The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

I think the extreme reaction is coming from you... here is an example

Very well, I'll look to this post as an example of the serene cogitation which I have failed to discern in your earlier posts.

Or maybe you're just not able to understand that the rationalization of fairy tales and special pleading for hearsay of hearsay of fables built upon wishful thinking about hearsay of hearsay is WHAT YOU ARE DOING not those ancient people who only PURPORTEDLY reported the hearsay in their writings.

I entirely agree with you that I am utterly unable to understand that. I have said so before, and as often as you repeat it, I will admit my bafflement.

 

[Craig B]

... What about

"evidence that can be discerned in the NT"?

This has been alluded to over the extent of this immense discussion. However, if you haven't read any of that while perusing this thread and its predecessors, may I refer you to this useful article?

 

[Elagabalus]

The Pauline Corpus was, at least, most likely finalized after Marcion.

Some say Marcion, or a Marcionite, wrote some of the Pauline texts.


There was probably a lot of doctrinal jockeying in the mid-late 2nd century.


There's talk that Tertullian's "Against Marcion" has passed through a few hands

ie. the extant texts of Tertullian's "Against Marcion are redacted versions.​

"There was probably"?!!! bwahahhahahahahaha, got any evidence of this? Didn't think so! I t's all woulda...coulda...shoulda .... Please try and do at least some historical scholarship.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 10 removed.

-believable!!!!

 

[Mcreal]

"There was probably"?!!! ... got any evidence of this? ...

Clement of Rome (d. 99CE) - allegedly wrote 1 Clement to the church at Corinth re a dispute

Papias of Hierapolis (c. 70-163 AD/CE d. Smyrna); a student of John

Fragment of Papias - mentions John/s, Mark, & Matthew; but not Luke or Paul. Also mentions Peter, one of the James, Phillip, Thomas, Judas, Aristion, Revelation, himself (3rd person, ?), Irenaeus(?), Methodius, Hippolytus, the Alexandrians Pantaenus & Clement; Ammonius; Gregory Theologus and Cyril.

No mention of Jesus !! but 4 uses of 'Christ'​

Theophilus of Antioch (d. 181) Apology to Autolycus in 3 Books;

1st mention of the notion of the Trinity​

, but no mention of Jesus Christ​

Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD) Dialogue with Trypho. Taught Tatian -

Tatian(c.120 – c.180 AD/CE); may have influenced Clement of Alexandria.

Irenaeus remarks (Haer., I., xxvlii. 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers, i. 353) that, after the death of Justin Martyr, Taitan was expelled from the church for his Encratitic (ascetic) views​

The Quartodeciman dispute

Tertullian: Adversus Marcion; Adversus Valentinianos

Irenaeus: Against Heresies

Hippolytus: Refutation of All Heresies

Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies

Epiphanius, Panarion

Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem

Early Christian apologists noted similarities between Mithraic and Christian rituals, but nonetheless took an extremely negative view of Mithraism: they interpreted Mithraic rituals as evil copies of Christian ones. For instance, Tertullian wrote that as a prelude to the Mithraic initiation ceremony, the initiate was given a ritual bath and at the end of the ceremony, received a mark on the forehead. He described these rites as a diabolical counterfeit of the baptism and 'chrismation' of Christians. Justin Martyr contrasted Mithraic initiation communion with the Eucharist.

The historian Dio Cassius (2nd to 3rd century AD) tells how the name of Mithras was spoken during the state visit to Rome of Tiridates I of Armenia, during the reign of Nero. Dio Cassius wrote that Tiridates, as he was about to receive his crown, told the Roman emperor that he revered him "as Mithras". Roger Beck thinks it possible that this episode contributed to the emergence of Mithraism as a popular religion in Rome.

 

[Belz...]

What absolute illogical nonsense!!!

You do PRECISELY what you accuse me of.

How does that make it illogical?

It's mildly amusing to see you flail about, accusing people of fallacies and illogical statements, and then reveal that you don't have the first clue of what those words mean.

You ignore the DICTIONARY'S definition that doesn't support your argument

That's a lie, dejudge. Why do you lie?

Why are you so incredibly insulting?

 

[IanS]

You obviously didn't say those exact words, I was making a point. I'm worried about your health here, please, just let it go...I've already explained to you what the problem I had with what you said, twice. I really can't help you anymore, sorry, maybe calm down and read each word slowly one at a time?

