The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

I've been following this thread on and off for some time. Mostly off, as it has offered few surprises whenever I've opened it.

From the very start you have contradicted yourself. If you have not followed the thread then you may have missed the "surprises".

But this here is a strikingly good example on how the thread is proceeding. Because this particular line of discussion happened like this (paraphrased, obviously):

dejudge: Everything in the gospels says that Jesus was a ghost.

Craig B: Here's a bit from Luke that explicitly denies that Jesus was a ghost.

IanS: Luke was written centuries after Jesus's supposed life so it can't be used as evidence for Jesus.

That's such a complete non sequitur that it boggles my mind. Surely, the text of Luke is evidence on what the text of Luke says about Jesus? Whether Luke is reliable or not has no relevance on discussion about what the words of the text say.

Again, you contradict yourself. If gLuke is accepted as evidence then it is found that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, that he Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended to heaven.

gLuke's Jesus is a Myth character from Conception to Ascension.

What comes to the actual subject of the thread, I'm an atheist that thinks that Jesus probably existed. Purely mythical Jesus causes more problems than it solves, in my opinion. I don't bother posting my full reasoning because just about everything has been already posted here many times and there's no good reason to take yet another ride on the merry-go-round.

Your claim to be an Atheist is NOT evidence at all.

Your assumption that Jesus was a figure of history is NOT evidence at all.

We already know that there are BILLIONS of people who ASSUME Jesus existed WITHOUT evidence.

ALL the existing stories of the birth, nature and origin of Jesus state he was a Resurrecting Transfiguring Water walking Son of a God, born of a Ghost and God from the beginning.

The argument for an historical Jesus is extremely problematic because there is ZERO supporting evidence from antiquity to support the numerous irreconcilable versions of HJ.

Most people who argue that there is no reason to believe that historical Jesus existed have one thing in common. They say that when the only evidence for a religious leader with supernatural powers comes from his followers and is written decades or centuries later, then that's a reason to discard his historicity completely. But they all still somehow believe in historical Pythagoras.

Your statement cannot be shown to be true. The historicity or non-historicity of Pythagoras has ZERO effect on the HJ argument and the evidence or lack of evidence for Pythagoras cannot be used to argue for an HJ.

However, it is certain that you have NO contemporary evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

If you had followed the thread you would have known that the HJ argument is dead due to lack of contemporary historical data.

Your assumption that Jesus existed is worthless when you are ASKED to present evidence from antiquity.

The Historical Jesus is a modern myth invented by those who do NOT believe gLuke that the Transfiguring and Ascending Jesus was born of an OVERSHADOWING Ghost and a Virgin.


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.

Luke 9.28

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

Luke 24:51

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus is an INDIVISIBLE Myth character.
Jesus can NEVER be separated from Mythology.
Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same Myth.

So to try to rescue your drivel and balderdash you have added the word "myth" to "one" and "indivisible"! Do you think this subterfuge is likely to fool anyone?

 

[dejudge]

Jesus is an INDIVISIBLE Myth character.
Jesus can NEVER be separated from Mythology.
Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same Myth.

So to try to rescue your drivel and balderdash you have added the word "myth" to "one" and "indivisible"! Do you think this subterfuge is likely to fool anyone?

I use your own post to show that Jesus is God and God is a Ghost.

You didn't even understand that you have provided evidence AGAINST an historical Jesus.

"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"

"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit".

Jesus is God and God is a Ghost.

Jesus, God and the Ghost are ONE.

Jesus is a TRI-MYTHICAL character from the beginning.

The historical Jesus is a modern FICTION.

 

[Craig B]

You really don't know what's being said, dejudge, do you? Yes Jesus is God according to the Christians. But God consists of three persons, of whom the Son is one. And none of these persons is the same thing as either of the other two.

Your addition of the word "myth" to this reasoning doesn't help at all. Jesus is a myth. OK. Hercules is a myth. Yes. So Jesus is Hercules, dressed in a lion skin and holding a giant club. No.

 

[IanS]

I've been following this thread on and off for some time. Mostly off, as it has offered few surprises whenever I've opened it.

But this here is a strikingly good example on how the thread is proceeding. Because this particular line of discussion happened like this (paraphrased, obviously):

dejudge: Everything in the gospels says that Jesus was a ghost.

Craig B: Here's a bit from Luke that explicitly denies that Jesus was a ghost.

