The Historical Jesus II

[IanS]

I think the two of you are confusing fictional with fictionalized. Sherlock Holmes is fictional but the FDR in FDR American Badass! is fictionalized.

I have in the past asked about viewing the Gospels and Acts as the 1st-2nd century equivalent of Dime Novels and Penny Dreadfuls that starred Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

In fact, this is how in 1982 and 1995 the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defined the Christ Myth; story of Jesus not the man himself "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"

Yet we have stated that stripped of its supernatural elements the 12 labors of Heracles are plausible but that doesn't mean that there was a historical Heracles.

As I have pointed out over 100 years ago Remsburg postulated a historical Jesus where the Gospels were in "the narrative is essentially false" side of the historical myth spectrum ie a "historical" Jesus on par with historical Robin Hood or King Arthur.

Remsburg implied that Jesus (if he did exist) was slowly woven into various mythical motif stories after his death. We see this with Apollonius of Tyana for whom we have better evidence for existing as an actual person but he was around for a long time (at least 70 years).

Right now the historical Jesus has been minimized to someone who preached something in Palatine in the 1st century and was killed by either the Romans and the Jews. With that kind of criteria one could claim the Samaritan prophet in Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87 was Jesus.

As even Schweitzer admitted the efforts to find the "real" historical Jesus have turned him into a ventriloquist dummy ie an unconscious self portrait. I agree with Price in that "even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered".

There is simply too much myth and too little untainted "evidence" to show just who Jesus really was or even if he actually existed.

I don't think anyone is missing the distinction as far as the definition of the two words is concerned. We know what the words mean.

Personally, as it's presented, I don't see that that there is any practical difference between the two definitions as far as a human Jesus is concerned. In neither case is anyone identified as a human person doing the things in the bible settings. That figure, fictional or fictionalised, was not known to anyone who wrote about him.

Just on the earlier question of how we could ever show that Jesus was fictional - again that's just a question of credible evidence. So, for example, if in the future we find very early manuscripts, reliably dated to say the 1st century, where the manuscripts are clearly the forerunners of the biblical writing, and where they make clear that Jesus was originally thought of as a spiritual figure or heavenly messenger (or however anyone wants to describe that), and not as a normal human preacher of the time, then that would be clear evidence of how the Jesus stories originated from a fictional belief.

There are any number of options like that. E.g., we might find accounts of earlier pre-Christian religions from Greek, Persian or Roman influences in that region, where a central deity is described in terms so similar to Jesus as to make it obvious that such earlier beliefs had strongly influenced the later Jesus stories.

But before anyone says that is all speculation and that we don't have any such earlier writing. Firstly its just a straightforward answer to the question of what it would take to show that Jesus was very probably fictional. And secondly, we do of course already have all sorts of writing like that, with all sorts of similarities to Jesus. But it's just that, whilst sceptical writers such as Carrier, Doherty, Wells, Elegard, and countless others clearly do see such earlier writing as suspiciously like the forerunner of the Jesus stories, the Christian church and bible scholars do not accept that such earlier writing is convincing as evidence of how the Jesus stories originated.

So that becomes a matter of opinion. But it all hinges on how clearly any such earlier writing contains unmistakable elements of the Jesus stories. As I say, if one day we find some really clear and unmistakable writing of that sort, or if re-interpretation of existing material shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the Jesus stories came from earlier religions and earlier beliefs (e.g. the OT), then that would in the end be impossible for the Church and bibles scholars to ignore.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, we've been over this many times. The HJ is not Gospel Jesus. The HJ is not the Jesus of faith. HJ is not a water-walking son of a ghost who transfigured and flew up to heaven. HJ is a man about whom myths were told.

The NT is the primary source for the Quest for an historical Jesus.

The Quest for an HJ is a Quest for the Jesus character found in the NT.

The Quest for an HJ of Nazareth was initiated by THEOLOGIANS and Christians about 300 years ago.

HJ is an un-evidenced myth man which was derived from the 2nd century or later fiction/myth fables of the NT.

HJ was supposedly baptized by John and crucified under Pilate when Caiaphas was High Priest.

The Quest for an HJ of Nazareth has suffered multiple failures due to lack of evidence.

The NT is a known established source of fiction, falsehood, fables, forgeries, false attribution, discrepancies, historical problems and contradictions.

What then do we call Richard Carrier's Myth Jesus who existed in the sub-lunar realm and never walked on earth in any form? Carrier calls him the Mythical Jesus.