It was not merely a case of me not quite using "those exact words", it was a case where I never said anything remotely like that at all, and where instead you simply invented both accusations, and then proceeded to say that your untrue inventions meant that I was thereby "out of one side of your mouth you're telling me he's a great source, but from the other side he's a fool " ...

.... in saying that, you were clearly and unmistakably making the further accusation that I was being duplicitous and dishonest for saying things which I had never said at all and which were actually just purely dishonest inventions by you! Here's the quote -

******** baffles brains...Carrier actually agrees with the idea that there is a secular consensus.

So out of one side of your mouth you're telling me he's a great source, but from the other side he's a fool for believing the nonsense a secular consensus amongst historians.

However in respect of the entirely universal claim which is always made incessantly by HJ posters throughout all these HJ threads on every forum, and which is in fact invariably the absolute foundation of their pro-HJ argument, i.e. the "appeal to authority" in which they claim to be citing and quoting "expert academic historians and scholars", that pro-HJ claim/position is actually untrue, and very seriously untrue.

The truth is, and it's very easily verified as I explained before in post #1868, that almost all the named "scholars" who have been cited and quoted in these HJ threads as "expert scholars" and "historians", are in fact biblical new testament scholars and theologians (as well as others who are simply Christian writers in general). People like Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan, John Huddleston, E.P. Sanders, Bruce Metzger, Elaine Pagels, Robert Funk, and almost all of the 150 participants in the so-called Jesus Seminar from 1985 (including none other than William Lane-Craig) ... all of those people, who include almost all of the people who have been quoted here and called "historians" who believe in Jesus, are in fact almost all either biblical new testament scholars who teach Jesus and the bible for a living (and in the USA many of them actually preach, or have preached, Jesus and the bible too!), or else the remaining few are practicing Christians from other fields and professions with a personal private interest in the so-called "historicity of Jesus".

As I said before in post #1868, the fact of the matter regarding these "expert scholars", is that they are NOT actually "secular historians" in general, but are very obviously and quite certainly "in general, overwhelmingly, biblical scholars". Here again is what I said about that in reply to you before -

I don't think what you are trying to claim (a very broad generalised claim from you) is actually true.

For example - almost all of the "scholars" who have ever been named in any of these HJ threads on either this forum or on RationalSkepticism or on the old Richard Dawkins forum (that's going back almost 10 years now!), have been biblical New Testament lecturers in specifically religious studies departments (inc. theological colleges).

Historians in general do not actually study biblical writing about the existence of Jesus. And afaik, classicists do not generally stray into the field of Jesus historicity either. Both historians and classicists may mention biblical writing (which is all writing about Jesus) in the much wider context of general studies covering that period of history, but the bible and Jesus are not the central focus of their teaching. They are not typically teaching each day all about Jesus and the Bible. And they do not go into those fields of academia entirely because they all have pre-existing devout religious faith.

Whereas the bible studies scholars who are being cited in all these HJ threads, are solely concerned with Jesus and the bible, and they do spend all of their lectures teaching about Jesus and the biblical writing. And where almost all of them (if not literally all the tens of thousands of them), decided to enter that field of academia purely and entirely to support and to further their already pre-existing highly devout religious belief. And as I say, you can very easily confirm that just by checking wikipedia or other on-line searches for the academic qualifications and life backgrounds for any of those individuals by name.

Apart from that, it is of course also true that outside of core sciences such as physics, chemistry maths and biology, and especially in the USA, many university lecturers are practicing Christians who believe in God and certainly believe Jesus was a real individual who was crucified in the 1st century. So it's obviously likely that as devout Christians some of those academics will from time to time write in support of Jesus belief from what they think is the history recorded in the bible or in very late copies of some non-biblical writing from Tacitus or Josephus or others. But that is of course not at all surprising, because the number of biblical scholars & theologians alone must run into the tens of thousands, and the number of academic university lecturers who are practicing Christians must run into the hundreds of thousands ... so it would be utterly astonishing if at least a few hundred such people around the world were not motivated from time to time write in support of Jesus belief.

But that does not change the fact that the people who are invariably named and quoted in these threads as swearing that Jesus was a “definitely” and “certainly” real, are almost always very easily identifiable as biblical scholars and theologians (as well as s Christian writers in general) who are absolutely drowning in qualifications of religious studies and with almost no other qualifications outside of those faith-based qualifications, and where almost all of them show an early background of quite extreme religious belief.

IOW - you are definitely talking about bible scholars and theologians for 99% of what is being quoted here as coming from "scholars of history".

