The Historical Jesus II

[maximara]

And Southwestern Community College in Red Oak Iowa isn't exactly Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or Cambridge, is it?

How often has this happened since then (2007)?

Look up Christopher Rollston who challenged "the marginal status of women in the Bible"

Daniel Harlow is holding out against his university. Joy Fagan folded.

Also note that these involve confidentiality agreements so it is like all the car defects that were settled out of court (also with confidentiality agreements) that are now coming to light. We can't know all the details thanks to these confidentiality agreements.

 

[Craig B]

There are Chapels at Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambrige where people who believe Jesus exist worship him as a God and pray to him for their salvation.

This is your pseudo logic again dejudge. It's like, The Pope is human. Dejudge is human, therefore dejudge is the Pope.

People who worship Jesus and pray to him for their salvation believe he existed. Richard Dawkins believes Jesus existed. Therefore Richard Dawkins worships Jesus and prays to him for salvation.

 

[Brainache]

Look up Christopher Rollston who challenged "the marginal status of women in the Bible"

OK, I looked him up:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...ofessor-offending-prospective-students-donors

The president of a Tennessee seminary told a tenured professor that his views were offending prospective students and possible donors and that he should look for work elsewhere.
The trouble began when Christopher Rollston, a professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Emmanuel Christian Seminary, a graduate seminary affiliated with the Restoration Movement, wrote an opinion article for The Huffington Post’s religion section about the marginal status of women in the Bible. “To embrace the dominant biblical view of women would be to embrace the marginalization of women,” Rollston wrote. “And sacralizing patriarchy is just wrong.”
...

That would be a "Secular" Christian Seminary, would it?...

Daniel Harlow is holding out against his university.

Looked him up too:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...bout_freedom_of_scholarship_at_calvin_college

...The professors were not disavowing the role of God or of their church, but were arguing that modern science challenges traditional, literal readings of the Book of Genesis in ways that may require theological shifts.
Nonetheless, the reaction from readers of The Banner, as expressed in many (but not all) comments on the website, was clear: no deviation from Genesis as literal truth could be tolerated. "To protect the church and college from false teachers and contrary orthodox beliefs it would be right to let these guys go," said one comment. "Clearly, professors who deny the scriptures as interpreted by our creeds and who have broken the promise they made when they signed the Form of Subscription should be fired," said another...

"Calvin College": Not a secular University and Daniel Harlow is a Religion Professor, not a Historian.

Joy Fagan folded.

Hmm:
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/12...shakeup-ohio-christian-university-hits-women/

Another Christian University. It's like you don't understand what is meant by "Secular University"...

Also note that these involve confidentiality agreements so it is like all the car defects that were settled out of court (also with confidentiality agreements) that are now coming to light. We can't know all the details thanks to these confidentiality agreements.

And given that these people were hired to teach at religious schools, I'm not surprised.

 

[maximara]

I don't think that makes it a poor argument.

Because I am not arguing that it’s “proof” that Jesus could not have been real, or that later gospel writers or their Christian congregations could not have believed he was real. What I am saying is that the gospel descriptions were not those of an ordinary human person ... they were descriptions of someone who was supposedly on earth in human looking form, but was actually overtly supernatural and apparently the “son” of Yahweh in the heavens.

I am not suggesting that the gospel writers, or later Christians in general, thought of Jesus only as a heavenly spirit.

I am suggesting that they wrote about him as a figure that was not a normal human preacher.

That leaves you/us/one with the possibility that Jesus really was in fact a human who existed and who was only written about in mistaken terms as if he was a supernatural non-human from a heavenly God ... but in that case that line of argument just reduces again to what I have said all along, i.e. - in that case where is the evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone? Answer - there is none. No evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone at all.

If that’s also exactly the case with Apollonius, then as with Jesus, I’d say there is no good evidential reason to think such figure was real.

IOW - the evidence in the letters and gospels of the NT is evidence of someone who was believed not to be a human person (as we now think of or “know” actual human’s to be). The evidence of those biblical stories is of belief in an overtly supernatural figure sent from, and returning to, God in heaven.