Your mention of Carrier's sublunar Jesus is to divert attention away from the fact that you have NO historical evidence from antiquity for your HJ argument.

The arguments for an historical Jesus and a sub-lunar Jesus have the very same exact problem---NO evidence from antiquity.

Essentially, the historical Jesus and the sub-lunar Jesus are modern myth/fiction characters without a shred of evidence from antiquity in or out the Bible.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, and the existence of such a myth as Carrier proposes is not attested in the historical record either. It is clear to me that, rightly or wrongly, "The Lord" referred to by Paul was believed by him to have been a person who lived recently on earth. I think Paul was most probably right about that. The existence of such a person makes the best sense of the data we do have, which isn't much, I agree.

But, you have one slight nagging problem.

You forget that your Paul was an Auditory hallucinator.

You forget that your Paul had problems with reality.

Can you recall that a writing under the name of Paul stated that Paul and others were witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead?

Can you recall that a writing under the name of Paul states that Paul MET a man but could not recall if it was IN or OUT the body?

Can you recall that a writing under the name of Paul states that Paul had conference WITHOUT Flesh and blood to get his story of Jesus?

You remember nothing.

It is clear that Paul really SAW Nothing.

The Pauline writings are products of hallucination or fiction.

But the timing and character of the religion that developed in these times is even less easy to explain if we suppose that there was no Jesus at all, and no Paul to write his ideas about him.

What timing are you talking about??

All you do is invent fiction stories of Jesus with your OWN timing.

We have NO manuscripts of the Jesus story in YOUR timing.

We have NO manuscripts of the Jesus story in "his generation".

The historical Jesus was invented in OUR GENERATION.

 

[IanS]

But the timing and character of the religion that developed in these times is even less easy to explain if we suppose that there was no Jesus at all, and no Paul to write his ideas about him.

Well that cannot really be true, because by the time that Paul's letters and the gospels were being produced, none of those authors knew anyone called Jesus. They all thought that he had died at some earlier date as confirmed by "scripture". So by that time (e.g. the time of Paul, whatever date you think that was) the religion was apparently growing from supposedly small beginnings, despite the fact that no human Jesus was then alive to be known by anyone at all.

Now you could argue that an earlier Church of God had preached Jesus as the messiah. And we have been through all that before, at great length. But what is certain about that is - (a) Paul's letters do not say that any earlier church of God had identified Jesus as their named messiah, and (b) nobody in that church of God claimed that they had preached Jesus before Paul did.

In which case, to repeat what I said before about that - if you regard Paul's letters as pre-dating the gospels (say, you think they date from c.50-60AD), then it is a fact that Paul is the first person we know of to identify Jesus as the named messiah. But as I say - by that date Paul thought Jesus was already dead and gone to heaven, so by then the religion was certainly growing without any human Jesus known to anyone.

 

[Craig B]

Why are people in the time of Aretas 37-41 CE telling others who knew Jesus was a mere man that he was God Creator, born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven, the firstborn of the dead without a human father?

They weren't. The earliest sources say he was born as a human being of the seed of David, and his family lived in his home town, and they thought he had gone mad when he started preaching after being baptised in the River Jordan by John. Other stuff came later.

I have explained firstborn of the dead, a concept which you seem to be unable to understand, but I can easily prove it is not regarded by Paul as superhuman. 1 Cor 15

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.

This is saying, dejudge, that a man brought death into the world. Adam. And another man has risen from the dead. Christ. Other people will do that, says Paul. But Jesus is the first, because he overcame death through the action of God. Unless Jesus is perceived as a man by Paul, this doctrine makes no sense at all in Paul's terms.

What made Jesus superhuman? God did, following the resurrection. Here are Paul's words from Romans 1

4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

You say

Please, stop the farce.

but there is no farce, except your wilful refusal even to try to understand simple ideas like the Resurrection and the Trinity!

 

[dejudge]

They weren't. The earliest sources say he was born as a human being of the seed of David, and his family lived in his home town, and they thought he had gone mad when he started preaching after being baptised in the River Jordan by John. Other stuff came later.

You always write fiction or half-truths in every post.

The earliest sources we have state Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God Creator, born of a Ghost, God's Own Son, the Firstborn of the dead, a transfiguring water walker.

gLuke [Papyri 4], gLuke and gJohn [Papyri 75] and the Pauline Corpus [Papyri 46] are the earliest existing sources dated c175-225 CE.

