The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

This is the continuation of the Historical Jesus thread found HERE. This was done for length only. Feel free to quote older posts in this thread. Thank you.

Posted By: Loss Leader

We have about the best direct evidence we're ever likely to get of how the process of literary invention works in the Nag Hammadi cache: someone adapting a 'wise sayings' source from the 1st century BC to create a Jesus narrative.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ is clearly dependent on Eugnostos the Blessed, both of which were unearthed at Nag Hammadi (in two differing copies for each). The Sophia of Jesus Christ transforms Eugnostos into a dialogue with Jesus. Douglas M. Parrott places the two side by side in his translation for the book The Nag Hammadi Library in English edited by Robinson.

Not one early Apologetic writer made reference to the Sophia of Jesus Christ or Eugnostos the Blessed.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ is a very late writing and the earliest manuscript is from the 4th century.

The story of Jesus is clearly dependent on the Septuagint--NOT the Sophia of Jesus Christ and Eugnostos the Blessed.

The birth of Jesus is based directly on Isaiah 7.14 and Micah 5.3

The voice from heaven at Baptism is based on Exodus 4.22.

The Temptation of Jesus is based on Deuteronomy 16.6, 16.8, 8.3,

The healing miracles of Jesus are based on Isaiah 53.

The Triumphant Entry is based on Zechariah 9.

The Passion of Jesus is based on Psalms 22.


The authors specifically identified books of the Septuagint as the sources of their story.

1. Matthew 1:22 KJV---Now all this was done , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet

2. Matthew 2:5 KJV----And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,


3. Matthew 2:15 KJV----And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying , Out of Egypt have I called my son.

4. Matthew 2:17 KJV----Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying ,

5. Matthew 3:3 KJV---For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying , The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

6. Matthew 4:14 KJV----That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying ,

7. Matthew 8:17 KJV----That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying , Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.


8. Matthew 12:17 KJV----That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying ,


9. Matthew 13:35 KJV----That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying , I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.


10. Matthew 21:4 KJV----All this was done , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying ,


11. Matthew 24:15 KJV----When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth , let him understand )


12. Matthew 27:9 KJV----Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying , And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued , whom they of the children of Israel did value ;

13. Matthew 27:35 KJV---And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

 

[JaysonR]

Sometimes a picture more accurately captures a sentiment than words could accomplish:

 

[DougW]

OK, well, then we differ on just that one point.

But there is absolutely no obligation on any of us here to propose any specific myth theory. There is no legal force, nor any other force requiring anyone here to do that.

Richard Carrier may feel compelled to provide a specific theory, but that's because he is trying to sell a commercial book where his publishers probably insist that he does endorse some particular theory. Most publishers probably would not think it was a good business idea to try selling books which merely pointed out why the evidence was not good enough.

But beyond that it's hardly a situation crying out for some amazing explanation, as if it was impossible to imagine how uneducated superstitious people in the 1st century could possibly come to believe in a fictional miraculous deity. At that time everyone believed in one such fictional deity or other. And they had believed such things for thousands of years before anyone ever mentioned Jesus. More than half the world still believes that today (apparently).

So there is no great mystery about that. And in fact as authors like Randel Helms have shown (Gospel Fictions), the gospel stories of Jesus are easily found to have been taken from what had been written centuries before in the Old Testament as so-called "citation fulfilment". So it's quite obvious where the Jesus stories came from, and why Paul kept saying that his beliefs were "according to scripture".

The idea that we must all have some specific myth theory in order to understand how on earth messianic Jesus belief could have possibly come about unless Jesus was real person, is frankly an argument from naive incredulity which turns a blind eye to all the countless previous fictional religious deity figures. Figures which often had many features in common with the later stories of Jesus, e.g. the idea of dying and rising again as symbolic proof of salvation granted to the faithful.

It does not need any theory of Paul or anyone else deliberately inventing Jesus as a complete "lie" in order to deceive anyone. Nobody needs to have lied or invented anything. Religious beliefs of that kind were ubiquitous throughout that region, and especially the belief that Yahweh would send a saving messiah as prophesised long before in the OT.

Nice post, Ian.

Logically speaking, it’s of course correct to say that the onus of proof resides with those who insist on an historical Jesus.