The Life of Apollonius of Tyana dates from c 220 CE or some 120 years after Apollonius of Tyana supposedly died c 100 CE and has him as a miracle working demi-god who ascended to heaven just like Jesus. Philostratus the Elder (c. 170 – 247 CE) put Apollonius lifespan at c 3 BCE to 97 CE though internal details makes a 15 to 97 CE range more likely.

While it is a good idea to take what Murdock says with a mountain of salt she does raise some interesting comparisons between Apollonius, Jesus, and Paul.

"In fact, it has been calculated that Paul and Apollonius were at both Ephesus and Rome at precisely the same time. It would be very odd if two such similar and powerful men, preaching to religious communities in these places, were unknown to each other. Unless, of course, they were each other"

I had to go back and reread that several times because it is so that 'where did that come from?' pops up. Then you get Apollonius the Nazarene and realize there is more out there.

 

[maximara]

...

Texas State University changed the placement of the Bible as work of mythology by a professor ie they are saying the Bible is a historical text! By the way my mythology course in high school originally had the bible as part of its subject matter...but we never got there and that was in the early 1980s.

By the way the Texas Board of Education whose text books are used nationwide got a wake up call in that no reputable publisher was going to put creationism in their textbook.

Despite this students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program (which I might add are still PUBLIC schools) are being taught Creationism which the Ssupreme Court has ruled to be at best iffy and in most cases a major no-no by Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

Heck after Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover this should NOT even be a thing.

 

[Brainache]

Texas State University changed the placement of the Bible as work of mythology by a professor ie they are saying the Bible is a historical text! By the way my mythology course in high school originally had the bible as part of its subject matter...but we never got there and that was in the early 1980s.

By the way the Texas Board of Education whose text books are used nationwide got a wake up call in that no reputable publisher was going to put creationism in their textbook.

Despite this students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program (which I might add are still PUBLIC schools) are being taught Creationism which the Ssupreme Court has ruled to be at best iffy and in most cases a major no-no by Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

Well, luckily for the world, most of it isn't controlled by Texas... There are entire nations outside of the US where that kind of biblical literalism is a tiny minority amongst believers and a source of comedy for the rest of us.

There is a big secular world beyond the borders of the USA...

 

[IanS]

The Life of Apollonius of Tyana dates from c 220 CE or some 120 years after Apollonius of Tyana supposedly died c 100 CE and has him as a miracle working demi-god who ascended to heaven just like Jesus. Philostratus the Elder (c. 170 – 247 CE) put Apollonius lifespan at c 3 BCE to 97 CE though internal details makes a 15 to 97 CE range more likely.

While it is a good idea to take what Murdock says with a mountain of salt she does raise some interesting comparisons between Apollonius, Jesus, and Paul.

"In fact, it has been calculated that Paul and Apollonius were at both Ephesus and Rome at precisely the same time. It would be very odd if two such similar and powerful men, preaching to religious communities in these places, were unknown to each other. Unless, of course, they were each other"

I had to go back and reread that several times because it is so that 'where did that come from?' pops up. Then you get Apollonius the Nazarene and realize there is more out there.

OK, fair enough I take the point about Apollonius,... if he really was comparable to Jesus in terms of being so completely un-evidenced and so constantly miraculous and known only for his miracles and nothing else.

But as I say, in that case I don't see any good reason to think a figure like Apollonius was real either.

The context is important here in respect of why I wrote that reply to Craig - Craig was arguing against dejudge saying that the gospels do not describe Jesus as God or as a spirit/ghost etc. Craig was arguing that the gospels present Jesus as a real human person, and not as a "god" or "holy ghost" ...

... what I am pointing out to Craig is - whether the gospels actually do or do not say Jesus was God, they are not describing Jesus as a normal human being ... they are describing him as a miraculous figure who is sent by God and who rises from death to return to God in the heavens ... that is not what we would call the description of a normal human being. They thought he was supernatural ... though none of them had ever met him and he was known to them only as this supernatural heavenly ascending legend of the past.