IanS: Luke was written centuries after Jesus's supposed life so it can't be used as evidence for Jesus.

That's such a complete non sequitur that it boggles my mind. Surely, the text of Luke is evidence on what the text of Luke says about Jesus? Whether Luke is reliable or not has no relevance on discussion about what the words of the text say.

What comes to the actual subject of the thread, I'm an atheist that thinks that Jesus probably existed. Purely mythical Jesus causes more problems than it solves, in my opinion. I don't bother posting my full reasoning because just about everything has been already posted here many times and there's no good reason to take yet another ride on the merry-go-round.

Except for one thing. I may have posted this previously or I may have only thought about posting it, I can't remember.

Most people who argue that there is no reason to believe that historical Jesus existed have one thing in common. They say that when the only evidence for a religious leader with supernatural powers comes from his followers and is written decades or centuries later, then that's a reason to discard his historicity completely. But they all still somehow believe in historical Pythagoras.

The thread is about whether or not there is evidence to show that Jesus was a real figure.

Craig is arguing with dejudge about whether or not the biblical writers described Jesus as a ghost or as God.

Craig then cited g-Luke as evidence that the author of g-Luke did not regard Jesus either as a ghost or as a supernatural heavenly god called "Yahweh".

Craig claims the gospels provide evidence to show Jesus was a real person.

What I am putting to Craig is this - whether or not the writer of g-Luke regarded Jesus as God or as a ghost, that gospel like all the gospels (and for that matter the letters of Paul) is not a reliable source of evidence of a human Jesus known either to the writer of g-Luke or to any other biblical writer.

That's such a complete non sequitur that it boggles my mind. Surely, the text of Luke is evidence on what the text of Luke says about Jesus? Whether Luke is reliable or not has no relevance on discussion about what the words of the text say.

What do you mean by saying the text is evidence of the text? That's a complete non-statement. The point about the "text" of g-Luke is that it is not reliable as evidence that it's author had ever known any human Jesus. Nor that it's author ever reliably quoted anyone else who reliably confirmed they had known Jesus. On the contrary, like all the gospel texts, the text of g-Luke is completely discredited as a source of factual evidence about Jesus, by it's constant claims of impossible miracles (not to mention it's late anonymous copyist nature etc.).

It's not evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone. And that is what this thread is all about. Is it reliable credible evidence or not? Answer, "no", it very clearly is not (whatever it does, or does not, say about Jesus as a ghost or as God).

 

[IanS]

What comes to the actual subject of the thread, I'm an atheist that thinks that Jesus probably existed.

By the way, without wishing to "take you to task" on what you believe about Jesus -

- why do you believe in Jesus? Is it because of things that are said in bible?

If you believe what the bible says about Jesus then that is purely a matter for you. And few if any here are going to complain that you or anyone one else cannot believe in a HJ if that's what you have decided is best. That's entirely your prerogative; fine.

However, if you are claiming that your belief in a HJ is drawn from reliable evidence in the bible, then that certainly is going to raise objections from anyone who has even the slightest acquaintance with how completely unreliable and inadmissible the bible is as genuine evidence that anyone mentioned in it ever met any human messiah called "Jesus" (Yehoshua, Iesous).

And if you think instead that whilst the bible is obviously not credible evidence of what it says about a long prophesised messiah of the OT, non-biblical writing such as that from Tacitus and Josephus is reliable as evidence of Jesus, then your standards of evidence are even lower than those who claim the bible as their evidence of a living Jesus.

Because what we actually have as Tacitus and Josephus is (apparently) not anything ever written by those authors around 100AD, but a few words about Jesus actually written into copies by Christians around 1000 years later!

As soon as you know that HJ proponents claiming that Tacitus and Josephus had written about Jesus within about 70 years of the believed death of Jesus, are actually talking about manuscripts written by Christian copyists around the 11th century AD, then that you should immediately tell you how blatantly deceptive those HJ proponents are prepared to be.

 

[dejudge]

You really don't know what's being said, dejudge, do you? Yes Jesus is God according to the Christians. But God consists of three persons, of whom the Son is one. And none of these persons is the same thing as either of the other two.

You really don't know what gLuke says. Your argument is completely absurd, logically fallacious and shows virtually no knowledge of gLuke and the doctrine of the Trinity.

You had no idea that gLuke says Jesus is the Transfiguring Resurrecting Ascending Son of God born of a Ghost.