I have explained firstborn of the dead, a concept which you seem to be unable to understand, but I can easily prove it is not regarded by Paul as superhuman. 1 Cor 15 This is saying, dejudge, that a man brought death into the world. Adam. And another man has risen from the dead. Christ. Other people will do that, says Paul. But Jesus is the first, because he overcame death through the action of God. Unless Jesus is perceived as a man by Paul, this doctrine makes no sense at all in Paul's terms.

You have explained NOTHING. You have misrepresented the Pauline Corpus, the Entire NT and the Church.

Christians of antiquity have ALREADY explained the teachings of the Pauline Corpus hundreds of years ago.

John Chrysostom has made Commentaries on the Pauline Corpus and argued that Jesus was the Son of God--NOT Joseph.

What made Jesus superhuman? God did, following the resurrection. Here are Paul's words from Romans 1

What nonsense!!! What bizarre logic!! How could a non-existing God make Jesus superhuman?? How could a non-existing God raise Jesus from the dead??

You forget that existing hand-written manuscripts were composed in the 2nd century or later.

The earliest words of the UNKNOWN "Paul" are c 175-225 CE.

Paul in Acts of the Apostles wrote NO letters to Churches up to c 61 CE or up to the time Festus was governor of Judea.

... but there is no farce, except your wilful refusal even to try to understand simple ideas like the Resurrection and the Trinity!

You consistently write fiction or make logically fallacious argument.

Augustine of Hippo wrote about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and stated that Jesus, the Father and a Ghost are ONE and the SAME substance.

Augustine of Hippo "On the Holy Trinity 1

7. All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God...

God is a myth/fiction character.

Jesus is God

Jesus is a figure of mythology/fiction.

 

[maximara]

They weren't. The earliest sources say he was born as a human being of the seed of David, and his family lived in his home town, and they thought he had gone mad when he started preaching after being baptised in the River Jordan by John. Other stuff came later.

Agreed. And this still hold true even if one buys into Crossley's theory that Mark dates from this period. Paul's Jesus is born the normal way with at best God putting a bit of himself into the resulting child.

As several people have said over the last 100 years you can't use the supernatural nonsense of the Gospel Jesus to argue for the nonexistence of a hypothetical historical Jesus and you can't use to the possibly of a historical Jesus to argue the validity of the supernatural Gospel Jesus.

Of the many people who have discussed this issue I am aware of only seven (Remsberg, Schweitzer, Bultmann, Marshall, Baker, Price, and Carrier) who even bother to make this key point clear.

 

[dejudge]

They weren't. The earliest sources say he was born as a human being of the seed of David, and his family lived in his home town, and they thought he had gone mad when he started preaching after being baptised in the River Jordan by John. Other stuff came later.

Agreed. And this still hold true even if one buys into Crossley's theory that Mark dates from this period. Paul's Jesus is born the normal way with at best God putting a bit of himself into the resulting child.

This is a partial list of claims about Jesus in the earliest existing sources:[Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46]:

1. Jesus was the Lord from heaven

2. Jesus was God from the beginning.

3. Jesus was born of a Ghost.

4. Jesus was God Creator.

5. Jesus is the ONLY begotten son of God.

6. Jesus is a Spirit.

7. Jesus transfigured.

8. Jesus walked on water.

9. Jesus resurrected on the THIRD day after he was buried.

10. Jesus ascended in a cloud in the presence of the disciples.

This is a partial list of Apologetic writers who mentioned the birth or origin of their Jesus.

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

2. Aristides--Jesus was God from heaven.

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

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

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

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

7. Hippolytus--Jesus was God Creator, the Logos and Son of God.

8. Eusebius---Jesus was the Divine Son of God.

9. Jerome--Jesus was the Son of God.

10. Chrysostom--Jesus was the Son of God.

As several people have said over the last 100 years you can't use the supernatural nonsense of the Gospel Jesus to argue for the nonexistence of a hypothetical historical Jesus and you can't use to the possibly of a historical Jesus to argue the validity of the supernatural Gospel Jesus.

Your statement makes no logical sense. You very well know that several people have said over the last hundred years that Jesus was a figure of myth/fiction based on the evidence from antiquity.

Of the many people who have discussed this issue I am aware of only seven (Remsberg, Schweitzer, Bultmann, Marshall, Baker, Price, and Carrier) who even bother to make this key point clear.