In that all the available evidence or information we do possess points at a mythical beginning, where’s that leave them though? Whereas forming a proper historical conclusion entails or includes offering a more plausible alternative.

For numerous reasons, not the least interpolation, we can dismiss the testimonies of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus, without an historical scruple.

The New Testament is the last place to look for historical facts, being largely a collection of church dogma, narrative theology or midrash, drawing on the Old Testament and pagan creeds, with the conception of a son of God who came to earth, a benefactor of man, one who died and rose again, already widely prevalent in the eastern Mediterranean pagan world. Paul, similarly, preached dogma, largely only concerned with the death and resurrection of Jesus, or the means of redemption through his death, a death no more historical than that of many pagan entities.

There existed numerous first-century Jewish cults, and Jewish mysticism, combined with Hellenistic philosophies, especially the Stoic, gave birth to the legend of Jesus. And as concluded by numerous scholars as early as the eighteenth century, once the Gentiles became prominent during the second century, the spiritualism of Paul and the Gnostics in general, was found to be far too refined. They insisted on the resurrection of the material body of Christ, together with immaculate conception, which together with a host of other embellishments culminated in the canonical gospels toward the end of that century. In fact, analogy with the tales of Homer seem far more apt than something like the battle of Thermopylae.

In other words, the historicists are bereft of all historical evidence on which to mount any sort of plausible argument, yet, as said, forming any sort of viable historical conclusion demands alternative explanation.

Sure, guided by their publishers, today’s authors are all on the lookout for some novel new angle by which to flog yet another book.

I completely agree that there’s really no great mystery, in fact, it’s been done to death by an army of scholars as from as early as the eighteenth century.

 

[DougW]

As for dejudge’’s spurious claims, Brainache, your comments seem largely predicated on somehow holding me accountable for your own conveniently assumed ignorance, and on ignoring all that’s been said, as well as all of the available evidence.

Contrary to your assertion, it’s even doubtful that Earl Doherty is “currently trying” to come up with any other kind of plausible scenario than he has already.

Reading his reply to Carrier Jesus Puzzle review, it’s pretty clear that as far he’s concerned, he’s already done so.

Doherty: -

“Consequently, in this case, as Garraghan puts it, “the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.” On these grounds, maybe the mythicist case ought to be considered something approaching a “slam dunk.”

Thus, when the full range and character of the silence in the early non-Gospel record is recognized and taken into account, I maintain there can be no feasible, let alone convincing, explanation to account for such a state of affairs which still preserves for these writers a knowledge of an historical Jesus. Certainly none has yet been put forward. All these features raise the AfS, in this particular case, to an elevated level. I would maintain that it not only conforms to Garraghan’s standards, it is the closest we could expect to get in demonstrating the non-existence of such a figure—at least in the sphere of those circles represented by this portion of the record (more on that later).

Similarly, I would maintain that the ‘balance of probability’ as presented by the total picture of the Christian evidence—a cultic movement that ignores, excludes and is complete without an historical Jesus, the absence of first century holy sites, relics, artifacts, Aramaic originals or sources lying behind its documents, etc., contemporary secular silence, silences extending even into major second century Christian apologists, the problems and peculiarities inherent in the Q tradition, and on and on—should lead the neutral observer to adopt that balance of probability.”

So, where the heck do get such nonsense like “whether or not he is successful remains to be seen”!

If you took the trouble to study the evolution of the many religious writings leading up to the canonical gospels you’ll indeed discover that Jesus began life as a Gnostic spiritual agent.

If you think otherwise, I suggest you accordingly present substantiated evidence to the contrary; a bit of ignorant and vague hand waving doesn’t fly!

Again, as Doherty observes: “These writers present topics such as the beginnings of the faith, the nature of the Christ they believe in, the source of the movement’s ethics and preaching gospel, in ways which do more than simply ignore, or happen not to mention, an historical Jesus—which would in itself be almost inexplicable. The picture presented is not only complete and coherent without him, the language and mode of expression gives every indication that no recent historical Jesus can be present in these writers’ minds. In some cases it is even more than this. The silence is “exclusionary.” The writer’s words exclude him by definition; they make no room for this missing historical Jesus figure.”

You say you’ve never heard of Edwin Johnson, and ask for a link.

Again, what’s your own ignorance got to do with me? Consult the Internet, and find plenty of links.