You had NO idea that gLuke is in agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus is God of God and born of a 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.

Luke 9.28

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

Luke 24.6

He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee..

Luke 24:51

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Jesus of Nazareth is a Ghost story without a shred of history.

The Jesus of gLuke is complete idiotic nonense.

 

[Brainache]

By the way, without wishing to "take you to task" on what you believe about Jesus -

- why do you believe in Jesus? Is it because of things that are said in bible?

If you believe what the bible says about Jesus then that is purely a matter for you. And few if any here are going to complain that you or anyone one else cannot believe in a HJ if that's what you have decided is best. That's entirely your prerogative; fine.

However, if you are claiming that your belief in a HJ is drawn from reliable evidence in the bible, then that certainly is going to raise objections from anyone who has even the slightest acquaintance with how completely unreliable and inadmissible the bible is as genuine evidence that anyone mentioned in it ever met any human messiah called "Jesus" (Yehoshua, Iesous).

And if you think instead that whilst the bible is obviously not credible evidence of what it says about a long prophesised messiah of the OT, non-biblical writing such as that from Tacitus and Josephus is reliable as evidence of Jesus, then your standards of evidence are even lower than those who claim the bible as their evidence of a living Jesus.

Because what we actually have as Tacitus and Josephus is (apparently) not anything ever written by those authors around 100AD, but a few words about Jesus actually written into copies by Christians around 1000 years later!

As soon as you know that HJ proponents claiming that Tacitus and Josephus had written about Jesus within about 70 years of the believed death of Jesus, are actually talking about manuscripts written by Christian copyists around the 11th century AD, then that you should immediately tell you how blatantly deceptive those HJ proponents are prepared to be.

I'm not Marras, but I would venture to say that HJ seems more probable than MJ to the great majority of Scholars because of much more than just a few lines in Josephus, Tacitus and Paul's epistles etc.

There is more to solving questions of historicity than finding a few lines in some old text saying "I knew Jesus and he was a real human man". If you want to understand why the vast majority of Scholars think HJ was real, you need to get your head around the bigger picture.

What makes HJ more likely than MJ is the cultural and Historical context of Second Temple Judaism and the type of Messianism that was rampant in first century Judea. That Messianism was all focused on human flesh and blood mortal men, not sub-lunar spiritual apparitions a la Carrier's idea. If Carrier wants us to believe there was some "Spirit Jesus" cult around for generations before Paul put quill to parchment, he needs to show us the evidence for that cult; he hasn't.

 

[Marras]

What do you mean by saying the text is evidence of the text? That's a complete non-statement.

Once again: dejudge claims that gospel writers consistently described Jesus as a ghost. CraigB pointed out a place in Luke where the text explicitly states that Jesus was not a ghost but was flesh and blood. I would think that that piece of text is evidence that the whoever wrote the book didn't consistently describe Jesus as a ghost. This doesn't have anything to do with reliability or lack of it of the text. Whether Jesus really existed or not or if he was a seven-feet tall alien lizard from planet Gbrhs doesn't matter the slightest bit what reads in the text.

- why do you believe in Jesus? Is it because of things that are said in bible?

Because it's the simpler explanation for the start of Christianity than him never existing at all. I don't think that the texts of the Bible are reliable (if I thought that, I certainly wouldn't be an atheist). There might be a little authentic stuff sprinkled in somewhere there, but there is no single thing that I would be willing to definitely declare as the real deal.

The main thing is that historical Jesus is not an extraordinary claim. A preacher fermenting some sort of rebellion before getting executed in the first century Judea is not something so unheard and impossible that we would need to apply stricter criteria for his existence than for other historical persons.

The things that are in my opinion the most convincing ones are those where Jesus clashes with scriptures or early Christianity. If he was invented from thin air to fulfill prophesies, why was he Jesus and not Immanuel as prophesied? Why John denied that Jesus had claimed that the 'beloved disciple' would be alive to see the coming of the kingdom of god if the story was concocted long after the disciple's death or supposed death if he too was completely mythical? It's simpler if he was Jesus because that was his actual name and shoehorning him into the prophesies had to take that into account. And perhaps there was a common belief in the early church that Jesus had told that the disciple would see the kingdom of god, and a natural way for that kind of belief to appear would be that Jesus did say that.

then your standards of evidence are even lower than those who claim the bible as their evidence of a living Jesus.

