The Historical Jesus III

[IanS]

Max, would you agree that the argument that HJ is the only explanation has not been made by HJ proponents?

Well I am not Max (obviously), but I am happy to agree that few if any HJ posters here have said that a HJ is certain or said that the likelihood is a near certainty.

Though having said that, Bart Ehrman did of course insist (repeatedly, in print) that not only does he claim that Jesus was indeed a certainty, but that as he says "practically every properly trained scholar on the planet" agrees with him about that.

And of course the point about that is, that Bart Ehrman and all these "properly trained scholars" are precisely the people who in all these various HJ threads the HJ posters have constantly and repeatedly cited as the scholarly historian experts who we should all accept as being right on this matter.

But, apart from that - yes I agree (if this is your implication), that you have not gone further than to say you would put the likelihood of a real HJ at roughly around 60% probable. And that's a figure that several HJ posters here agreed with in the past (when there were several pages of posts debating such tentative numerical estimates), though iirc Craig said he would put the figure at around 90% (and from Stein's posts it sounds very much as if he would take the same line as Ehrman and all his tens of thousands of "properly trained scholars", and put it at 100%).

Personally I think it's obvious that the biblical writing does not offer a sufficiently reliable source of evidence to make any such numerical guess ... on the basis of the biblical writing as evidence, I would not put any figure on it at all, neither 0% or 100%, or any other number in-between ... because there simply is no reliable evidence there upon which to make even the most tentative of guesses.

But of course we are not talking here about what merely might be true for Jesus. We are arguing about what should count as a reliable source of evidence of Jesus being known to anyone as a living human person in the 1st century.

And I think it's perfectly obvious that the gospels and letters of the bible are not by even the weakest and most inadequate standards, anywhere near being a reliable source of evidence (and where that has been explained here in detail very many times).

If anyone here wants to believe that Jesus most probably existed then that's up to them as a matter of their individual personal belief. But if they claim that the bible does show reliable evidence of probability above 50%, then that is a very different claim indeed ... and it's not a claim that I think can be supported in any way at all by any properly objective assessment of the bible as the source of evidence for Jesus

 

[dejudge]

The claim that Jesus the Messiah was crucified by "the rulers of this age" is explicitly claimed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:8. He mentioned the Jews in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, but this paragraph is considered an extrapolation, even by Carrier and Doherty. Paul says that the heavenly Jesus adopted a human form and so was crucified by the rulers of this age. As a man Jesus was born, suffered and died and he was risen to the heaven again.

The Pauline Corpus does not support the heresy that IU XU was a mere man with a human father.

IU XU was OC [God Creator] in letters under the name of Paul.

In 1 Corinthians 15 claims IU XU was From Heaven.

In Galatians 1 explicitly states Paul was NOT the apostle of a man but the apostle of the Nomina Sacra IU XU.

In Romans it explicitly states the Nomina Sacra IU XU is the Son of the Nomina Sacra OC who is the Nomina Sacra KU.

In Galatians 4.4 it explicitly states or implies that IU XU is the sent Son of the Nomimna Sacra OC who is the Lord God of the Jews.



You seem to have no idea that the Creed of the Church which Canonised the Pauline Corpus states their IU XU was OC [GOD] who became Flesh.

Christian writers of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus claimed the Pauline IU XU was OC [God] from the beginning.

PLEASE SEE Papyri 46.

http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46.html

IU XU is the OC [GOD] of the IU XU cult.

 

[Leumas]

...
You put on the same level two dissimilar assertions. A crucified Jew is a more plausible event than a man speaking to Satan. There is a big difference. A non believer can accept without contradiction the first assert, but not the second.

By the above illogic Batman is a real person but not Superman.

You do know that there are numerous fictive characters in loads of fictive literature that are totally fictional despite being depicted in the stories as fully normal and non-supernatural... right?

You do know that people do lie and MAKE UP STUFF... right?

You do know that there are charlatans and mountebanks who fabricate all sorts of things in their attempts to swindle... right?

Have you heard of religious mountebanks fabricating all sorts of shams to peddle off their religious cults on credulous fools?

Paul was by his own admission a huckstering charlatan... here have a look

• 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

How do you know that Paul was not just scamming when he himself admitted

I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might [bamboozle people]…for the sake of the gospel​

Take for example this

...
Your OP seems to assume that these stories are based on something real, just distorted for some ulterior motive. He's basically answering to THAT.