The quote from Humphrey’s Site isn’t just an “interesting assertion”, but merely one appropriate conclusion to a massive body of work, first commencing centuries ago.

The mere fact that you bothered to write four lengthy summaries on Eisenman’s absurd flights of fancy, seem to render your opinions somewhat suspect from the start, I would have thought.

What do you think Edwin Johnson wrote about, but the Dead Sea Scrolls!

I’m the only person you’ve ever seen who disputes that Mark was the first of the Gospels?

Well, you obviously missed my posted where I pointed out that Robert Price holds the same view, together with a raft of eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century scholars, apart from the fact that there exist a multitude of other opinions on the order of the canonical gospels; whereas the church fathers, almost to a man, insist that Matthew is the first.

Not only that, but Markan priority is intrinsically linked to the existence of the hypothetical ‘Q’ document, as well as first century Gospel origin. Having the one without the other two doesn’t make sense.

In almost all of the theories, and that includes our modern scholars, too little regard is paid to all the evidence indicating a late second-century origin, as well as the scant regard of their close connection to the apocryphal gospels, or even what’s called the ‘law of accretion’.

As Sunderland pointed out: “At least three of the four gospels have had no real authors, as we usually understand that word. They are the work of editors; they are compilations; ’mosaics’ …”

By contrast, see Doherty’s conclusions: -

“First, I would briefly like to ‘fine-tune’ Carrier’s summary of my position. I would not regard the original versions of some or all of the Gospels—certainly Mark, the first one—as the product of a politically motivated Church seeking advantages inherent in an historical Jesus.

I have argued, however, that such a perception would have been mistaken, and furthermore that the element of a death under Pilate was a complete and recognized (at the time) fiction on Mark’s part.

As the second century progressed, however, all four Gospels came to be regarded as corroborating accounts of historical events, and were undoubtedly edited and expanded with political advantage in mind.”

Mark’s priority is mere supposition based on outdated and ill-based premises, two of the Gospels were definitely influenced by political considerations, the elements of death under Pilate were already recognized in the Acts of Pilate as well as other manuscripts, and the four gospels did not ‘progress’ over the course of the second century, but were in fact final products (ignoring later interpolations), compiled from preceding manuscripts.

Is it my contention that the author of Mark edited his Gospel from a version of Luke?

No, the painstakingly work of people like Schleiermacher demonstrate conclusively that each of the Gospels, as well as Marcion’s, were variously composed from earlier manuscripts, and without necessarily entailing one author copying from any other.

If today’s authors really paid heed to some of these early scholars, including the Dutch Radical, it would leave them with scant to write about.

 

[DougW]

Whoever suggested that Philo was a Gnostic, dejudge!

Asserting that Jesus was fabricated to explain the Temple destruction is puerile nonsense.

Mark indeed displays Gnostic overtones.

Well, it’s been fun, but I don’t think I’ll waste more of my time.

 

[David Mo]

I was searching with the four points you quote to do a comparison between the letters of Plato and those of Paul in order to establish some criteria of authenticity (dating and authorship).

GRAMMAR EXERCICE:

With the four points you quote I was searching for a comparison...

(I suppose it is better).

 

[Brainache]

As for dejudge’’s spurious claims, Brainache, your comments seem largely predicated on somehow holding me accountable for your own conveniently assumed ignorance, and on ignoring all that’s been said, as well as all of the available evidence.

Contrary to your assertion, it’s even doubtful that Earl Doherty is “currently trying” to come up with any other kind of plausible scenario than he has already.
...

Still no links, just bare assertions.

I'll disregard the rest as the self-serving nonsense that it is. Still waiting for a plausible Mythicist scenario. And please leave the braggadocio where it belongs.

It is not at all "self-evident" that Jesus was based on a myth rather than a human teacher. A human teacher is the most plausible explanation, give the number of them floating around a the time and the total lack of any "Celestial Jesus" cults in evidence.

It isn't me that needs convincing though, is it? It is the Academic world that needs to be convinced and it will take a bit more than bare assertions to do that.

Good luck!

 

[proudfootz]

It's almost as if you didn't read the thread, except to confirm what you already thought.

The difference between us is that I have read the thread and I have understood it.

This 'holding history hostage' thing has been tried here on more occasions than I care to count.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]This 'holding history hostage' thing has been tried here on more occasions than I care to count.