My standards for the existence of historical Jesus are about as low as they are for other historical persons. For example, I believe in historical Pythagoras even though all sources about him postdate him by at least decades (most by centuries) and are derived from Pythagorean sources. But I don't believe that he was a son of Apollo who had wondrous powers since my atheism extends also to the ancient Greek gods and goddesses. Most people accept the existence of historical persons with far less evidence for them than Jesus without blinking.

When you look at folklore, there are lots and lots of cases where supernatural stories get attached to real persons and in some cases the stories completely cover the underlying man or woman. This has happened even quite recently. I was very surprised when I found out that the mythical Finnish lumberjack Nätti-Jussi was actually a real man who died as late as in 1964. In the folklore he is quite similar to the internationally better-known Paul Bunyan, he's a man who can do anything with no regards to the laws of nature. In the real life he was a bit lazy guy with a deformed foot who liked sitting around campfire spinning yarns more than wading in knee-deep snow with a saw and an axe. A real person got turned into a legend in just a few decades.

In my experience, most people who go around strictly denying historical Jesus can be divided into two groups: those who are against him because against Christianity in general, and those who have gotten themselves involved in some form of gnostic mysticism and who think that Christians are misguided fools who don't know the real truths.

 

[Craig B]

You did not ask me any question in post #3169.

Actually, that's quite true. But I did invite comments; and these invitations I reproduce here in bold.

I think he is in fact right, more or less, as far as the material I have read goes.

The passage I have cited seems to state that Mark was writing in c 70 CE about a person, not personally known to him, who lived in and after the reign of Augustus. The Gospel writers included in their accounts of this person, material derived from their understanding of OT prophecies. I agree with all of this, but I'm surprised that you agree with it. If this passage is not typical of Helms' work, or gives a misleading impression of his real views, I will be glad to hear from you on that score.

I also wrote to indicate that some of the Jesus material doesn't look like OT prophecy, and if you wish to comment on that too, I will read your words with interest.

 

[Craig B]

Because it's the simpler explanation for the start of Christianity than him never existing at all. I don't think that the texts of the Bible are reliable (if I thought that, I certainly wouldn't be an atheist). There might be a little authentic stuff sprinkled in somewhere there, but there is no single thing that I would be willing to definitely declare as the real deal.

The main thing is that historical Jesus is not an extraordinary claim. A preacher fermenting some sort of rebellion before getting executed in the first century Judea is not something so unheard and impossible that we would need to apply stricter criteria for his existence than for other historical persons.

The things that are in my opinion the most convincing ones are those where Jesus clashes with scriptures or early Christianity. If he was invented from thin air to fulfill prophesies, why was he Jesus and not Immanuel as prophesied? Why John denied that Jesus had claimed that the 'beloved disciple' would be alive to see the coming of the kingdom of god if the story was concocted long after the disciple's death or supposed death if he too was completely mythical? It's simpler if he was Jesus because that was his actual name and shoehorning him into the prophesies had to take that into account. And perhaps there was a common belief in the early church that Jesus had told that the disciple would see the kingdom of god, and a natural way for that kind of belief to appear would be that Jesus did say that.

Exactly. The gospels and the epistles successively defer the End Times. This is hard to reconcile with the idea that they were all written centuries later by a gang of forgers as a hoax. And if they did that, why are some of the stories not clearly derived from OT prophecy? Why the embarrassing spats between Paul and the disciples? Why indeed not "Immanuel"? Why is the virgin birth unknown to the early sources? Why the evident embarrassment over the baptism by John, and the successive dilution of its significance from account to account? Why the discrepancies in the two virgin birth stories? In the two genealogies - that in any case trace Joseph? Why do Jesus' family think he's gone nuts? Why the hopeless discrepancies in the post resurrection accounts? Why does gMark have no such account at all?

The most natural explanation of all this is the presence of a historical core that different commentators, in different ways, struggled to interpret in terms of messianic prophecies as variously understood by them.

And you're right; the expectation in the earliest sources of a prompt return by Jesus militates against a late date of composition of these works.

 

[dejudge]

Once again: dejudge claims that gospel writers consistently described Jesus as a ghost. CraigB pointed out a place in Luke where the text explicitly states that Jesus was not a ghost but was flesh and blood. I would think that that piece of text is evidence that the whoever wrote the book didn't consistently describe Jesus as a ghost. This doesn't have anything to do with reliability or lack of it of the text. Whether Jesus really existed or not or if he was a seven-feet tall alien lizard from planet Gbrhs doesn't matter the slightest bit what reads in the text.