 

[Craig B]

While it is a good idea to take what Murdock says with a mountain of salt she does raise some interesting comparisons between Apollonius, Jesus, and Paul.

Nor is she the only crazed fantasist to do so. How about this page? Seemingly Apollonius was the

Original founder of true Essene Christianity, whose precepts originate in Buddhist India and China (Himalayas).

Replaced by Yeshai Beth Halachmee (pseudo-crucified Essene of 4 BC), Jehoshua Ben Pandira (the Jesus of 100 BC) and Christna (the avatar of 3000 BC) by the priests of Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

The New Testament is a distorted account of his life and teacings.

Why is this not better known? Because

All records of Apollonius and his Essene Christianity were destroyed and this meant burning the libraries, including the most famous one at Alexandria. The mobs who enforced the new changes met stiff resistance from the people, and some fifty million were eventually killed or martyred in the process.

Dear me, that's awful! As you say:

... I had to go back and reread that several times because it is so that 'where did that come from?' pops up. Then you get Apollonius the Nazarene and realize there is more out there.

There's plenty "out there"!

 

[Craig B]

Dup post deleted.

 

[dejudge]

There are Chapels at Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambrige where people who believe Jesus exist worship him as a God and pray to him for their salvation.

This is your pseudo logic again dejudge. It's like, The Pope is human. Dejudge is human, therefore dejudge is the Pope.

No, No, No!!! You don't know what you are talking about.

You do not understand logic.

You don't understand biology.

You don't understand that the Pope and dejudge have the same gender.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Father and the Holy Ghost are INDIVISIBLE according to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Father and the Holy Ghost can NEVER be separated.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Father and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same substance.

People who worship Jesus and pray to him for their salvation believe he existed. Richard Dawkins believes Jesus existed. Therefore Richard Dawkins worships Jesus and prays to him for salvation.

No, No, No!!!! You don't know what you are talking about.

You do not understand logic.

Your statement is total nonsense.

You must first present the Facts.

1. There is ZERO contemporary historical data for Jesus.

2. The existing 2nd century or later manuscripts with stories of Jesus claim he was a Resurrecting, Transfiguring Water walking Son of a God, the Lord from heaven, born of a Ghost and God from the beginning.

3.Logically ALL People who believe Jesus existed have ZERO historical evidence.

4. Logically if Richard Dawkins believes Jesus existed then he is one them who do so WITHOUT a shred of historical evidence.

5.Logically Craig B NEVER had any historical data for Jesus of Nazareth because there NEVER was.

6. Logically the HJ argument was "born" dead--it never had any "oxygen"[historical data]

 

[dejudge]

The historical Jesus argument was ALWAYS dead.

The Pauline Corpus has confirmed that Jesus NEVER and could NOT have had any historical data.

Jesus was the FIRSTBORN of the DEAD.

Jesus NEVER DID and could NOT have existed.

The earliest 2ND century or later manuscripts of the Jesus story admit Jesus was the FIRSTBORN of the DEAD.

Colossians 1:18--- And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Papyri 46 [Colossians1] και αυτος εστιν η κεφαλη του σωματος της εκκλησιας ο εστιν η αρχη πρωτοτοκος ⸆ των νεκρων ινα γενηται εν πασιν αυτος πρωτευων.

The HJ argument was ALWAYS without history.

The HJ argument is a product of the Grave.

The HJ argument has EXPIRED.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus was the FIRSTBORN of the DEAD.

Jesus NEVER DID and could NOT have existed.

The earliest 2ND century or later manuscripts of the Jesus story admit Jesus was the FIRSTBORN of the DEAD.

I don't think you are understanding the concept "firstborn of the dead" correctly. It means that in the opinion of the Christians, Jesus really did exist, and rose bodily from the grave. He was the first dead person to be reborn, and that resurrection proves that other people will be reborn. Here is Paul explaining this in 1 Cor 15

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

Understand now? The doctrine means the opposite of what you understand it to mean. It stresses that other humans will get up out of their tombs, just as Jesus did first. So he must be real, or that promise wouldn't mean anything.