The last effort seen in this thread of that ploy, involving the letters of Plato, is especially odd, given modern scholarship apparently concludes all those letters are spurious.
Or pseudo-epigraphical, if you will.

 

[proudfootz]

Still waiting for a plausible Mythicist scenario.

It's already a well established fact that people who write these sort of theological works are perfectly capable of invention when it suits them.

Most of the 'historical Jesus' scenarios begin with cutting large portions of the surviving texts out, so even bible scholars accept the pervasive tendency of bible writers to create stories we have no reason to think are actual events.

For example, here is an examination of one of these tales that even some early christians read as allegorical:

----------------

Jesus’ Cleansing of the Temple: Rationalizing a Miracle

by Tim Widowfield

...As you no doubt already know, the cleansing of, or what many Historical Jesus (HJ) scholars today often call a disturbance at, the Temple is an event recounted in all four gospels, which imagines a lone Jesus disrupting all business occurring in the outer courtyard.

HJ scholars who claim Jesus was some sort of apocalyptic prophet prefer to believe the event really happened, because it fits in with the eschatological message of their reconstructed Jesus...

...other NT scholars don’t buy into the historicity of the event. For example, in A Myth of Innocence Burton Mack called the story a “Markan fabrication.” (See p. 292.)

...

Origen suspected that we should understand the purification story as an allegory.

t is not surprising that Origen casts a doubt on the historical value of this narrative, by the expression, εἴγε καὶ αὐτὴ γεγένηται (if it really happened), and at most admits that the Evangelist, in order to present an idea allegorically, καὶ γεγενημένῳ συωέχρήσατο πράγματι (also borrowed the form of an actual occurrence). ([David Friedrich] Strauss [in The Life of Jesus Critically Examined], p. 402, bold emphasis mine)

Take note: Borrowing the form of an actual occurrence means that the gospel writers used the form of an historical event to convey a religious truth by means of symbolic language. It is a parable masquerading as history.

http://vridar.org/2014/06/09/jesus-cleansing-of-the-temple-rationalizing-a-miracle/#more-52256

----------------

Far from lacking a 'plausible scenario' the literary origins of 'Jesus anecdotes' is almost universally acknowledged and accounted for by leaving the majority of the texts on the cutting room floor when trying to construct a plausible 'historical Jesus'.

 

[proudfootz]

The last effort seen in this thread of that ploy, involving the letters of Plato, is especially odd, given modern scholarship apparently concludes all those letters are spurious.

Or pseudo-epigraphical, if you will.

Although even if all the Pauline epistles are as spurious as the Plato letters it doesn't tell us much about the real existence of either person.

 

[Belz...]

The difference between us is that I have read the thread and I have understood it.

Oh, and how can you tell that I didn't ?

This 'holding history hostage' thing has been tried here on more occasions than I care to count.

Yes, and it was hyperbole when someone sais it, too.

 

[proudfootz]

Contrary to your assertion, it’s even doubtful that Earl Doherty is “currently trying” to come up with any other kind of plausible scenario than he has already.

Reading his reply to Carrier Jesus Puzzle review, it’s pretty clear that as far he’s concerned, he’s already done so.

Doherty: -

“Consequently, in this case, as Garraghan puts it, “the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.” On these grounds, maybe the mythicist case ought to be considered something approaching a “slam dunk.”

Thus, when the full range and character of the silence in the early non-Gospel record is recognized and taken into account, I maintain there can be no feasible, let alone convincing, explanation to account for such a state of affairs which still preserves for these writers a knowledge of an historical Jesus. Certainly none has yet been put forward. All these features raise the AfS, in this particular case, to an elevated level. I would maintain that it not only conforms to Garraghan’s standards, it is the closest we could expect to get in demonstrating the non-existence of such a figure—at least in the sphere of those circles represented by this portion of the record (more on that later).

Similarly, I would maintain that the ‘balance of probability’ as presented by the total picture of the Christian evidence—a cultic movement that ignores, excludes and is complete without an historical Jesus, the absence of first century holy sites, relics, artifacts, Aramaic originals or sources lying behind its documents, etc., contemporary secular silence, silences extending even into major second century Christian apologists, the problems and peculiarities inherent in the Q tradition, and on and on—should lead the neutral observer to adopt that balance of probability.”

So, where the heck do get such nonsense like “whether or not he is successful remains to be seen”!