Your argument does not make much sense. Jesus in gLuke is specifically born of a Ghost and a Virgin WITHOUT a human father.

Jesus of Nazareth could NOT have existed as described in gLuke.

gLuke is not an historical account so it makes no real logical sense or has any historical value to argue that a non-historical character is sometimes described as a man, as a God and as a Ghost.

Jesus in gLuke was a myth/fiction character whether or not he was always described as a man, a ghost or a God.

Because it's the simpler explanation for the start of Christianity than him never existing at all. I don't think that the texts of the Bible are reliable (if I thought that, I certainly wouldn't be an atheist). There might be a little authentic stuff sprinkled in somewhere there, but there is no single thing that I would be willing to definitely declare as the real deal.

It is simply not logical that an HJ is a simpler explanation when you must first REJECT virtually all that is written about Jesus and then fabricate your own Jesus story based on your imagination.

Your HJ is completely undocumented in or out the Bible.

The main thing is that historical Jesus is not an extraordinary claim. A preacher fermenting some sort of rebellion before getting executed in the first century Judea is not something so unheard and impossible that we would need to apply stricter criteria for his existence than for other historical persons.

A non-historical Jesus is not an extra-ordinary claim.

Your story about a fermenting preacher is fiction. You made it up.

You were not asked to invent stories of Jesus of Nazareth but to provide historical evidence from antiquity.

The argument that Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction is by far the simplest explanation. Virtually everyone agrees the NT stories of Jesus are riddled with myth and fiction and there is a massive amount of evidence for hundreds of years that Jesus of Nazareth had NO known history.

Manuscripts with stories of Jesus have been found and they are ALL fiction and mythology.

The things that are in my opinion the most convincing ones are those where Jesus clashes with scriptures or early Christianity. If he was invented from thin air to fulfill prophesies, why was he Jesus and not Immanuel as prophesied? Why John denied that Jesus had claimed that the 'beloved disciple' would be alive to see the coming of the kingdom of god if the story was concocted long after the disciple's death or supposed death if he too was completely mythical? It's simpler if he was Jesus because that was his actual name and shoehorning him into the prophesies had to take that into account. And perhaps there was a common belief in the early church that Jesus had told that the disciple would see the kingdom of god, and a natural way for that kind of belief to appear would be that Jesus did say that.

What you imagine and speculate is useless.

Your questions are NOT evidence.

Why did people claim Jesus was born of a Ghost if was not true?

Why did people claim Jesus resurrected if it was not true?

Why did people claim Satan was with Jesus in Jerusalem if it was not true?

Why did people claim Jesus ascended to heaven if it was not true?

My standards for the existence of historical Jesus are about as low as they are for other historical persons. For example, I believe in historical Pythagoras even though all sources about him postdate him by at least decades (most by centuries) and are derived from Pythagorean sources. But I don't believe that he was a son of Apollo who had wondrous powers since my atheism extends also to the ancient Greek gods and goddesses. Most people accept the existence of historical persons with far less evidence for them than Jesus without blinking.

Again, your statements are NOT actual evidence of an historical Jesus.

What you believe about Pythagoras is completely irrelevant for the HJ argument.

You have no idea of the vast amount of mythological figures of antiquity.

There is far more mythology and fiction about Jesus than probably ALL the accepted myths of the Roman Empire.

When you look at folklore, there are lots and lots of cases where supernatural stories get attached to real persons and in some cases the stories completely cover the underlying man or woman. This has happened even quite recently. I was very surprised when I found out that the mythical Finnish lumberjack Nätti-Jussi was actually a real man who died as late as in 1964. In the folklore he is quite similar to the internationally better-known Paul Bunyan, he's a man who can do anything with no regards to the laws of nature. In the real life he was a bit lazy guy with a deformed foot who liked sitting around campfire spinning yarns more than wading in knee-deep snow with a saw and an axe. A real person got turned into a legend in just a few decades.

It is illogical to assume Jesus of Nazareth existed because other charaters did or did not exist.

You are asked for evidence for an historical Jesus not for a Finnish lumberjack.

I am not surprised that you haven't found any evidence for an historical Jesus.

When we look at mythology in the religions of ancient world there were hundreds of myth/fiction characters who were claimed to be Gods.