And as you seem to have come to agree -- but maybe I'm just reading it wrong -- that's not how the modern historical method works any more. Yes, there would be a bunch of figuring out what message they were trying to give, and the other stuff we've been doing. But you don't automatically assume that every story is based on something real.

To take a step back from the biblical perspective, take Plato's dialogues. We do NOT automatically assume that, say, the discussions between Socrates and the great philosopher Timaeus and Solon actually took place. They may well be not just distorted by Plato to sell his own message, but probably made up from scratch, and just using two historical figures that couldn't have ever met, plus a third he just made up. See, the Timaeus exposing his philosophical view of the world, is actually assumed to have never even existed outside of Plato's imagination.
The assumption that if the bible says X, it must be based on SOME event, maybe not literally transcribed, but at least SOMETHING happened there, is actually not what historians and history departments do. It's what bible studies do. Some like to masquerade as doing history -- largely using a methodology that's been obsolete in real history since about the 19'th century -- and some may even actually apply SOME methods from real historians (e.g., Bart Ehrman comes to mind.) But it's fundamentally another field.

And I believe that that's what Darwin123 was saying there. And I ask him to correct me if I'm wrong. He's saying that starting from the assumption that something happened, they just maybe distorted it a bit later, is more like doing the stuff of bible studies, than the stuff that lay historians or, yes, anthropologists, do.

Essentially, as you seem to agree, "It's literature, it's not history."

 

[David Mo]

You seem to have no idea that the Creed of the Church which Canonised the Pauline Corpus states their IU XU was OC [GOD] who became Flesh.

“No idea”? This is just what I have said above.

Christian writers of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus claimed the Pauline IU XU was OC [God] from the beginning.

“IU XU”? “KU OC”? Are we speaking of Confucius? Please, speak properly. Nobody can be the son of a “Nomina Sacra” because “Nomina Sacra” means “sacred name”, and there is no possibility that a man be son of a word. Even for the strange mind of Paul. Perhaps the Gnostics…

We don’t need to consult any manuscript to be aware of these things. You can see it in any version of the Bible.

That litany that you write again and again has nothing to do with the question of the historical Jesus. Paul was thinking in a heavenly entity (God or not God is another theological and irrelevant problem) who adopted a human form. As a human, he did human deeds. As divine, he did divine things. So the possibility of a deified man is open. And Paul says nothing about the human father of Jesus. Therefore, we can conclude that Paul said nothing about this matter…period.

 

[maximara]

Max, would you agree that the argument that HJ is the only explanation has not been made by HJ proponents?

No because that is in essence the whole reasoning behind the HJ concept: Christianity has such a profound influence on the Western world that Jesus must have existed even if in reality he was an obscure nobody.

Jeremy M. Schott in his 2008 Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity states "Celsus, however, accuses Jesus as an obscure nobody; a true son of God, he argues, would have proclaimed himself far and wide, like the rising of the morning sun. Origen argues that this is precisely what Christ did, though by proxy in the form of the mission of the apostles."


Vridar in one of his blogs went even further: "Generally speaking, though, I would define it as a figure who did some preaching (no one knows exactly what), talked about the end of the world, got himself killed (no one knows in what circumstances), performed no miracles, did not attract large crowds (therefore couldn’t have troubled the authorities overly much), did not have any great number of followers either before he died or afterwards, and certainly stayed dead. Nor do we even know his name. "

You see much the same thing at a cultural level with Robin Hood and King Arthur.

It gets somewhat comical with Michael Green's 2014 The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven uses the the idea "Jesus had been born in an obscure province that nobody had heard of" as part of the reasoning that the account is actually historical...it gets weirder from there on in.

 

[Belz...]

No because that is in essence the whole reasoning behind the HJ concept: Christianity has such a profound influence on the Western world that Jesus must have existed even if in reality he was an obscure nobody.

I'm asking you about this thread and its participants in particular. Who here has made this claim that it is the only explanation? I think no one did. If you're using John Frum to counter arguments made outside of this forum, fine, but then you should make that clear because it sounds like you're addressing people here.

 

[dejudge]

“IU XU”? “KU OC”? Are we speaking of Confucius? Please, speak properly. Nobody can be the son of a “Nomina Sacra” because “Nomina Sacra” means “sacred name”, and there is no possibility that a man be son of a word. Even for the strange mind of Paul. Perhaps the Gnostics…

Are not even aware of mythology and fiction.

Any character can be invented in myth/fiction fables.

In Greek/Roman myth/fiction fables Gods had Sons.