It would indeed be silly to expect more from Doherty, especially when such harrumphing comes from quarters where his work is not even read.

If you took the trouble to study the evolution of the many religious writings leading up to the canonical gospels you’ll indeed discover that Jesus began life as a Gnostic spiritual agent.

If you think otherwise, I suggest you accordingly present substantiated evidence to the contrary; a bit of ignorant and vague hand waving doesn’t fly!

Again, as Doherty observes: “These writers present topics such as the beginnings of the faith, the nature of the Christ they believe in, the source of the movement’s ethics and preaching gospel, in ways which do more than simply ignore, or happen not to mention, an historical Jesus—which would in itself be almost inexplicable. The picture presented is not only complete and coherent without him, the language and mode of expression gives every indication that no recent historical Jesus can be present in these writers’ minds. In some cases it is even more than this. The silence is “exclusionary.” The writer’s words exclude him by definition; they make no room for this missing historical Jesus figure.”

These quotes do a brilliant job of summarizing how a 'mythical Jesus' theory is not reliant wholly on the AfS.

You say you’ve never heard of Edwin Johnson, and ask for a link.

Again, what’s your own ignorance got to do with me? Consult the Internet, and find plenty of links.

The quote from Humphrey’s Site isn’t just an “interesting assertion”, but merely one appropriate conclusion to a massive body of work, first commencing centuries ago.

The mere fact that you bothered to write four lengthy summaries on Eisenman’s absurd flights of fancy, seem to render your opinions somewhat suspect from the start, I would have thought.

What do you think Edwin Johnson wrote about, but the Dead Sea Scrolls!

Thanks for the mention of Edwin Johnson - he seems to be an historian of distinction.

I’m the only person you’ve ever seen who disputes that Mark was the first of the Gospels?

Well, you obviously missed my posted where I pointed out that Robert Price holds the same view, together with a raft of eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century scholars, apart from the fact that there exist a multitude of other opinions on the order of the canonical gospels; whereas the church fathers, almost to a man, insist that Matthew is the first.

Not only that, but Markan priority is intrinsically linked to the existence of the hypothetical ‘Q’ document, as well as first century Gospel origin. Having the one without the other two doesn’t make sense.

In almost all of the theories, and that includes our modern scholars, too little regard is paid to all the evidence indicating a late second-century origin, as well as the scant regard of their close connection to the apocryphal gospels, or even what’s called the ‘law of accretion’.

As Sunderland pointed out: “At least three of the four gospels have had no real authors, as we usually understand that word. They are the work of editors; they are compilations; ’mosaics’ …”

By contrast, see Doherty’s conclusions: -

“First, I would briefly like to ‘fine-tune’ Carrier’s summary of my position. I would not regard the original versions of some or all of the Gospels—certainly Mark, the first one—as the product of a politically motivated Church seeking advantages inherent in an historical Jesus.

I have argued, however, that such a perception would have been mistaken, and furthermore that the element of a death under Pilate was a complete and recognized (at the time) fiction on Mark’s part.

As the second century progressed, however, all four Gospels came to be regarded as corroborating accounts of historical events, and were undoubtedly edited and expanded with political advantage in mind.”

Mark’s priority is mere supposition based on outdated and ill-based premises, two of the Gospels were definitely influenced by political considerations, the elements of death under Pilate were already recognized in the Acts of Pilate as well as other manuscripts, and the four gospels did not ‘progress’ over the course of the second century, but were in fact final products (ignoring later interpolations), compiled from preceding manuscripts.

Is it my contention that the author of Mark edited his Gospel from a version of Luke?

No, the painstakingly work of people like Schleiermacher demonstrate conclusively that each of the Gospels, as well as Marcion’s, were variously composed from earlier manuscripts, and without necessarily entailing one author copying from any other.

If today’s authors really paid heed to some of these early scholars, including the Dutch Radical, it would leave them with scant to write about.

It seems to be the fashion to dismiss early scholars out of hand - unless it's to assert that other early scholars have debunked them already.

 

[dejudge]

Whoever suggested that Philo was a Gnostic, dejudge!

Asserting that Jesus was fabricated to explain the Temple destruction is puerile nonsense.

Mark indeed displays Gnostic overtones.

Well, it’s been fun, but I don’t think I’ll waste more of my time.