Again, your statement is of no historical value.

It is already known that there is no contemporary evidence of an historical Jesus and that the NT is a major source of fiction, discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems, forgeries, false attribution and events which did not and could not have happened.

Essentially, the NT [the primary source] for the HJ argument is completely historically worthless and all existing manuscripts with stories of Jesus are from the 2nd century or later.

Jesus is a figure of fiction/myth until historical data is found.

 

[maximara]

This is a partial list of claims about Jesus in the earliest existing sources:[Papyri 4, Papyri 75 and Papyri 46]:

1. Jesus was the Lord from heaven

2. Jesus was God from the beginning.

3. Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Papyri 4 and Papyri 75 are Luke which are believed to post date Paul.

Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 both expressly deny this whole "born of a Ghost" nonsense.

Dejudge, get it through your thick head, Born of a virgin is a FIGURE OF SPEECH that later Christians for some insane reason decided to take literally.

You are effectively asking if the silver spoon Bush born with sterling or plate?

 

[Brainache]

Papyri 4 and Papyri 75 are Luke which are believed to post date Paul.

Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 both expressly deny this whole "born of a Ghost" nonsense.

Dejudge, get it through your thick head, Born of a virgin is a FIGURE OF SPEECH that later Christians for some insane reason decided to take literally.

You are effectively asking if the silver spoon Bush born with sterling or plate?

Good luck with that...

 

[dejudge]

Papyri 4 and Papyri 75 are Luke which are believed to post date Paul.

You write fiction. Papyri 4 and Papyri 75 are dated within the same time period as Papyri 46 c 175-225 CE.

Your beliefs are worthless propaganda WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 both expressly deny this whole "born of a Ghost" nonsense.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The Holy Ghost is God and Jesus is the Son of God in Romans and Galatians.

In Galatians it is clearly stated that Jesus is the Son of God and a Woman.

The Pauline Corpus is in agreement with the Creed of the Church--Jesus is God of God

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Dejudge, get it through your thick head, Born of a virgin is a FIGURE OF SPEECH that later Christians for some insane reason decided to take literally.

Maximara, get it through your thick head that your FIGURE OF SPEECH story is insanely LATE from the 21st century.

You are effectively asking if the silver spoon Bush born with sterling or plate?

YOU WRITE SILVERSPOON NONSENSE.

Christians of antiquity argued that the Holy Ghost was a PERSON.

Christians of antiquity argued that the Holy Ghost was GOD.

Christians of antiquity argued that Jesus, the Holy Ghost and the Father were INDIVISIBLE and the THREE Persons of the Trinity.

Augustine of Hippo "On the Holy Trinity 1"

7. All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God...

Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity because you don't know what you are talking about.

Examine Gregory of Nyssa "On the Holy Spirit"

If, then, the Holy Spirit is truly, and not in name only, called Divine both by Scripture and by our Fathers, what ground is left for those who oppose the glory of the Spirit?

He is Divine, and absolutely good, and Omnipotent, and wise, and glorious, and eternal; He is everything of this kind that can be named to raise our thoughts to the grandeur of His being.

God is a myth/fiction character.

Jesus is God.

The Holy Ghost is God.

Jesus, the Holy Ghost and God are myth/fiction characters.

 

[maximara]

Maximara, get it through your thick head that your FIGURE OF SPEECH story is insanely LATE from the 21st century.

No it isn't as proven by this statement from the 2nd century:

"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."

Jupiter aka Zeus was through to be an actual person and the same is true of his sons; Eusebius firmly stated that Heracles had been an actual person who was a king in Argos. Since this virgin birth was also said of Augustus Caesar and Alexander the Great the term if a figure of speech that a particular group of Christians took literally; from Against Heresies we know that there were denominations that understood 'born of a virgin' as a figure of speech.

Sir William Smith and ‎John Mee Fuller talk about the virgin birth being a figure of speech in 1893. Last time I checked 1893 was in the 19th century not the 21st.

Hugh Ross Mackintosh in his 1912 The doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ says the same thing

"The parthenogenetic or virgin birth is with the Iroquois, a metaphor, a figure of speech much misapprehended..."- The 19th Century and after (1912) - Volume 71 - Page 350

Humanist (1958) Volume 73 - Page 12 under Virgin Birth Fantasy "This figure of speech would be well understood in Jewish circles, but again..."

Dan Barker in his 1992 Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist states regarding the virgin birth as the star and all the rest with it:
"The whole thing is one huge figure of speech."

