The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

Who is the "mythicist" here telling you that?

Please name the "mythicist" who told you that here.

When you show me the "here" in the statement you quote from me, which was

On another point. Paul, the Mythicists tell us, derived his christology from the OT. He started with no reality whatsoever, spent time perusing the Tanakh, and concocted an elaborate Jesus character entirely from this source.

Did I write "here"? I don't care whether "here" or not, so your question is meaningless. Mmm. Not good.

Now for the count of (a) references to personal knowledge of Jesus, and (b) disparaging remarks, which we have done before. The last result was quite good. I wrote

I think it's time for another count. ... I'm going to be generous and give you two for that, on grounds of personal knowledge of Jesus AND personal witness of the crucifixion. Also, you've managed to squeeze not one but two disparagements into a single sentence "But lets be clear and bring a little honesty to all this". Imputations both of unclarity and of dishonesty.

I have to say, you're maintaining very consistent standards.

Are you still maintaining these standards? Yes you most definitely are. Well done! Here's your latest effort

That is really all that should ever need to be explained to any impartial truly objective open-minded reader here.

Accusation of idiocy, partiality, and lack of objectivity, in a very few words. Three points. Now for the repetition of the personal meeting with Jesus theme.

What Craig wants to say is that there really was a figure of Jesus actually known to Paul at the time (e.g. through conversations with his actual brother James), and that Paul therefore knew this real Jesus person had indeed been crucified not long before (not long because he was a brother of the then living “James”), and that when Paul wrote about that crucifixion he refused to say that James or anyone had told him about it and instead took all the credit himself by saying nobody had told him any such thing and that he had personally found it foretold 500 years before in scripture. And further, what Craig wants to say is that the gospel writers did exactly same, i.e. that they personally somehow knew of a real crucifixion, and merely decided to retro-fit that story with the ancient prophecies of scripture, so that it sounded like it was a confirmation of what had been written 500 years before.

Only problem with that is (a) there is absolutely no evidence at all of any living person called Jesus who was executed, i.e. nothing at all except for the religious beliefs of anonymous gospel writers who had never met Jesus and never seen any such execution, and (b) Paul explicitly says that his belief in the death and resurrection of the “Christ”, was indeed foretold in scripture, and he insists that it was the scriptures which showed him this, such that he was “not taught it by anyone” and nor was he “told it by anyone”, instead it was through divine revelation from God where he says “God was pleased to reveal his Son in me” ... it was a “Revelation”, it was not a real event and not something he heard about from anyone as something that had actually happened.

I make that seven. Equals your previous best. Good show. And then to round off an excellent effort, a reference to the wisdom of Carrier.

... of course please check for yourselves the explanation which Carrier himself gives in his book “OHJ“).

All this is very fine work.

 

[dejudge]

Dead Obscure HJ is not found in the Pauline Corpus.

Dead Obscure HJ is modern fiction character.

Jesus is the Lord from heaven, God Creator and God's own Son in the Pauline Corpus.

We cannot go over the same thing.

In the Pauline Corpus Jesus the Lord from heaven has the same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD who is God.

Jesus in the Pauline Corpus is a Myth/fiction character as described.

Jesus in the Pauline Corpus with the NOMINA SACRA of the Lord who is God is NOT DEAD.

1 Corinthians 15:15 ----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.

Unless, the Pauline writers are LIARS THEIR Jesus was ALIVE when the Epistles were composed.

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

The Pauline Jesus, the Lord from heaven is NOT dead obscure HJ.

The Pauline Jesus is NOT yet dead.

1 Corinthians 15:17---- And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

The Pauline Jesus the Nomina Sacra of the Lord is a myth/fiction character who could NEVER EVER die.

Dead Obscure HJ is undocumented modern fiction derived from mythology.

The Pauline Gospel would be theologically stupid with a known dead obscure HJ.

 

[Craig B]

Dead Obscure HJ is not found in the Pauline Corpus.

Dead Obscure HJ is modern fiction character.

Jesus is the Lord from heaven, God Creator and God's own Son in the Pauline Corpus.

We cannot go over the same thing.

I agree. I'm glad you have finally come to that realisation. I cannot even go on reading this same thing, so I'll stop here.

 

[dejudge]

I agree. I'm glad you have finally come to that realisation. I cannot even go on reading this same thing, so I'll stop here.

You have only confirmed you have no historical data for your DEAD Obscure HJ.

The New Testament does NOT support a DEAD obscure HJ.

The New Testament supports a Myth Jesus of Nazareth who NEVER REALLY DIED

The character with the same NOMINA SACRA of the LORD who is God is NOT DEAD in the Pauline Corpus.

Nobody in antiquity saw your DEAD OBSCURE HJ.