 

[maximara]

OK, fair enough I take the point about Apollonius,... if he really was comparable to Jesus in terms of being so completely un-evidenced and so constantly miraculous and known only for his miracles and nothing else.

Except Apollonius is different that unlike Jesus he did have known contemporary evidence for his existence which is referenced in existing works. Also unlike Jesus you can read the writings of Apollonius.

G.R.S. Mead gives what was known about the man in 1901 in his Apollonius of Tyana

Going over these writings you can see why the idea that Apollonius was either Paul or Jesus is a real but Apollonius is also a good counter balance to the Christ Myth idea as he is the poster child of a actual historical person turned into a demi-god producing miracles as if he was a PEZ dispenser. That said Apollonius also shows what we should be seeing if Jesus was even as remotely famous as the Gospels paint him to be and it just isn't there.

Someone commented on the Jesus myth theory page over at rationalwiki which I think is relevant:

"I think it's also worth noting that the distinction between minimalism (Jesus existed but that's about as much as we can say; called here "reductive"), "compositism" (Jesus is based on a composite of various historical existing personalities – some of which we know of through Josephus, for example) and mythicism is rather subtle. Once you get somebody to admit that what is certain about Jesus is extremely little, I think it's easy to argue that this solid core is so tiny that the historical figure supposedly at the basis turns out to be unrecoverably generic; if there were so many itinerant Jewish miracle-working apocalyptic preachers and cult leaders in 1st century Judaea, who claimed to be the messiah, incited failed rebellions and were severely punished by the Romans or Jews (or had at least broadly similar biographies), and if the name Jesus was this common, which is essentially the rationale for "compositism", you could also argue that the figure of Jesus was based on a generic type rather than a single, identifiable person. That is, even if you had a time machine and could travel back to the place and time in question, you would have a hard time trying to determine which of the many confusingly similar candidates should be the "real" Jesus. The problem of the Historical Jesus then ironically turns out to be not that there is none, but that there are too many of them! And that's a problem the HJ research has to grapple with already, it's not an invention of ebil hypersceptics."

 

[dejudge]

I don't think you are understanding the concept "firstborn of the dead" correctly. It means that in the opinion of the Christians, Jesus really did exist, and rose bodily from the grave. He was the first dead person to be reborn, and that resurrection proves that other people will be reborn.

What utter nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking. You have NOT even read Colossians 1. You forget that your Paul was an Auditory Hallucinator.



The Pauline Corpus is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

Jesus in the very same Colossians 1 was ALSO God Creator.

Colossians 1.16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

Papyri 46 [Colosians 1]

οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα ⸆ εν [τοις] ουρανοις και ⸆ επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι οτι παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται

The Existing Variant versions of the Pauline Corpus were composed in the 2nd century or later are known be a pack of lies, fiction, falsehood, contradictions, discrepancies since at least the 4th century and is a compilation of forgeries and false attribution.


The Pauline Corpus states Jesus is God, the Lord from heaven, a Ghost, the Son of a God, God's own Son and the FIRSTBORN of the Dead.

Your modern fiction story that you have invented from your imagination is total nonsense and without attestation in or out the Bible.

I REJECT your inventions.

Jesus is GOD and the Firstborn of the Dead in the Pauline Corpus.

Here is Paul explaining this in 1 Cor 15 Understand now? The doctrine means the opposite of what you understand it to mean. It stresses that other humans will get up out of their tombs, just as Jesus did first. So he must be real, or that promise wouldn't mean anything.

What nonsense!!! You don't even realise that you are actually showing that the Pauline Corpus is NOT credible.

What complete utterly illogical statement you make.

No-one has resurrected on the THIRD day AFTER they were dead.

No human being got out a Tomb AFTER they were already dead.

Please, please, please!!! The Pauline Corpus is historical GARBAGE fabricated in the 2nd century or later.

Your HJ argument is DEAD.

The HJ argument cannot get out of its TOMB.

The HJ argument is a product of Auditory Hallucinations in the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Craig B]

No-one has resurrected on the THIRD day AFTER they were dead.

No human being got out a Tomb AFTER they were already dead.