The idea has been around for over 100 years.

Sterling or plate?

 

[waters]

As several people have said over the last 100 years you can't use the supernatural nonsense of the Gospel Jesus to argue for the nonexistence of a hypothetical historical Jesus and you can't use to the possibly of a historical Jesus to argue the validity of the supernatural Gospel Jesus.

Substitute Herakles for "Gospel Jesus", in this equation, and what have you got? Are you writing here, that Herakles must have existed, because we cannot strip away the supernatural nonsense to argue for his non-existence?

We know from huge stone monuments and temples, plus entire cities named after him, that Herakles was a well respected figure, admired and worshiped in ancient times.

But, do these artifacts, and testimonials, and documents demonstrate the existence of Herakles?

I am happy to read that you found seven authors to agree with your opinion that an historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph, could have existed, but, in my opinion, even if no one agrees with me, it is not a question of quantity achieving quality here. We will never agree, no matter how many supporters you enumerate, for neither Jesus, nor Herakles, nor Superman were genuine, living, breathing human beings. They were all mythological figures, created as fictional characters, existing only in the minds of their creators, plus those millions of gullible folks, who had read the accounts of these heroic "people" on paper, listened to stories of their heroism over various campfires, or watched their characters, come alive, on the television or at movie theatres.

If you wish to prove my error, all you need to do is furnish evidence of paternal DNA.

 

[Craig B]

Substitute Herakles for "Gospel Jesus", in this equation, and what have you got? Are you writing here, that Herakles must have existed, because we cannot strip away the supernatural nonsense to argue for his non-existence?

We know from huge stone monuments and temples, plus entire cities named after him, that Herakles was a well respected figure, admired and worshiped in ancient times.

But, do these artifacts, and testimonials, and documents demonstrate the existence of Herakles?

Did Herakles have brothers and sisters, so when he went back home people said, where's he getting all this preaching stuff from?

I am happy to read that you found seven authors to agree with your opinion that an historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph, could have existed

No, anyone can do better than that, and show that the majority of scholars accept that Jesus did exist.

If you wish to prove my error, all you need to do is furnish evidence of paternal DNA.

I don't need to prove anything, merely show that an HJ is more probable than not. What do you mean, evidence of paternal DNA - a test tube of the physical substance?

Why don't we settle for this? Early sources, as repeated here innumerable times, don't know about the Virgin Birth. We can watch it developing in the gospels. The two sources that do tell us about it contain irreconcilably different tales. They were clearly added on. Take them out and things make more sense, including the genealogies in the very gospels that tell us about the Virgin Birth, which trace Joseph's ancestry. They are concocted to create a fictitious Davidic descent. Of a man, not a God.

In Acts 2:22 Peter calls Jesus a man. His early disciples did not proclaim him as a God. gJohn comes close to doing so, but not the other sources. This is not like Osiris or the Archangel Michael. It is unlike Zeus, or Herakles, or the Angel Gabriel, and you saying otherwise won't change that.

 

[dejudge]

Maximara, get it through your thick head that your FIGURE OF SPEECH story is insanely LATE from the 21st century.

No it isn't as proven by this statement from the 2nd century:

"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter."

What nonsense you write!!! You must have forgotten that people here have access to and can read the writings attributed to Justin Martyr. The very passage you quote state that Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union. Justin Martyr argued that Jesus was the LITERAL Son of God WITHOUT a human father. First Apology

But lest some, not understanding the prophecy now cited, should charge us with the very things we have been laying to the charge of the poets who say that Jupiter went in to women through lust, let us try to explain the words. This, then, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive. And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying, "Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins,"--as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before. It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God...

Jupiter aka Zeus was through to be an actual person and the same is true of his sons; Eusebius firmly stated that Heracles had been an actual person who was a king in Argos. Since this virgin birth was also said of Augustus Caesar and Alexander the Great the term if a figure of speech that a particular group of Christians took literally; from Against Heresies we know that there were denominations that understood 'born of a virgin' as a figure of speech.

What nonsense you write. The human fathers of Augustus and Alexander are documented. Christians of antiquity argued that Jesus was LITERALLY born of the Holy Ghost and was GOD. Christians of antiquity argued that the Holy Ghost was a LITERAL Divine, Powerful, Omnipotent Person. Christians of antiquity argued that Jesus was born of God/Holy Ghost WITHOUT a human father. Examine Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians.