 

[IanS]

Indeed. It's extremely telling. I'm afraid it's always the way IanS thinks of ancient historical figures. Nobody has any relationship with anybody else. Flavius Josephus just parachutes into Jerusalem never discussing recent past events with, say, his High Priest father or seeing Jesus' brother James in the streets. No one is allowed to speak to or speak of anyone else. Everyone is just an observer.

Really? You say I have said that about all other figures from ancient historical times? You say that I think all figures from that period are imaginary? Is that what you are claiming? That's what your words just accused me of!

Where have I ever suggested that I "always" "think of ancient historical figures" as merely fictions "parachuted into existence" by blatantly untrue self-contradictory arguments such as that which Craig was trying to produce? ... where did I ever suggested that everyone from the 1st century was fictional?

 

[dejudge]

The character called Paul is most blatantly fictional.

Paul was a 'WITNESS' of fictional characters and events.

Paul, not ONLY witnessed Fiction but was also a Participant in the same fiction.

Paul claimed to be one of the WITNESSES of the Fictional Resurrection of Jesus by God and claimed to have been seen of Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV---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.


2. 1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV---8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

The character called Paul of Tarsus, of the tribe of Benjamin is completely UNKNOWN outside the Christian Bible by ALL Non-Apologetic sources up to at least the 3rd century.

The character called Paul is UNKNOWN in ALL the Canonised Gospels.

The character called Paul is UNKNOWN by multiple 2nd century and later Christian writers.

 

[dejudge]

Clement of Rome (d. 99CE) - allegedly wrote 1 Clement to the church at Corinth re a dispute

The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement is NOT evidence of early Pauline writings.

The earliest manuscript of Clement is from the 4th century---NOT 99 CE.

You must also know that the so-called Clement letter "passed through many hands".

Clement of Rome appears to have been fabricated since virtually all Christian writers who mentioned him gave IRRECONCILABLE dates for the time period which he was bishop and/or the order of his succession.

For example In "Against Heresies" Clement was THIRD bishop of Rome c 95 CE but by the 5th century Augustine of HIPPO writes that Clement was SECOND bishop c 69 CE.

 

[Craig B]

The character called Paul is most blatantly fictional.

Paul was a 'WITNESS' of fictional characters and events.

Paul, not ONLY witnessed Fiction but was also a Participant in the same fiction.

Paul claimed to be one of the WITNESSES of the Fictional Resurrection of Jesus by God and claimed to have been seen of Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV---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.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV---8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

May I have the temerity to suggest that you do not understand the meaning of the passages you cite?

Your 1 states that Paul believed that God had raised Jesus, and that he would then raise all people from the grave. Paul is not stating that he personally witnessed Jesus rising from the tomb.

Your 2 contains, apparently, a reference to the "vision" of Jesus that Paul experienced on the road to Damascus. In that case Paul didn't see Jesus doing anything. He saw a light, and heard a voice from the sky. That is not the same as witnessing Jesus rising from his grave.

 

[dejudge]

May I have the temerity to suggest that you do not understand the meaning of the passages you cite?

Your 1 states that Paul believed that God had raised Jesus, and that he would then raise all people from the grave. Paul is not stating that he personally witnessed Jesus rising from the tomb.

Your 2 contains, apparently, a reference to the "vision" of Jesus that Paul experienced on the road to Damascus. In that case Paul didn't see Jesus
doing anything. He saw a light, and heard a voice from the sky. That is not the same as witnessing Jesus rising from his grave.

Your post is just the usual recently invented nonsense. You obviously do not even know what "resurrection" means.

A resurrection is not a vision of the dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

---Resurrection (from Latin resurrectio) is the concept of a living being coming back to life after death.

You are an admitted non-Christian who has fun mis-representing the teachings of the Church.

You appear to be a modern heretic.

The Christians of antiquity who made reference to the Pauline Corpus have ALREADY stated that THEIR Jesus [the Lord from heaven] physically and bodily resurrected on the THIRD day.

The Pauline Corpus was used to ARGUE AGAINST those who claimed the Son of God was WITHOUT birth and WITHOUT Flesh.

In the Pauline Corpus, it is claimed the Jews KILLED the Lord Jesus from heaven, that he died, was buried, that he came back to life on the THIRD day and was seen of Paul.

Examine the writing entitled on the Flesh of Christ.