Please please have your eyes TESTED before they deteriorate further! Because you didn't see my words "in the opinion of Christians" because you don't understand what Christians mean by firstfruits of the DEAD and similar ideas.

Not my ideas, dejudge: Christian ideas.

That you don't EVEN understand, so you can't even argue against, because the Christians will laugh until THEY'RE sick when they read the rubbish you post!

 

[Marras]

I don't "propose" any particular dates or anything about "stabilizing" anything.

My bad. I made the assumption that when you stress that the texts of the gospels that we know about are from 4th-6th centuries, that they orginated from shorter oral tradition going back to centuries BC, and that the existing fragments don't tell us anything about the contents of the gospels at the time the manuscripts were written, you would also think the contents have changed. But again, scholars have identified that Isaiah was written over two centuries by analysing its text. If something like that happened to gospels, too, there should be evidence in the surviving text for that.

Why do I "need to be able to explain its existence if you want to propose that Luke was written centuries after Jesus"? I have said not a word about the date when g-Luke may have been first written down.

You have said that we can't know whether the text of Luke that we have is different from the original text. And I'm saying that the affair of Marcion pushes the date for complete Luke from the 4th-6th century that you stress so strongly to the early 3rd century the latest. That, or you do a full dejudge and claim that Tertullian's writings are forged. (If he hasn't claimed that yet, he will claim so in the response to this post since Tertullian claims that Marcion used Pauline epistles as source, and Marcion wrote before that magical AD 180).

In short, there are two options for Luke:

* Tertullian had essentially the current Luke in the early 3rd century.

* Tertullian's Against Marcion is a later forgery.

Tertullian's writing also provides evidence that Luke was already existing in 140 as he claims that Marcion modified it.

What I said about it is that figures like Pythagoras are known for, and historically important for, the entirely factual human things associated with their names. E.g. the discovery of a mathematical theorem or the presentation of a philosophical idea, etc.

You do know that the first source that we know of that explicitly connects Pythagoras with the theorem comes from the first century AD, don't you? Half a millennium after his death. The oldest extant manuscripts for that come from the 10th century. Well, earliest extant manuscripts containing parts of Morals of Plutarch, I don't know whether they contain the parts mentioning the theorem. Plutarch also tells us that Pythagoras had a golden thigh, which isn't too common feature among entirely factual human beings around where I live.

As a tangential digression, I checked again to see what the earliest source about Pythagoras says about him. Not much. Herodotus says that "he was not the least philosopher" and that Greeks living around the Black Sea tell hos former slave was worshipped by the Getai as a major god. Which is surprisingly quick development, given that Herodotus was born about 10 years after Pythagoras died. Herodotus writes that he himself didn't believe the tale of the slave, but it's still impressive that less than 50 years after Pythagoras's death he had a large enough fame that some people were willing to believe that his slave would have enough magical mojo to establish himself as a god among barbarians. The specific feat that the slave supposedly did was to live for three years buried underground before emerging alive. Hmm... someone being buried for three something something and then emerging from the grave. Sounds curiously familiar, I wonder where I have heard something like that before.

Jesus in stark comparison is famous purely and entirely for the claimed string of constant miracles. He is not famous for anything else except the supernatural and the prophetically divine sayings attributed to him. He is not known for any factual remains at all.

The sayings attributed to Jesus include things that aren't particularly prophetic, for example, stuff like ethical teachings. You don't need to be a god to say these. You don't even have to be a god to say that our generation will see the coming of the kingdom of god. Or else I walked past two gods today when coming home from work. Not to mention that it would take a great amount of boneheadedness to put a prophesy that's already failed into the mouth of an invented god-man. The kingdom of god didn't come before Jesus's generation was gone. But, Jesus-mythers insist that early Christians were that bone-headed.

In short:

* both Pythagoras and Jesus were sons of gods and have also other supernatural things attributed to them.

* both Pythagoras and Jesus have humanely possible things attributed to them.

* neither left any physical evidence for their existence.

* neither is mentioned in surviving contemporary texts.

* both had followers who founded new religions based on their teachings.