Your claim that Jesus was rooted in Gnosticism is un-evidenced and BASELESS .

You have NO 1st century Gnostic source which mention Jesus of Nazareth.

gMark is NOT a Gnostic source.

The REASON for the Fall of the Jewish Temple is DOCUMENTED in Multiple Apologetic writings--it was because the JEWS KILLED the Son of their own God.

1. Hippolytus in "Treatise Against the Jews" did claim that the Jewish Temple Fell because the Jews KILLED Jesus, the Son of God.

Hippolytus "Treatise Against the Jews"

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?
Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf?

Was it on account of the idolatry of the people?

Was it for the blood of the prophets?

Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel?

By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

2. Examine "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen --it is claimed the Jewish Temple Fell because the JEWS Killed Jesus.


"Against Celsus"

in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ.......................................If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ..

3. Examine "Justin's Dialogue with Trypho".

The Fall of the Temple and Desolation of Jerusalem was because the Jews Killed Jesus.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

....your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.' For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision.

For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor fore-ordained his deserts for each one. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him...

4. Examine Tertullian's "Answer to the Jews".


Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

...let the Jews recognise their own fate—a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him.

 

[dejudge]

If you took the trouble to study the evolution of the many religious writings leading up to the canonical gospels you’ll indeed discover that Jesus began life as a Gnostic spiritual agent.

Your claim is an established fallacy. There are no actual existing manuscripts that show Jesus began life as a Gnostic spiritual being.

You have ZERO source about an early Jesus as a Gnostic spiritual agent.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and it was hyperbole when someone sais it, too.

*said

 

[DougW]

The Gospel of the Hebrews, the second century’s most prominent manuscript, not only displays various Gnostic concepts, but also parallels notions expressed in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

For a full rundown of Gnostic manuscripts see –

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cac.htm

Gnosticism, as for orthodox Christianity, of course incorporates many mythica and spiritual elements, and for all I know you may prefer the following: -

October 9, 2010 - Page 96. RationalSkepticism.

dejuror wrote:

Mythers can show that the evidence for the myth Jesus is OVERWHELMING and that the written evidence of mythological Jesus INUNDATES virtually all of the writings in and out the Bible and for hundreds of years and that Christians themselves for hundreds of years did argue against the historical Jesus.

The abundance of evidence is there for the myth. It permeates all of history from antiquity to the present.

What book would you read to find out that Romulus was a MYTH?

You would read Plutach's Romulus and in that book, Romulus vanished and ascened to heaven.

What book would you read to find out that Achilles was a MYTH?

You would read Homer's Iliad and there you find that Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess.

Now, what books would you read to find out that Jesus was a MYTH?

You know the books and in them you will find that

1. Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a virgin. Matt 1.19

2. Jesus was described as the Word and equal to God. John 1

3. Jesus was described as the Creator of heaven and earth. John 1

4. Jesus was tempted by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple. Matt. 4.

5. Jesus used spit to cure a speech impediment. Mark 7.33

6. Jesus used spit to cure blindness. Mark 8.23

7. Jesus cursed a tree and the tree withered away. Mark 11.

8. Jesus walked on the sea with Peter in his arms. Matt 14.31

9. Jesus was transfigured and his face radiated like the sun and his clothes like white light. Matt 17.2

10. The dead prophets, Moses and Elijah, appeared before Jesus during the transfiguration. Mark 9.4

11. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after the body began to rot. John 11.39

12. Jesus was resurrected. Mark 16.6

13. Jesus changed his appearance after he was resurrected. Luke 24.16

14. Jesus entered a building through the walls or when it was shut tight after the resurrection. John 20.26

15. Jesus cooked and ate fish after he was resurrected. Luke 24.42

16. Jesus ascended through the clouds on his way to heaven. Acts 1.9

17. " Paul" a supposed contemporary of Jesus only saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead. 1 Cor 15.8

18. It is claimed Jesus was seen alive after he was supposed to be dead and that it was not certain if it was lawful to call Jesus a man. Antiquities XVIII.3.3

19. Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was no different to Greek mythological Gods. "First Apology" 21.

20. Trypho the Jew claimed the virgin birth of Jesus was similar to Greek mythology. "Dialogue with Trypho" LXVII.

21. Tertullian claim it was agreed that Jesus had a spiritual nature, it was his FLESH that was questioned. "On the Flesh of Christ"

22. Origen claimed many persons who were called Christians disagree about the nature of Jesus. The preface to "De Principiis".