In my experience, most people who go around strictly denying historical Jesus can be divided into two groups: those who are against him because against Christianity in general, and those who have gotten themselves involved in some form of gnostic mysticism and who think that Christians are misguided fools who don't know the real truths.

People who argue for an historical Jesus can be divided into two groups: "those who are against Christianity in general" and state that most of the NT stories of Jesus are fiction or those who involve in Fundamentalism and other religions who worship Jesus as a God and pray to Jesus for the gift of eternal life in heaven.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus in gLuke was a myth/fiction character whether or not he was always described as a man, a ghost or a God.

So you've now abandoned this silly idea. Good.

Everything about Jesus and the disciples are directly related to a Ghost.

 

[Craig B]

Well although the above sentence is yours, i.e. you composed it yourself (you are not quoting it from anyone else), that sentence does actually say that "Jesus or rather the son" is God.

That is actually what it most definitely says. I don’t know if you meant to write that.

No I didn't mean to write it, and didn't in fact write it, as your own pasted copy shows. I wrote "Jesus, or rather the Son, and the Father, and the HG are all God; but Jesus is not the HG and the HG is not the Father, etc."

That is, The Son, the Father and the HG are all God. I simply did not say "Jesus or rather the Son is God" whether that proposition is a Christian view or not: for we were discussing the Trinity here.

You've quoted me writing "are" and have immediately stated that I "most definitely" wrote "is". I can't explain that. But you don't need to respond. I would rather you dealt with my previous requests for comment.

You are surely not offering us lines like that from the bible claiming that you present it as reliable evidence of a human Jesus known to any of these people?

As you very well know, whoever wrote that gospel of Luke, had certainly not known any human Jesus.

Are you really offering us an anonymously written copy of Luke, written centuries after the claimed lifetime of Jesus, where the author had certainly never met anyone called Jesus, as reliable evidence that Jesus existed?

No, in fact I have written before that whether any of the evangelists or any other writer claimed personally to know Jesus is not conclusive as regards his historicity, and I have also repeatedly stated that (as you know perfectly well) there is no such passage anywhere. Do you understand that? It is therefore unnecessary for you to keep restating in every sentence something I have already responded to as plainly as I can.

Again, having repeated this; I would prefer that you respond to my previous request for comment.

 

[dejudge]

Jesus in gLuke was a myth/fiction character whether or not he was always described as a man, a ghost or a God.

So you've now abandoned this silly idea. Good.

It was your idea to show us that Jesus is God and that God is the Holy Spirit.

"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"

"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit".

You had NO idea that you have corroborated that Jesus is God AND a Ghost.

You had NO idea that the TRINITY is God.

Jesus, the Father and the Ghost are ONE.

Jesus of Nazareth is a Ghost story.


1. Augustine of Hippo "On the Holy Trinity---therefore they are not three Gods, but one God.

2. Thaumaturgus "On the Trinity"---All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity..

3. Gregory of Nyssa "On the Holy Trinity-----the identity of operation in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shows plainly the undistinguishable character of their substance.

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.

Luke 9 29---- And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

Luke 24.6 ---He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee..

Luke 24:51 ----And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Jesus of Nazareth is a Ghost/God/man--a TRI-MYTHICAL fiction character.

Jesus of Nazareth requires THREE elements--GHOST, GOD and FLESH.

Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any real existence.

HJ is a fiction character derived from Ghost stories in the Bible.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not Marras, but I would venture to say that HJ seems more probable than MJ to the great majority of Scholars because of much more than just a few lines in Josephus, Tacitus and Paul's epistles etc.

No, No, No!!! We won't be going over your same debunked fallacious claims this year.

It has already been established that Jesus of Nazareth is not identified in any writings attributed to Josephus and Tacitus.

Plus, you have already admitted that Paul was a Liar and a conman.

The Pauline Corpus is NOT historically credible.

The Pauline writers were identified as Liars for at least 1600 years or since the 4th century.

 

[Craig B]

It has already been established that Jesus of Nazareth is not identified in any writings attributed to Josephus and Tacitus.

If you take "Nazareth" out of that (which you have inserted to confuse the issue and to mislead people: Nazareth indeed doesn't appear in the works of either author) then there is a clear reference to the originator of Christianity in Tacitus, and a probable one (naming Jesus) in Josephus' Antiquities. But Nazareth, I agree, no.