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

Examine Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ"

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest....... In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God. As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father. He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God.

Examine Origen's "Against Celsus. "Against Celsus" 1

let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

Examine the Creed of 381.

We believe [I believe] in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God and born of the Father before all ages. [God of God] light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets....

Your "figure of speech" story is just modern hopeless bizarre nonsense WITHOUT any historical evidence.

 

[maximara]

Substitute Herakles for "Gospel Jesus", in this equation, and what have you got? Are you writing here, that Herakles must have existed, because we cannot strip away the supernatural nonsense to argue for his non-existence?

Not at all. Herakles like all Greek myths doesn't have that much supernatural compared to Christianity which has supernatural events like they are sand grains on a beach.

Given what we know of the winners of the Ancient Olympic games someone like Herakles likely did exist. For example, the jumping pit in the ancient games allowed for 50 foot jumps because the jumpers used weights that they swung to lengthen their jumps. Fielos (sp) of the 110th Olympiad (c 340 BC) supposedly overshot the jumping pit...and broke both his legs. The length of his jump is estimated to be 55 feet; for comparison the longest jump record in the modern games is 29 ft 4 1⁄4 in.

Lados of Sparta "either jumped or flew over the stadium"

Milo of Croton carried a full grown bull around the stadium and then killed the animal eating it in a single day.

Poladomas (sp) is said to have killed a full grown lion with his bare hands and stopped a speeding chariot by grabbing it with one hand.

I am happy to read that you found seven authors to agree with your opinion that an historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph, could have existed, but, in my opinion, even if no one agrees with me, it is not a question of quantity achieving quality here. We will never agree, no matter how many supporters you enumerate, for neither Jesus, nor Herakles, nor Superman were genuine, living, breathing human beings.

There is a mammoth problem of scale between Herakles, Jesus, and Superman.

They were all mythological figures, created as fictional characters, existing only in the minds of their creators, plus those millions of gullible folks, who had read the accounts of these heroic "people" on paper, listened to stories of their heroism over various campfires, or watched their characters, come alive, on the television or at movie theatres.

As I have pointed out before we have Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE - c100 CE) who thanks to his own writings and references to now lost known contemporary records can be shown to likely have been a historical person and yet nearly everything one can say about him can be said about Jesus:

said to be the son of a god, Check

resurrected the dead, Check

performed various miracles, Check

and criticized the authorities with pithy wisdom, Check

Then you have Suetonius relating the story of Vespasian curing the blind and lame and he was a contemporary of Vespasian (70-79 CE) whose power was credited as being from Serapis (Life of Vespasian 7.13) who if the letter of Hadrian to Servianus, 134 CE is genuine were called either "Chrestians" or "Christians" in the early 2nd century.

More over I threw this gauntlet down a while ago:

How much was written about John Ballou Newbrough compared to James McGready, Barton Stone, or Alexander Campbell? Better question how many of you even know who these guys who lived in the 19th century even are? Without looking them up do you even know who any of these people even are?

We can't exclude the possibility of Jesus being on par with Newbrough until Paul and people Paul inspired elevated this Jesus to their savior.

 

[maximara]

No, anyone can do better than that, and show that the majority of scholars accept that Jesus did exist. I don't need to prove anything, merely show that an HJ is more probable than not.

Except that to some degree the Christians themselves have 'cooked the data' by what works they preserved and what works they either didn't copy or actively destroyed.

It is like the situation described in the novel Swastika Night where thanks to the powers that be history of WWII has been so distorted that it is basically fiction.

In Acts 2:22 Peter calls Jesus a man. His early disciples did not proclaim him as a God. gJohn comes close to doing so, but not the other sources. This is not like Osiris or the Archangel Michael. It is unlike Zeus, or Herakles, or the Angel Gabriel, and you saying otherwise won't change that.

As has been stated several times Acts is historical fiction ie no more historical relevant then the penny dreadfuls or dime novels that starred historical people of the 19th century.

Richard Pervo The Mystery of Acts and Acts: A commentary
Thomas Brodie The Birth of the New Testament
Dennis Macdonald Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?
Crossan The Power of Parable
Rothchild Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History
Alexander "Fact, Fiction, and the Genre of Acts" New Testament Studies

 

[dejudge]

As I have pointed out before we have Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE - c100 CE) who thanks to his own writings and references to now lost known contemporary records can be shown to likely have been a historical person and yet nearly everything one can say about him can be said about Jesus

Your statement has already been shown to fallacious and known propaganda.