In the Greek NT myth/fiction characters are given the NOMINA SACRA IU XU and KU which is also one of the NOMINA SACRA for OC the God of the Jews.

In Greek/Roman mythology Romulus of ROME was born of a Ghost and a Virgin like Jesus of Nazareth.

In Greek/Roman mythology Perseus was born of God and a virgin without a human father like Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth/fiction character.

You cannot find any contemporary non-apologetic writer of antiquity who wrote about Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[David Mo]

By the above illogic Batman is a real person but not Superman.

You do know that there are numerous fictive characters in loads of fictive literature that are totally fictional despite being depicted in the stories as fully normal and non-supernatural... right?

You do know that people do lie and MAKE UP STUFF... right?

I was speaking about some things that are in contradiction with the concept of atheism.

To believe in Satan's existence is contradictory with atheism.
To believe in Superman is not contradictory with atheism.
To believe in Batman is not contradictory with atheism.
To believe that a Jew was crucified by the Romans is not contradictory with atheism.

If you want to consider the problem of the existence we need to consider other criteria.

Of course, I know that Paul was not a reliable witness. But I justify the existence of Jesus with independence of the reliability of Paul. I use an argument of no contradiction (in the weak psychological sense). This is my main criterion of existence (applied to textual interpretation).

NOTE: I was not discussing the reliability of Paul in my last comments, but about what Paul said or believe.

 

[dejudge]

The title of the thread is extremely significant "The Bible was written by the victors to make themselves look good."

It would appear that the victors did succeed in making themselves look good because billions of people have believed what they wrote in their Bible.

However when we examine the Canonised NT of the Christian Bible the claims about IU XU should have made the so-called victors look BAD whether or not IU XU existed..

See the writings attributed to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 of the Sinaiticus Codex.



1. Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15.---3-5 For I delivered to you, among the first things, that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

and that he was buried; and that he rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures, But, last of all, as to the one born out of due time, he appeared to me also.

2. Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 1514 ---and if Christ has not been raised, vain then both what we preached, and vain also your faith

3. Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15. ----45 So also it is written: The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

4. Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15. ----47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man, from heaven.

In any scenario, whether or not IU XU existed, the claims in 1 Corinthians in the victor's Bible should have made themselves LOOK BAD.

1. Scenario 1--IU XU actually existed.

1 Corinthians 15 would be KNOWN fiction and make the so-called victors LOOK BAD [a known dead man could not resurrect]

2. Scenario 2---IU XU did not exist.

1 Corinthians 15 would be KNOWN fiction and make the so-called victors LOOK BAD [a character who did NOT exist could not die]

How did obvious KNOWN fiction in 1 Corinthians 15, [whether or not IU XU existed] make the so-called victors look good?

 

[dejudge]

It is fascinating what is found written in the Canon of the so-called victors.

How was it possible that known fiction which we would expect to make them look bad actually made them look good whether or not Jesus existed.

Examine gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex.

A character is introduced as IU XU in Sinaiticus gMark.

Sinaiticus Mark 1----13 And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels ministered to him.

Scenario 1. ----Sinaiticus gMark 1.13 would be KNOWN fiction if IU XU actually existed.

Scenario 2.---Sinaiticus gMark 1.13 would still BE KNOWN fiction if IU XU did not exist.

It is clear that the victors wrote KNOWN fiction to makes themselves look good.

How did known fiction make the victors look good when it ought to have made themselves look bad?

Julian the Emperor provides an answer.

The victors SLAUGHTERED those who did not accept the known fiction called the NT.

Julians' Against the Galileans---you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics...[/quote]

 

[dejudge]

I was speaking about some things that are in contradiction with the concept of atheism.

To believe in Satan's existence is contradictory with atheism.
To believe in Superman is not contradictory with atheism.
To believe in Batman is not contradictory with atheism.
To believe that a Jew was crucified by the Romans is not contradictory with atheism.

The argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology is not contradicted by the evidence from antiquity.

Atheism and Belief is irrelevant in the HJ/MJ argument.

 

[maximara]

I was speaking about some things that are in contradiction with the concept of atheism.

To believe in Satan's existence is contradictory with atheism.

Clearly you have never heard of Practical atheism better known as Apatheism.

Many Apatheist versions of Satan have been produced over the years for TV shows.

For example, Doctor Who gave viewers two Apatheist versions of Satan to choose from: Sutekh the last surviving member of a long dead race called Osirians (Pyramids of Mars) and The Beast ("The Impossible Planet" and "The Satan Pit")

I should mention that based on the episode "Terminus" in the Doctor Who universe The Beast is the survivor of the previous universe just like the Terminus base was.