On the Flesh of Christ

The apostle, as I take it, having set forth for the Corinthians the details of their church discipline, had summed up the substance of his own gospel, and of their belief in an exposition of the Lord's death and resurrection, for the purpose of deducing therefrom the rule of our hope, and the groundwork thereof.

Accordingly he subjoins this statement: “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 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.

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, because you are yet in your sins, and they which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.”

Based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity the Pauline character is most likely total fiction--No dead has ever resurrected and NO-ONE ever was seen of the dead on or after the THIRD day.

 

[IanS]

Why is it impossible that I simply think it's funny?It's a sad childish narrative... no, your critics, like Fincke, like Carrier, like many others, simply see this angle as a giant waste of time compared to other angles.

I guess you didn't carefully read Fincke's article, or else you wouldn't be asking me these asinine questions.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...ists-attempting-to-deny-the-historical-jesus/

Why are you so incredibly verbose? Why do you repeat the same thing over and over again? Those are good questions.

Who is Daniel Finke? Is he supposed to be part of what you have described as the "consensus" of academic "historians" who claim to have evidence showing Jesus was probably real?

I have no idea who this “Finke” guy is, but if you are citing him as someone who is an impartial objective scholarly expert on the historicity of Jesus (is that how you are classifying him?), then perhaps you can just tell us about his professional qualifications and academic background as an academic historian specialising in this particular field of Jesus historicity in the biblical writing?

And by the way, just skimming through the first sentence of what your link gives as Carriers response to what Finke says, where he agrees with Finke saying this -

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733
“Fincke Is Right: Arguing Jesus Didn’t Exist Should Not Be a Strategy
Philosopher (and FtB alum) Dan Fincke has written a good, concise piece on why atheists need to don a little more sense and humility when claiming Jesus didn’t exist. In his article On Atheists Attempting to Disprove the Existence of the Historical Jesus, Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith.”


I can’t speak for dejudge, but what I have always said throughout all these HJ arguments is that I really have no strong opinion one way or the other on whether Jesus was or was not actually a real figure. My position, like that of almost all the sceptics who have ever posted in these HJ threads, is simply that the evidence claimed for his existence, turns out to be vastly worse than has been claimed over the centuries (and is still claimed today) by biblical scholars, theologians and the church.

In fact, there is actually NO evidence of Jesus himself as a human person ever claimed to have been known by anyone at all. All the evidence surrounding the figure of Jesus, is in fact simply evidence of people believing in Jesus as a figure that none of the believers had ever known. It’s evidence only of religious belief about Jesus. It’s not actually evidence of Jesus himself as real person every known to anyone.

And that position is most definitely not within the area being criticised in either of Carriers two points above.

 

[Craig B]

A resurrection is not a vision of the dead.
You are an admitted non-Christian who has fun mis-representing the teachings of the Church.

You appear to be a modern heretic.

Still striving to become Pope, I see. Denouncing non-Christians and modern heresy.

The Christians of antiquity who made reference to the Pauline Corpus have ALREADY stated that THEIR Jesus [the Lord from heaven] physically and bodily resurrected on the THIRD day.

Quite so. A physical event on the third day. But you tell us that "Paul claimed to be one of the WITNESSES of the Fictional Resurrection of Jesus by God". So where does Paul tell us, "I saw Jesus' body rising from the grave on the third day following his death"?

 

[IanS]

"There was probably"?!!! bwahahhahahahahaha, got any evidence of this? Didn't think so! I t's all woulda...coulda...shoulda .... Please try and do at least some historical scholarship.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 10 removed.

-believable!!!!

I don't know about doctrinal jockeying, but if you are asking for actual evidence in this entire subject, then the only actual evidence is all on the sceptic side. In fact as I have listed here many times before there is a huge mass of evidence supporting the sceptical position, and virtually nothing even worthy of the word "evidence" to support the belief that anyone at all had ever met any human person called Jesus.

IOW - there is absolutely loads of "evidence". There is loads of evidence of religious beliefs. And load of evidence to show why those religious beliefs are wrong. But what is completely missing is any actual evidence of a human Jesus himself.

In fact this whole HJ saga is much like the claims of a huge "monster" in Loch Ness. There's a vast mass of evidence to show that many people have believed in the monster since the 1930's. And there's a vast mass of evidence to show how all sorts of people have reported definitely seeing the monster and frequently filming and photographing the monster etc. There's absolutely loads of evidence for all of that. What is completely absent, however, is any evidence at all that the peoples beliefs were actually true, or that that their photo's and movie films actually showed a living monster.