 

[Craig B]

You have only confirmed you have no historical data for your DEAD Obscure HJ.

The New Testament does NOT support a DEAD obscure HJ.

The New Testament supports a Myth Jesus of Nazareth who NEVER REALLY DIED

The character with the same NOMINA SACRA of the LORD who is God is NOT DEAD in the Pauline Corpus.

Nobody in antiquity saw your DEAD OBSCURE HJ.

dejudge, so soon, and you have already forgotten your own words of sublime wisdom:

We cannot go over the same thing.

 

[dejudge]

You have only confirmed you have no historical data for your DEAD Obscure HJ.

The New Testament does NOT support a DEAD obscure HJ.

The New Testament supports a Myth Jesus of Nazareth who NEVER REALLY DIED

The character with the same NOMINA SACRA of the LORD who is God is NOT DEAD in the Pauline Corpus.

Nobody in antiquity saw your DEAD OBSCURE HJ.

dejudge, so soon, and you have already forgotten your own words of sublime wisdom

You have confirmed you have no historical data for your DEAD OBSCURE HJ.

Christians of antiquity admitted THEIR Jesus was God.

Chrysostom's Against the Jews---- For I am persuaded to call the fasting of the Jews a table of demons because they slew God.

A dead obscure HJ makes no sense.

A known dead obscure HJ is NOT good news.

Only myth Jesus can resurrect.

The Pauline Gospel needs a Myth God and his Son.

Myth God and his Son can NEVER EVER die.

 

[dejudge]

It wasn't a claim by me. I was recounting an apocryphyl gospel.

I did not write "Acts of Paul". I was just showing that the apocryphal gospel was idiotic fiction.

This is nonsense.

You presented the nonsense called "Acts of Paul" as supporting evidence for an hypothesis.

What Nonsense!!!

"Acts of Paul" is blatant stupid fiction!!!

The rest of your post is nonsense too, dejudge.

That's bizarre!!! I merely expose that Acts of Paul is an IDIOTIC fiction story where Paul was talking to the Emperor AFTER he got his head cut off.

You forget that it was you who posted the nonsense as evidence.

 

[Craig B]

You have confirmed you have no historical data for your DEAD OBSCURE HJ.

You have confirmed that YOU have no historical data for something wise that you were moved to write a mere couple of hours ago, namely the Sublime Words of Truth:

We cannot go over the same thing.

 

[dejudge]

You have confirmed that YOU have no historical data for something wise that you were moved to write a mere couple of hours ago, namely the Sublime Words of Truth:

We cannot go over the same thing.

Again, no historical data for your dead obscure HJ in your post.

 

[Craig B]

Again, no historical data for your dead obscure HJ in your post.

You're "going over the same thing" which you have said we cannot do.

 

[dejudge]

You're "going over the same thing" which you have said we cannot do.

Again, you have failed to provide historical data for your dead obscure HJ.

Jesus a character with the Nomina Sacra as the Lord who is God in gMark, gMatthew and the Pauline Corpus was a Transfiguring WATER walking Son of a God born of a Ghost the Logos God Creator from heaven.

 

[Mcreal]

You presented the nonsense called "Acts of Paul" as supporting evidence for an hypothesis.

What Nonsense!!!

"Acts of Paul" is blatant stupid fiction!!!


That's bizarre!!! I merely expose that Acts of Paul is an IDIOTIC fiction story where Paul was talking to the Emperor AFTER he got his head cut off.

You forget that it was you who posted the nonsense as evidence.

Sigh. Yes, Acts of Paul is nonsense.

But the hypothesis that early Christians obsessed over 'persecution by Nero' is not

 

[Mcreal]

We also have Arthur Drews' arguments in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus that Annals 15.44 is suspect on several grounds, including the proposition that "the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness" ie. Tacitus.

Drews makes other arguments about why Annals 15.44 is suspect; and notes others' arguments, too.

The text is available here - link to 'Tacitus' in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus

It wasn't just Drews who had issues with Tacitus; As mentioned before Remsburg had issues with the work as well.

C. Dennis McKinsey in Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide gives an even longer list of issues with the passage then Remsburg did totaling 28.

William Benjamin Smith's 1910 The silence of Josephus & Tacitus "Here at the outset it may be well to observe that the general hypothesis of Christian interpolation needs no vindication and involves no improbability. For that it is a fact in countless cases is admitted on all hands. "

Joseph McCabe's 1925 The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays states "It sounds like a Christian interpolation. On the other hand, Tacitus has one of the most distinctive and difficult styles in Latin literature, and, if this whole passage is a forgery, it is a perfect imitation."