Stargate SG-1 gave us Satan as a long lived alien as did Torchwood

Also atheism is considered a totally valid path in some religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, and Raelism.

Raelism is a UFO Religion and while not an exact example of the Jesus as spaceman concept I have presented in the past it does give you the base mechanics of such a belief.

So the atheism card not longer works as one can simply point to UFO Religions as a counter example. So can we put that argument out to pasture and deal with the actual issue at hand, hmm?

 

[Leumas]

I was speaking about some things that are in contradiction with the concept of atheism.

I have no idea what it is that you think the "concept of atheism" is.... but I assure you

To believe in Superman is not contradictory with atheism.
To believe in Batman is not contradictory with atheism.

The above is utterly and totally WRONG!!

Usually being an atheist stems from a person valuing logic and science and reason and rationality.

So "believing in superman and batman" is assuredly contradictory with any person who can reason with logic based on rationality and science.

If you want to consider the problem of the existence we need to consider other criteria.

So is this a roundabout way of saying that rejecting the HJ conjecture is because of a hidden atheist agenda?

Of course, I know that Paul was not a reliable witness. But I justify the existence of Jesus with independence of the reliability of Paul. I use an argument of no contradiction (in the weak psychological sense). This is my main criterion of existence (applied to textual interpretation).
...

Consider this parallelism

Joseph Smith claimed in his writings and epistles and in the book of Mormon that he was visited by an angel called Macaroni.

Paul claimed that he was visited by a blinding light and a voice from heaven called Jesus.

Joseph Smith claimed that this angel Macaroni used to be long ago a Hebrew prophet who was descended from an Israelite called Nephi who migrated to North America and founded a tribe of Hebrews in North America around 400 CE.

Paul claimed that Jesus was a god who came down to earth as a human who then died and went back up to heaven.

Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Macaroni revealed to him his new religion and what to do and what to say and what to write and all the things to do with the new religion.

Paul claimed the blinding light and voice from heaven Jesus gave him his revelation and told him what to do and what to say and everything about his new religion.

Joseph Smith was a mountebank and a charlatan and a huckster and a liar.

Paul was by his own admissions and the character that can be inferred from textual analysis of his epistles was a liar and a charlatan and a huckster and bamboozler and a speaker in tongues who hallucinates things.
​

Now answer this question

Do you think Macaroni was indeed a human being regardless of all the poppycock that Smith claimed about him?​

If not then why all the special pleading for Jesus' sake?

 

[Craig B]

So the atheism card not longer works as one can simply point to UFO Religions as a counter example. So can we put that argument out to pasture and deal with the actual issue at hand, hmm?

UFO "religions" are not religions in the relevant sense. They have the format, but not the essence, of religions.

Spacefaring aliens are imagined as "superior" Beings, but not as supernatural or transcendent Beings who created the order of material reality. They are part of it, just as we are. They are greater than us, but only in degree.

They are not gods. UFO "religions" are indeed atheist. Absurd, but atheist.

 

[David Mo]

Clearly you have never heard of Practical atheism better known as Apatheism.(...)
Also atheism is considered a totally valid path in some religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, and Raelism.

(...)

So the atheism card not longer works as one can simply point to UFO Religions as a counter example. So can we put that argument out to pasture and deal with the actual issue at hand, hmm?

I don't know too much about design religions.
I don't know neither too much about Hinduism and Buddism. As far as I know the main versions of Buddism and Hinduism imply the exsistence of gods or similar divine entities.
If Jainism is a religion is a more complicated matter that depends of our definition of religion. There are some religions without gods, as animism, but they are called religions because they believe in some not-natural entities (spirits, kharmas, etc.) and they have some kind of rituals or cults aimed to contact with the other world.

I understand by atheism the philosphical point of view that asserts that gods (or similar supernatural entities) don't exist. Other people use the word as the absence of any belief in gods.

I was speaking about Satan as the spirit of Evil, personalized in the Bible as Lucifer, Abbadon, etc.

I only said that the belief in Satan is not compatible with atheism in both definitions of atheism. This is a less complicated question than yours. And less interesting too. If someone believes that Jesus was an alien, he is not an atheist. Neither a critical rationalist, of course. In my modest opinion he is a chiflado.

As far as I know the UFO religions are not exactly religion if they not believe in UFOs as a supernatural entity. Maybe we can call them "religions" in the sociological sense if they produce something as a cult of aliens.