Known contemporary writers mentioned the history of Apollonius--NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth the transfiguring water walking son of a God never had any history.

Examine "Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius.


Against Hierocles

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas [/b]the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars[/b] and devoid of education and wizards, --the history of Apollonius was written by Maximus of Aegae, and by Damis the philosopher who lived constantly with him. and by Philostratus of Athens, men of the highest education, who out of respect for the truth and their love of mankind determined to give the publicity they deserved to the actions of a man at once noble and a friend of the gods."

These are the very words used by Hierocles in his treatise against us which he has entitled " Lover of Truth."

.....said to be the son of a god, Check

it is stated that he was the son of Apollonius [CHECK]

The father of Apollonius was called Apollonius of the descendants of early settlers of Tanya and Apollonius buried his father there.

Check this:

Philostratus "Apollonius"

APOLLONIUS’ home, then, was Tyana, a Greek city amidst a population of Cappadocians. His father was of the same name, and the family descended from the first settlers. It excelled in wealth the surrounding families, though the district is a rich one.

The history of Apollonius cannot be used to historicise Jesus of Nazareth.

All existing manuscripts with stories of Jesus depict him as a myth born of a Ghost or God Creator which is completely opposite to Apollonius.

The existing manuscripts of Apollonius state that he had a human father and was in the company of his father and that Apollonius buried his father in Tanya.

Check this:

Philostratus "Apollonius"

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

Check this:

Philostratus "Apollonius"

He therefore transferred his teacher, with his father's consent, to the town of Aegae, which was close by, where he found a peace congenial to one who would be a philosopher, and a more serious school of study and a temple of Asclepius, where that god reveals himself in person to men.

Check this:

.Philostratus "Apollonius"

Notwithstanding he did not cease to love Euxenus, nay, he persuaded his father to present him with a villa outside the town, where there were tender groves and fountains, and he said to him: "Now you live there your own life, but I will live that of Pythagoras."

Check this:
Philostratus "Apollonius"

The people of the country, then, say that Apollonius was the son of this Zeus, but the sage called himself the son of Apollonius

Check this:

Philostratus "Apollonius"

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

Apollonius is depicted as a SAGE in Philostratus' Apollonius--NOT a transfiguring water walking God Creator born of a Ghost.

Jesus is a fiction/myth character with no history.

 

[Craig B]

As has been stated several times Acts is historical fiction ie no more historical relevant then the penny dreadfuls or dime novels that starred historical people of the 19th century.

Even if it is, it doesn't affect my argument. If the earliest followers of Christ believed him to be God, and the later followers believed him to be God, and wrote fiction to prove it, distorting or suppressing history as they did so, why do we still have the earliest sources not telling us about the virgin birth, or that Jesus is god?

If these are entirely and completely fictional, or fictionalised, so that they refer to absolutely nothing that really occurred, why do they not coincide exactly with later belief, which you are saying is their only source?

 

[dejudge]

Even if it is, it doesn't affect my argument. If the earliest followers of Christ believed him to be God, and the later followers believed him to be God, and wrote fiction to prove it, distorting or suppressing history as they did so, why do we still have the earliest sources not telling us about the virgin birth, or that Jesus is god?

You have nothing from your supposed "early followers" pre 70 CE.

What "early followers" are you talking about?

Please, identify the manuscripts, Papyri, or Codex that can corroborate your "early followers".

The earliest stories of Jesus and the Jesus cult are from the 2nd century or later.

If these are entirely and completely fictional, or fictionalised, so that they refer to absolutely nothing that really occurred, why do they not coincide exactly with later belief, which you are saying is their only source?

The stories of Jesus cannot coincide because they were invented from imagination. Each inventor will fabricate a story based on what he BELIEVES.

Your supposed historical Jesus will NOT coincide with Jesus of the NT because you recently made him up from your own personal imagination--not from historical data.

Right now there are multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ.

Who was the human father of your imagined historical Jesus?

Where was your supposed HJ born?

Do your answers coincide with the NT?

The Pauline Corpus does not mention Joseph, Mary and Nazareth.

Joseph, Mary and Nazareth were LATER addition in the NT.

Jesus was NOT born according to some Christians of antiquity .

Contra Faustum

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not.

It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.

This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel, both in name and in fact, begins with Christ's preaching.

HJ is a late fiction character which does not coincide with Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.