The funny thing is all of these works avoid the key question: Why do the Christians themselves give such wildly different accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE)?

The apocryphal Acts of Paul is really weird as it has Nero reacting to talk of sedition rather then using the Christians as a patsy for the Great Fire.

Cheers Maximara. There's often some interesting views in those 100 yr old or nearly 100 yr old texts.

 

[dejudge]

Sigh. Yes, Acts of Paul is nonsense.

But the hypothesis that early Christians obsessed over 'persecution by Nero' is not

The nonsense called Acts of Paul does not represent the EARLY Jesus cult.

Acts of Paul is confirmed or claimed even by the Church to have been a forgery by a presbyter of the Church.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspaul.html

This book, Tertullian tells us, was composed shortly before his time in honour of Paul by a presbyter of Asia, who was convicted of the imposture and degraded from his office. The date of it may therefore be about A.D. 160. The author was an orthodox Christian.

 

[Mcreal]

The nonsense called Acts of Paul does not represent the EARLY Jesus cult.

Acts of Paul is confirmed or claimed even by the Church to have been a forgery by a presbyter of the Church.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actspaul.html

I think ~160AD (mid 2nd century) is relatively early in "the Jesus cult".

Acts of Paul also shows how stories are embellished or conflated, which is what is likely to have happened with various components of the NT at various stages of their development.

 

[dejudge]

I think ~160AD (mid 2nd century) is relatively early in "the Jesus cult".

Based on the existing evidence I argue that the Jesus story and cult was initiated in the 2nd century.

Acts of Paul also shows how stories are embellished or conflated, which is what is likely to have happened with various components of the NT at various stages of their development.

Acts of Paul does not show how the NT was developed.

I don't think you can find a 20 word sentence from Acts of Paul in the Entire NT Canon Gospels .

The Synoptics appear to show how the Jesus story in the NT was developed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Dead Obscure HJ is not found in the Pauline Corpus.

snip.

AAAAAMMMMMEEEENNNNNNNN!

Most faiths spread their religion via rote repetition, and I assume that DeJudge's religion is no different.

 

[Mcreal]

Based on the existing evidence I argue that the Jesus story and cult was initiated in the 2nd century.

So we agree on that point.

I don't think you can find a 20 word sentence from Acts of Paul in the Entire NT Canon Gospels.

That's beside the point. It shows how people make up stories or develop versions of stories based on others' stories. In that respect, Acts of Paul does show how the NT was developed.

The Synoptics appear to show how the Jesus story in the NT was developed.

The Synoptics show the end result of the development of the Jesus story. Apart from allusions to them, we don't really have full versions until the Sinai/ticus and Vatican/us codices.

 

[The Big Dog]

You seem intent on misrepresenting the primary proposition.

* Your 'meaning' is meaningless, literally.

To reiterate: the proposition, using your terminology Craig B, is that Christian copyists or redactors set words aside and replaced them, giving us the text "as we have it".

We also have Arthur Drews' arguments in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus that Annals 15.44 is suspect on several grounds, including the proposition that "the passage (Annals, xv, 44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness" ie. Tacitus.

Drews makes other arguments about why Annals 15.44 is suspect; and notes others' arguments, too.

The text is available here - link to 'Tacitus' in the Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus

all written in defense of his German monistic beliefs culminating in the glorification of the German Nationalistic religion dedicated to the greater glory of National Socialism.

 

[dejudge]

Based on the existing evidence I argue that the Jesus story and cult was initiated in the 2nd century.

So we agree on that point.

That's beside the point.

Once my argument is supported by the existing evidence then it really does not matter if you agree with me.

I don't think you can find a 20 word sentence from Acts of Paul in the Entire NT Canon Gospels.

That's beside the point. It shows how people make up stories or develop versions of stories based on others' stories. In that respect, Acts of Paul does show how the NT was developed.

Acts of Paul appears to have been REJECTED for hundreds of years if it was written early.

The Synoptics appear to show how the Jesus story in the NT was developed.

The Synoptics show the end result of the development of the Jesus story. Apart from allusions to them, we don't really have full versions until the Sinai/ticus and Vatican/us codices.

The Synoptics appear to show how the Jesus stories in the NT were developed. The versions of Jesus stories according to Matthew, Mark and Luke are actually in the EARLIEST NT Codices. In addition, there is Papyri 75 dated to 175-225 CE with gLuke and gJohn

There is no actual manuscript or Codex of Acts of Paul dated before Papyri 75 or the Synoptics in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices dated to the 4th century.

Acts of Paul is found in Codex Claromontanus dated to the 5-6th century or about 100-200 years AFTER the Synoptics.

Acts of Paul is LATER than the versions of Jesus stories in the Synoptics.