 

[David Mo]

Atheism and Belief is irrelevant in the HJ/MJ argument.

This is just what I have said

If you want to consider the problem of the existence we need to consider other criteria

.

 

[dejudge]

Atheism and Belief is irrelevant in the HJ/MJ argument.

This is just what I have said

.

No!!! No!!! You said "To believe that a Jew was crucified by the Romans is not contradictory with atheism".

What you said was irrelevant because you are not prepared to present the actual evidence from antiquity for your assumed HJ who was supposedly crucified by the Romans.

The very Christians who worshiped Jesus claimed he was born of a Ghost, the Logos God Creator and was KILLED by the Jews.

When did the Romans kill your assumed HJ??

After he was seen ALIVE by Paul and over 500 persons??

The HJ argument is clearly void of evidence from antiquity.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm

Lactantius' How the Persecutors Died"---In the latter days of the Emperor Tiberius, in the consulship of Ruberius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, and on the tenth of the kalends of April, as I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.

The Christian writers of antiquity admitted and TAUGHT that their Jesus was God from heaven who was KILLED by the Jews and it was for that very heinous crime that the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0503.htm


Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews ---7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?

Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf?

Was it on account of the idolatry of the people?

Was it for the blood of the prophets?

Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel?

By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father..

The Jesus character and propaganda story was invented AFTER 70 CE to explain the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence.

 

[Belz...]

UFO "religions" are not religions in the relevant sense. They have the format, but not the essence, of religions.

Spacefaring aliens are imagined as "superior" Beings, but not as supernatural or transcendent Beings who created the order of material reality. They are part of it, just as we are. They are greater than us, but only in degree.

I've actually seen such a religion where aliens from another universe created this one, which elevates said aliens to pretty much godhood.

 

[maximara]

UFO "religions" are not religions in the relevant sense. They have the format, but not the essence, of religions.

Spacefaring aliens are imagined as "superior" Beings, but not as supernatural or transcendent Beings who created the order of material reality. They are part of it, just as we are. They are greater than us, but only in degree.

They are not gods. UFO "religions" are indeed atheist. Absurd, but atheist.

The problem is that "supernatural" is dependent what you define as the "natural" world.

Cambridge Platonist Henry Moore in the 17th century kicked out the idea that ghosts were actually 4D beings, an idea that Johann Karl Friedrich Zöllner promoted in the 19th century.

"If a fourth-dimension creature existed it could, in our three-dimensional universe, appear and dematerialize at will, change shape remarkably, pluck us out of locked rooms, and make us appear from nowhere."—Carl Sagan. Cosmos pg 219

What appears to be "supernatural" from a 3D framework becomes totally "natural" in a 4D one.

Also not all deities are "Transcendent Beings" some are as much a part of the material reality as their worshipers. The Norse deities come to mind as a prime example.

Never mind there are UFO Religions (like Aetherius Society, Ashtar Galactic Command, Cosmic Circle of Fellowship, Unarius Academy of Science, PlanetaryHQ) that have Aliens existing outside our material (ie 3D) reality so that kicks that idea in the head.

Finally Oxford defines religion as "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Superhuman NOT supernatural.

Webster gives us this:

the belief in a god or in a group of gods
an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
god per Webster:

a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions

a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired
Again note no mention of the supernatural.

 

[David Mo]

I have no idea what it is that you think the "concept of atheism" is.... but I assure you

I hope my definition of #2995 had been clarifying.

Usually being an atheist stems from a person valuing logic and science and reason and rationality.

The concept of atheism is different from the concept of critical rationalism or positivism (positively evaluation of the science as the unique or main form of knowledge). So Camus, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer or Heidegger were atheists but not rationalists. There is not any contradiction.
You are right in that usually atheism and critical rationalism or positivism go together, but it is not necessary so.

Atheism implies the not-belief of supernatural gods or entities. See comment #2994 by CraigB.

UFO "religions" are not religions in the relevant sense. They have the format, but not the essence, of religions.

Spacefaring aliens are imagined as "superior" Beings, but not as supernatural or transcendent Beings who created the order of material reality. They are part of it, just as we are. They are greater than us, but only in degree.

They are not gods. UFO "religions" are indeed atheist. Absurd, but atheist.

You are right, but in some anthropological theories religions are defined by social relations, as churches or cults. Durkheim or Geertz, for example. In this sense it is possible an atheist or secular religion. But this is not the sense that we are discussing now.