You are trying to make people think there's no evidence supporting the idea of a historical Jesus in these authors, and that this is "established". That is not so. You know it's not so, which is why you have put in unnecessary details like Nazareth. Such subterfuges pervade your writings, dejudge, and they're laughable.

 

[waters]

I believe in historical Pythagoras even though all sources about him postdate him by at least decades (most by centuries) and are derived from Pythagorean sources.

But, here's a distinction. We possess, for Pythagoras, but not for Jesus, people who are unequivocally historical, living a century later, Aristarchus and Archimedes, both of whom employed Pythagorean discoveries in mathematics.

Which discovery did we obtain from the reputed lives of overtly fictional characters like Herakles, Jesus of Nazareth, Hikaru Genji, or Edmond Dantes?

Maybe Pythagoras is a legend, like Paul Bunyan, but, someone discovered those mathematical, "Pythagorean" principles, upon which the genuine discoveries of heliocentrism and hydrodynamic buoyancy depended.

 

[waters]

there is a clear reference to the originator of Christianity in Tacitus, and a probable one (naming Jesus) in Josephus' Antiquities.

Thank you Craig.

Help me, here, will you? I had the impression, without citing a source, that neither Tacitus nor Josephus had mentioned a Jesus, by name, in a work which had not been acknowledged to have been "interpolated".

Am I in error on that point? Is not the designation, in Tacitus, at least, if memory serves me, Annals 15:44 to chrestiani, not to "the Christ", and in Josephus Antiquities, to an ambiguous Jesus of unidentified parentage, in a passage claimed to represent a much later insertion, into the text, on the basis of (I don't know which fraudulent characteristics)?

If both Tacitus and Josephus genuinely cite a figure, acknowledged as corresponding to the identical character, defined in gMark (gold standard) as Jesus of Nazareth, then, why would we treat those two authors' cursory, imprecise, inadequate descriptions of "christ" and "jesus", any differently than we treat Philo's description of Herakles in his Embassy to Gaius? In other words, lots of genuine documents mention Herakles and his feats. Many famous authors, not just Philo, cite Herakles. Does that mean, then, that we profess faith in the existence of Herakles, because so many famous authors mentioned him, including in their texts, a clear description of Herakles' parentage, and his many reputed accomplishments, as did Philo of Alexandria?

In my opinion, even if both Josephus and Tacitus' writings were regarded as pristine, unadulterated missives of truth, it would not persuade me that the character elaborated in gMark, Jesus of Nazareth, presumably the identical person mentioned in Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian of Samosata's Passing of Peregrinus, had actually been a living breathing human, who had resided for some period of time on planet earth.

gMark's description of this "same" Jesus character, includes parentage from YHWH, aka Zeus, making gMark's Jesus, (the same guy, we imagine, as described by Josephus, Lucian and Tacitus), a demigod, and half brother of Herakles.

 

[Craig B]

But, here's a distinction. We possess, for Pythagoras, but not for Jesus, people who are unequivocally historical, living a century later, Aristarchus and Archimedes, both of whom employed Pythagorean discoveries in mathematics.

We know that such discoveries were made, and used by presumably historical people.

Which discovery did we obtain from the reputed lives of overtly fictional characters like Herakles, Jesus of Nazareth, Hikaru Genji, or Edmond Dantes?

It is ludicrous to put Jesus in this list, because the very issue under discussion is whether he has to be placed in the same category as Herakles, or these fictional characters, or not. In such a discussion we may not assume at the start the things we intend to prove.

But we know that Jesus was being worshipped as a divinity a few decades after his reputed existence, and that a religion developed from this. This fact is reported in trustworthy sources from an early date. If you say, that doesn't necessarily require a historical Jesus, then neither do the discoveries of Aristarchus or Archimedes require a historical Pythagoras. Aristarchus was born c 310 BC; Archimedes c 212 BC. Pythagoras is dated to c 570-405 BC. Centuries earlier.

Yet Jesus was being worshipped after a shorter delay. We are told by Pliny in his letter to Trajan written 111-113 AD that Christ was even then being worshipped as a god. I'd need to look up the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts of course, to keep dejudge and others happy. (Added. I have done that, and found that there are no manuscripts except a sixth century fragment, and later mediaeval codices. There are, however, notices of the Pliny letters in some Christian fathers, whose earliest manuscripts themselves are probably late!)

A reported religion is as much a historical fact as a reported mathematical theorem, even if the religion is false and the theorem true.