man. It's a very ordinary kind of conclusion to arrive at, given the historical and cultural context.

Carrier's ideas have less support and require all kinds of weird interpretations. Like Paul telling his followers that Jesus was built from David's sperm up in the sky! That is just bizarre.

Now tell me about John Frum again...

The same argument can be made for Robin Hood and King Arthur and we are not sure if they actually existed either. Then you have Ned Ludd who main claim to fame was supposedly braking two stocking frames in a fit of rage.

In fact, Robin Hood provides a third option for Jesus suggested by John Robertson back in 1900: a composite character formed out of various real would be messiahs. Robertson suggested the Jesus of the Talmud (stoned and hanged over a century earlier), a Jesus that "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death ", and a Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation.

It has been suggested that one of the reasons that the Teacher of Righteousness is somewhat of a temperamental puzzle is there were in fact three of them: one in the 2nd century BCE, one in the 1st century BCE, and one in the 1st century CE.

As I have pointed out before there is this ahistorical area between Carrier's minimal historical and minimal mythical Jesuses where you can have a flesh and blood Jesus but still have "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense".

You talked about telling you about John Frum again. Well the Navy version of John Frum is due to the mixing of the mythologies of John Frum and Tom Navy. Unlike John Frum, Tom Navy does seem to have a historical core: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, a man who was both a missionary and Navy Seabee during WWII. So even though as far as we can tell John Frum as nothing more then a vision (ie fictional) at least one version had elements of an actual historical person added later.

In 1938 C.H Dodd suggested that Jesus started out as a fiction with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. Well something along those lines happened to John Frum where the navy man version added elements of Tom Beatty of Mississippi. Note John Frum wasn't even known to non believers until 1940 at least two years after Dodd proposed his theory.

One of the hallmarks of a good scientific theory is that it predicts things that are later found in the real world and the mechanic of what Dodd suggested was found later...in the navy version of John Frum.

The Historical Jesus had made many predictions and they have all been an epic fail. Either historical support can't be found or what we do have is at odds with the account in the Gospels and Acts. Yet Robin Hood whose first account appears some 300 years after the events supposedly happened has less problems then the Jesus story supposedly written down as little as 50 years and no more then 100 years after the events. Heck, even the part where King Richard I returns to England in disguise has more historical validity then the behavior of Pontius Pilate.

The fact the HJ crowd are running around like headless chickens looking to prove Nazareth existed during Jesus supposed life time just shows the near desperation they have. We KNOW Atlanta, Georgia existed during the Civil War but that doesn't mean that Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hara were real people

The you have that insane implication (presented in this thread at least twice IIRC) that Christ Mythers were saying Pontius Pilate was fictional. Kapyong in another thread did a good overview of the material and couldn't find any Christ Myther who ever made such a claim.

 

[Craig B]

By the way, there is NO birth narrative for Satan so you can argue that he was born through human parents.

Yes, OK. Did he have four brothers and more than one sister? Was he the son of a carpenter called Joseph, or was he originally a Son of God living with God and, like him, occasionally visiting the mortal earth?

Let me introduce him to you.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."

Where's the "human parents" there, dejudge, eh?

 

[maximara]

Yes, OK. Did he have four brothers and more than one sister? Was he the son of a carpenter called Joseph, or was he originally a Son of God living with God and, like him, occasionally visiting the mortal earth?

Let me introduce him to you. Where's the "human parents" there, dejudge, eh?

Ever hear of adoption?

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. - Psalm 2:7 KJV

And here I thought it was just Zeus who went around sowing wild oats like a demented farmer Oh were NOT supposed to take that literally? Will wonders never end.

 

[Craig B]

Ever hear of adoption?

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. - Psalm 2:7 KJV

And here I thought it was just Zeus who went around sowing wild oats like a demented farmer Oh were NOT supposed to take that literally? Will wonders never end.

I have heard of adoption, and I have cited that and other verses to show that the original meaning of Son of God as applied to Jesus was that of messianic Davidic King. The mythical Holy Ghost as physical father stuff came later, and the divinisation of Jesus came later still.