And similarly, also like the Jesus case, modern scientific investigation has shown a huge mass of evidence for why all those beliefs, claims, films & photos are in fact all NOT actually evidence of a living monster. They are “evidence“, but they are all evidence of other things ... evidence of how many people invented stories, evidence of how gullible and impressionable many people are, evidence of the unusual weather conditions and environmental conditions at the Loch, evidence of how a film camera can be made to "lie", evidence of how perfectly natural conditions in the water can look to some people like an amazing prehistoric monster, evidence of how a great deal of money can be made from creating a tourist attraction.

 

[maximara]

After such a long discussion, that observation seems somewhat banal. There is no proof anywhere that Jesus existed. There is evidence that can be discerned in the NT which is held by most commentators to be best explained on the assumption that Jesus existed, and there are notices in the works of a few early authors that allude to a person or movement that may plausibly be identified with Jesus and his followers.

But that conclusion is based on a model that has for nearly 2000 years said Jesus existed.

Not only is the Christ myth theory at best only some 200 years old but for most of that time it had NO mechanic; ie a way to explain how did you get from supposed celestial being to possible historical person in a period that could have been as short as 20 years (ie Paul supposed c50 writing to Mark c70 CE)


It was until James G. Frazer's 1890 The Golden Bough that an actual anthropological study of mythology and religion even came out. And that work wasn't really pushed forward until Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God in 1959 to 1968.

The anthropological paper what showed just how much the model you are using can drive every aspect of your study from data collection to conclusion didn't appear until 1956.

System theory as it applied to history was revolutionary in the 1970s and even 1980s as demonstrated by James Burke's Connections and Day the Universe Changed

An actual detailed real life example (Malaysian Cargo Cults) of how the Christ Myth could even be viable wasn't found until 1950 and it largely sat ignored by mythists until 2006 and even then it wouldn't be until 2014 that it got used in an actually meaningful way.

All these things needed to come together for the Christ Myth to explain the how.

The HJ theory didn't win out because it was the best theory but at a practical level it was the ONLY theory that explained the how.

 

[Craig B]

In fact this whole HJ saga is much like the claims of a huge "monster" in Loch Ness.

It is in all respects very different from claims of a monster in Loch Ness.

There's no known case of any authentic huge "monster" in a landlocked lake. But wandering preachers who get put to death were ten a penny in Roman-occupied Judaea, as they have been in other times and places.

 

[IanS]

It is in all respects very different from claims of a monster in Loch Ness.

There's no known case of any authentic huge "monster" in a landlocked lake. But wandering preachers who get put to death were ten a penny in Roman-occupied Judaea, as they have been in other times and places.

Not true. Not true that it is in ALL respects very different.

In many respects it's actually quite similar. In particular it's similar in the most important sense that all the evidence we have are just claims or beliefs about what was thought to have happened, with no actual evidence of the thing itself.

And just as there were once lots of wandering street preachers in Judea, there were also vast numbers of prehistoric animals swimming about all over the world.

One difference is that Jesus was not said to be a prehistoric monster. And nor was he said to be Scottish. Nor was he said to be alive in the 1930's.

However, another similarity is that a great deal of money has been generated by both legends as a "tourist" attraction.


Anyway, I thought it might be a another nice image for Belz to conjure with - Jesus as a Plesiosaur baptising himself in Loch Ness.

 

[Craig B]

Not true. Not true that it is in ALL respects very different.

In many respects it's actually quite similar. In particular it's similar in the most important sense that all the evidence we have are just claims or beliefs about what was thought to have happened, with no actual evidence of the thing itself.

One difference is that Jesus was not said to be a prehistoric monster. And nor was he said to be Scottish. Nor was he said to be alive in the 1930's.

However, another similarity is that a great deal of money has been generated by both legends as a "tourist" attraction.


Anyway, I thought it might be a another nice image for Belz to conjure with - Jesus as a Plesiosaur baptising himself in Loch Ness.

You simply haven't dealt with the point I made in any way whatsoever.

 

[IanS]

You simply haven't dealt with the point I made in any way whatsoever.

Well perhaps the edit which just crossed in the ether might address any point that you think you had. But I don't think you really had any useful point anyway (as usual).

 

[Craig B]

Well perhaps the edit which just crossed in the ether might address any point that you think you had. But I don't think you really had any useful point anyway (as usual).

Which doesn't deal with it either, but never mind. Your usual style of comment is there, and I suppose that's what matters.