23. Eusebius claimed Jesus was both divine and human. "Church History" 1

24. No Gospel writer claimed they wrote history about Jesus. See all the Gospels.

25. No Gospel writer claimed that they were eyewitnesses of any event with Jesus. See all the Gospels.

26. No Gospel writer claimed they personally saw Jesus anywhere, or talked and interacted with him about anything. See all the Gospels.

27. Virtually all the events about Jesus from birth to ascension are implausible or fiction. See all the Gospels.

28. Many events with Jesus are inconsistent from Gospel to Gospel. See all the Gospels.

29. No Jewish writer claimed they saw Jesus. See all the Jewish writings

30. No Roman writer claimed they saw Jesus. See all the Roman writings.

I could go on and on but that would be an overkill.

The evidence to support mythological Jesus INUNDATES. It is huge. It OVERWHELMS.

Now, let's get the single piece of rejected evidence for historical Jesus.

I will write it so that everyone can see.

Antiquities XX.9. That is it. But, it was rejected even by the Church. Antiquities XX.9 could not be about Bible Jesus.

Wrong James. Wrong Jesus. See "De Viris Illustribus" 2 and Papias' "Fragment 10".

The historical Jesus has been smoked and debunked.

 

[Brainache]

The Gospel of the Hebrews, the second century’s most prominent manuscript, not only displays various Gnostic concepts, but also parallels notions expressed in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

For a full rundown of Gnostic manuscripts see –

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cac.htm

Gnosticism, as for orthodox Christianity, of course incorporates many mythica and spiritual elements, and for all I know you may prefer the following: -

October 9, 2010 - Page 96. RationalSkepticism.

dejuror wrote:

Mythers can show that the evidence for the myth Jesus is OVERWHELMING and that the written evidence of mythological Jesus INUNDATES virtually all of the writings in and out the Bible and for hundreds of years and that Christians themselves for hundreds of years did argue against the historical Jesus.

The abundance of evidence is there for the myth. It permeates all of history from antiquity to the present.

What book would you read to find out that Romulus was a MYTH?

You would read Plutach's Romulus and in that book, Romulus vanished and ascened to heaven.

What book would you read to find out that Achilles was a MYTH?

You would read Homer's Iliad and there you find that Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess.

Now, what books would you read to find out that Jesus was a MYTH?

You know the books and in them you will find that

1. Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a virgin. Matt 1.19

2. Jesus was described as the Word and equal to God. John 1

3. Jesus was described as the Creator of heaven and earth. John 1

4. Jesus was tempted by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple. Matt. 4.

5. Jesus used spit to cure a speech impediment. Mark 7.33

6. Jesus used spit to cure blindness. Mark 8.23

7. Jesus cursed a tree and the tree withered away. Mark 11.

8. Jesus walked on the sea with Peter in his arms. Matt 14.31

9. Jesus was transfigured and his face radiated like the sun and his clothes like white light. Matt 17.2

10. The dead prophets, Moses and Elijah, appeared before Jesus during the transfiguration. Mark 9.4

11. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after the body began to rot. John 11.39

12. Jesus was resurrected. Mark 16.6

13. Jesus changed his appearance after he was resurrected. Luke 24.16

14. Jesus entered a building through the walls or when it was shut tight after the resurrection. John 20.26

15. Jesus cooked and ate fish after he was resurrected. Luke 24.42

16. Jesus ascended through the clouds on his way to heaven. Acts 1.9

17. " Paul" a supposed contemporary of Jesus only saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead. 1 Cor 15.8

18. It is claimed Jesus was seen alive after he was supposed to be dead and that it was not certain if it was lawful to call Jesus a man. Antiquities XVIII.3.3

19. Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was no different to Greek mythological Gods. "First Apology" 21.

20. Trypho the Jew claimed the virgin birth of Jesus was similar to Greek mythology. "Dialogue with Trypho" LXVII.

21. Tertullian claim it was agreed that Jesus had a spiritual nature, it was his FLESH that was questioned. "On the Flesh of Christ"

22. Origen claimed many persons who were called Christians disagree about the nature of Jesus. The preface to "De Principiis".