* and, the thing that you for some reason hold critically important: no writer ever claimed to meet either one in person.

Goose. Gander.

Whereas in the case of Jesus, completely unlike Pythagoras or Caesar or any of the others, it is the existence of Jesus himself which is absolutely crucial and essential to the existence of Christianity today

The existence of Christianity today is completely irrelevant to the question whether historical Jesus existed or not. It doesn't matter the slightest bit. And conversely, the nature of Jesus is mostly irrelevant to the actual practice of Christianity today.

... but if Jesus did not exist, then Christianity is certainly rendered invalid and based upon pure fiction.

And an existing Jesus who got executed and didn't raise from the grave renders Christianity just as invalid.

 

[IanS]

Except Apollonius is different that unlike Jesus he did have known contemporary evidence for his existence which is referenced in existing works. Also unlike Jesus you can read the writings of Apollonius.

G.R.S. Mead gives what was known about the man in 1901 in his Apollonius of Tyana

Going over these writings you can see why the idea that Apollonius was either Paul or Jesus is a real but Apollonius is also a good counter balance to the Christ Myth idea as he is the poster child of a actual historical person turned into a demi-god producing miracles as if he was a PEZ dispenser. That said Apollonius also shows what we should be seeing if Jesus was even as remotely famous as the Gospels paint him to be and it just isn't there.

Well that would be the fatal difference between Jesus vs Apollonius then.

Plus, of course, nobody is interested in Apollonius so it doesn't matter to anyone if he was real or not. And that is certainly not the case with Jesus.

Someone commented on the Jesus myth theory page over at rationalwiki which I think is relevant:

"I think it's also worth noting that the distinction between minimalism (Jesus existed but that's about as much as we can say; called here "reductive"), "compositism" (Jesus is based on a composite of various historical existing personalities – some of which we know of through Josephus, for example) and mythicism is rather subtle. Once you get somebody to admit that what is certain about Jesus is extremely little, I think it's easy to argue that this solid core is so tiny that the historical figure supposedly at the basis turns out to be unrecoverably generic; if there were so many itinerant Jewish miracle-working apocalyptic preachers and cult leaders in 1st century Judaea, who claimed to be the messiah, incited failed rebellions and were severely punished by the Romans or Jews (or had at least broadly similar biographies), and if the name Jesus was this common, which is essentially the rationale for "compositism", you could also argue that the figure of Jesus was based on a generic type rather than a single, identifiable person. That is, even if you had a time machine and could travel back to the place and time in question, you would have a hard time trying to determine which of the many confusingly similar candidates should be the "real" Jesus. The problem of the Historical Jesus then ironically turns out to be not that there is none, but that there are too many of them! And that's a problem the HJ research has to grapple with already, it's not an invention of ebil hypersceptics."

Of course all those options have been proposed before (complete myth ... composition of numerous different figures ... real figure but not at all like the biblical descriptions ... etc.).

Personally I don't know why anyone would want to fall into the trap of trying to propose any specific myth theory of that sort. It's a constant claim of HJ proponents (inc. Bible Scholars and Theologian writers etc.) that anyone doubting the existence of Jesus must "explain the facts", by which they mean offer a theory as to why 1st century religious fanatics wrote gospels of messiah eulogy and messiah preaching about a named figure who was not real.

But there is zero obligation on any sceptics to do that.

It might be a different matter for anyone writing a commercial book and saying explicitly that Jesus did not or could not have existed. In that case you might be duty bound to provide a better explanation to fit the "facts" ("facts" in parenthesis, because few if any actual facts are known here ... except the facts that are entirely against Jesus, such as the impossibility of all the miracle claims, and the fact that 2000 years of Christian church leaders and bible scholars claiming to have irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, turns out to mean precisely no credible evidence at all).

But for any mere sceptics on forums like this, it's more than sufficient to show that there is actually no evidence at all of this figure ever known to anyone as a human person. All the so-called evidence from the gospels and letters of the NT bible, turns out to be evidence only of peoples religious beliefs ... and those beliefs are beliefs in the supernatural ... not to mention that they were being copied from much older OT prophecy anyway.