23. Eusebius claimed Jesus was both divine and human. "Church History" 1

24. No Gospel writer claimed they wrote history about Jesus. See all the Gospels.

25. No Gospel writer claimed that they were eyewitnesses of any event with Jesus. See all the Gospels.

26. No Gospel writer claimed they personally saw Jesus anywhere, or talked and interacted with him about anything. See all the Gospels.

27. Virtually all the events about Jesus from birth to ascension are implausible or fiction. See all the Gospels.

28. Many events with Jesus are inconsistent from Gospel to Gospel. See all the Gospels.

29. No Jewish writer claimed they saw Jesus. See all the Jewish writings

30. No Roman writer claimed they saw Jesus. See all the Roman writings.

I could go on and on but that would be an overkill.

The evidence to support mythological Jesus INUNDATES. It is huge. It OVERWHELMS.

Now, let's get the single piece of rejected evidence for historical Jesus.

I will write it so that everyone can see.

Antiquities XX.9. That is it. But, it was rejected even by the Church. Antiquities XX.9 could not be about Bible Jesus.

Wrong James. Wrong Jesus. See "De Viris Illustribus" 2 and Papias' "Fragment 10".

The historical Jesus has been smoked and debunked.

Looks like there has been a glitch in the Mythbot...

Why is DougW quoting a long dejudge post from RatSkep without any content of his own?

???

 

[DougW]

Why? Maybe I’m simply not interested in wasting my time debating issues with someone who patently hasn’t the slightest interest in getting at the truth. Someone whose sole interest lies in repetitively exploiting the numerous gaps in our historical knowledge in order to distort and misrepresent what we do know, using it as a means of substituting their own spurious assertions. One who for years now has totally ignored all contrary evidence, simply repeating the same tiresome spiels and who will continue to do so, here and elsewhere, long after I’ve ceased posting.

No actual manuscripts that show Jesus Gnostic beginnings?

Gnosticsm comprised many diverse strands, rendering demands for some single simplistic explanation innately pointless. I already mentioned the Gospel of the Hebrews, and even ignoring the mass of other early writings, even the early Gospel of Peter displays docetic elements, Christ a spirit, with only an apparent body - the Gospel of Mark, partly drawn therefrom, doesn’t even pretend to be anything more but allegorical. And I’m really not interested in penning some long screed about the Gnostic thought world inhabited by Paul and the early Christian faith, one replete with Jewish elements adapted to the cosmology prevailing at that time, Philo’s “heavenly man’ concept merely an intermediate stage.

Even if I did, dejudge would merely ignore it, instead coughing up a whole new raft of false assertions – no thanks!

First you complain about no links. When I do, you complain about lack of content!

I suggest you do your own homework - here are some more links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

 

[Brainache]

Why? Maybe I’m simply not interested in wasting my time debating issues with someone who patently hasn’t the slightest interest in getting at the truth. Someone whose sole interest lies in repetitively exploiting the numerous gaps in our historical knowledge in order to distort and misrepresent what we do know, using it as a means of substituting their own spurious assertions. One who for years now has totally ignored all contrary evidence, simply repeating the same tiresome spiels and who will continue to do so, here and elsewhere, long after I’ve ceased posting.

No actual manuscripts that show Jesus Gnostic beginnings?

Gnosticsm comprised many diverse strands, rendering demands for some single simplistic explanation innately pointless. I already mentioned the Gospel of the Hebrews, and even ignoring the mass of other early writings, even the early Gospel of Peter displays docetic elements, Christ a spirit, with only an apparent body - the Gospel of Mark, partly drawn therefrom, doesn’t even pretend to be anything more but allegorical. And I’m really not interested in penning some long screed about the Gnostic thought world inhabited by Paul and the early Christian faith, one replete with Jewish elements adapted to the cosmology prevailing at that time, Philo’s “heavenly man’ concept merely an intermediate stage.

Even if I did, dejudge would merely ignore it, instead coughing up a whole new raft of false assertions – no thanks!

First you complain about no links. When I do, you complain about lack of content!

I suggest you do your own homework - here are some more links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

Fair enough. I don't think anyone here takes dejudge seriously anyway, so I wasn't sure why you were getting so tied up with his nonsense.

But I'm still not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that gLuke came before gMark and gMatthew, that is contrary to every Scholar I've read on the subject. Could you perhaps expand on your reasoning there?