Craig and several others here don't like me using the word "sceptic", and they would prefer to lable people as "mythers" and "mythicists". But as I have emphasised numerous times before, my own position is simply that I am sceptical of this figures actual existence in any form resembling the figure described in the bible ... and the bible is the only primary source for anyone mentioning Jesus as the messiah of Christianity, so that is most definitely the figure we are talking about (not some other proposed HJ who was so unlike the biblical Jesus as to be unrecognisable to the people that originally wrote about him).

Personally it does not matter to me if Jesus existed or not. If some genuine evidence of him was found tomorrow then I'd be perfectly happy to say that it looks as if he was real after all.

For me, the only reason this subject is actually important, is because Jesus is the basis of Christianity. Without Jesus, if it turned out he was just a complete myth, then it would render today's worldwide Christianity bogus. That might not have any immediate impact on the number of believers. But over time the Christian church as it is now, preaching the reality of Jesus every Sunday and persuading the faithful that Jesus certainly was and is the Son of God, could not possibly continue with any credibility if people knew it was untrue and based on a fiction..

Does it matter if the church and religion loses credibility, and if fewer people believed in miraculous gods and messiahs like Jesus? I think the answer to that is quite obvious, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Craig B]

The sayings attributed to Jesus include things that aren't particularly prophetic, for example, stuff like ethical teachings. You don't need to be a god to say these. You don't even have to be a god to say that our generation will see the coming of the kingdom of god

Yes, very much so. Therefore this was written in Paul's lifetime.

1 Thess 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

 

[dejudge]

quote=dejudge]
No-one has resurrected on the THIRD day AFTER they were dead.

No human being got out a Tomb AFTER they were already dead.[/quote]

Please please have your eyes TESTED before they deteriorate further! Because you didn't see my words "in the opinion of Christians" because you don't understand what Christians mean by firstfruits of the DEAD and similar ideas.

What utter nonsense and fiction you write. You are not a Christian. You do not represent the Church. YOUR opinion is worthless when you were asked to present evidence from antiquity.

Christian writings of antiquity openly state Jesus was an Ascending Resurrecting, Transfiguring, water walking Son of a God, the First born of the dead, the Lord from heaven and God from the beginning.

Not my ideas, dejudge: Christian ideas.

You write established fiction.

You forget that we have writings of antiquity attributed to Christians of antiquity.

Ignatius--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

Aristides--Jesus was God from heaven.

Justin Martyr--Jesus was the Son of God born WITHOUT sexual union.

Irenaeus--Jesus was Born of a Ghost.

Tertulian--Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

Origen--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

Hippolytus--Jesus was God Creator.

That you don't EVEN understand, so you can't even argue against, because the Christians will laugh until THEY'RE sick when they read the rubbish you post!

The HJ argument is dead. Christians are laughing at the rubbish you write fallaciously claiming that their Jesus was just a mere man and that Paul was an Auditory hallucinator.

You mis-represent Christians and the teaching of the Church.

The Christian's Jesus is of the same substance as God.

Christians pray to their God Jesus for salvation and to get a mansion in heaven.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 14

14 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The HJ argument is dead suffocated by absence of "oxygen" [historical data]

 

[Craig B]

What utter nonsense and fiction you write. You are not a Christian. You do not represent the Church. YOUR opinion is worthless when you were asked to present evidence from antiquity.

Christian writings of antiquity openly state Jesus was an Ascending Resurrecting, Transfiguring, water walking Son of a God, the First born of the dead, the Lord from heaven and God from the beginning.

I see you are now a devout Christian who kisses statues of the Virgin Mary so that she will intercede with her Son and implore him to admit you to Salvation after a short period in Purgatory to expiate your sins.

For you won't believe me, because you (rightly) say I don't represent the Church. And so my opinion is worthless. And the only writings you believe are Christian writings, like the Encyclicals of Pope Boniface VIII who said you must be subject to the Church, or even the Pontiff, to attain salvation.

You forget that we have writings of antiquity attributed to Christians of antiquity.

dejudge, I don't "forget" these writings; I reject these writings!