The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

They asserted (falsely) that Jesus was the son of God.

Why do you use the very false assertions as the history of your Jesus?

You have REPEATEDLY confirmed that your Jesus is a product of FALSE assertions.

Holy Mother Church did not write Paul or Mark or the Synoptic Sayings. I am not a Christian, and do not agree with what they say. Christians say that. I am not a Christian.

What penultimate amazing nonsense, Craig B!!!

You agree with the Holy Mother Church that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

You and the Holy Mother Church actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for Jesus of Nazareth.

You and the Holy Mother Church do agree that Jesus existed in the Flesh WITHOUT evidence.

 

[maximara]

"G-d" ? Who writes like that ? Ghyphend sounds like a horrible name.

AIUI this is an effort to respect those Jewish denominations that consider using the full word in some way risks the sin of erasing or defacing the Name. (Jewish FAQ G-d entry)

G-d has NOTHING to do with using vowels or anything link that but is rather akin censoring a picture of Muhammad

In case anyone is wondering somebody did try to make a movie about Muhammad called The Message (1976). Problem is that Muhammad himself could not be shown nor could his wives, his daughters including Fatimah, his sons-in-law, nor the first caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali ibn Talib his paternal cousin). This left the movie with uncle Hamza, his adopted son Zayd, Muhammad's POV with no voice, and a symbolic staff to carry the film.

It went about as well as can be expected earning a place in Michael and Harry Medved's 1984 The Hollywood Hall of Shame: The Most Expensive Flops in Movie History and Tim Dirk's Greatest Box-Office Bombs, Disasters and Film Flops

 

[Belz...]

You agree with the Holy Mother Church that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Guilt by association ? What a sad debating tactic, even for you.

At least it gives us insight into your own motivations: you, like most of us, I suspect, don't believe in Jesus as a divine whatever. You take it a step further: agreeing with the Church on anything is tantamount to such a belief, so you vehemently deny anything that might agree with them, evidence and reason be damned.

Interesting. Silly, but interesting.

 

[Belz...]

AIUI this is an effort to respect those Jewish denominations that consider using the full word in some way risks the sin of erasing or defacing the Name. (Jewish FAQ G-d entry)

G-d has NOTHING to do with using vowels or anything link that but is rather akin censoring a picture of Muhammad

Thank you. I expected something like that but I wasn't sure.

Years ago we had a thread with someone who kept writing it "G_d", so I tried to start a meme where we'd call god "Gunderscored", but it didn't catch on too well. Hence my "Ghyphend" comment.

 

[Craig B]

AIUI this is an effort to respect those Jewish denominations that consider using the full word in some way risks the sin of erasing or defacing the Name. (Jewish FAQ G-d entry)

Yes, that is the only sort of source where I've seen "G-d". Now, Mcreal's version of the letter exhibits this feature. Did Mcreal obtain it from an Orthodox Jewish source? Is he himself such a source?

The bit he cites states that Christians are the same thing as worshippers of (pagan) Serapis. The very next sentence, which he or his source omits, says this:

There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ

So he relates a seeming charge of paganism, laid at the door of Christians, but conceals the fact that Hadrian (if the letter is authentic) in fact is making a charge of mere fickleness, and directing it equally at all denominations.

I was simply wondering if there was a possible, even if unconscious, bias in the version of the letter Mcreal cites in his post. It is part of my attempt to evaluate the different versions of this text, and I repeat my request for comments from the well-informed.

 

[dejudge]

Guilt by association ? What a sad debating tactic, even for you.

At least it gives us insight into your own motivations: you, like most of us, I suspect, don't believe in Jesus as a divine whatever. You take it a step further: agreeing with the Church on anything is tantamount to such a belief, so you vehemently deny anything that might agree with them, evidence and reason be damned.

Interesting. Silly, but interesting.

What absolute bizarre nonsense.

You have already admitted that the HJ argument or the evidence for an HJ is weak.

Craig B in a most ridiculous fashion uses the very same NT to prove the Transfiguring water walker, the Son of God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator was really real!!!

What penultimate amazing absurdity.

It is obvious that Craig B still believes NT Jesus was born although he admits the NT stories are fiction.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The NT are Ghost stories--Not historical accounts.

Mark 6:48 ----And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Jesus was a myth/fiction character from conception to ascension.

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

 

[Craig B]

What absolute bizarre nonsense.

You have already admitted that the HJ argument or the evidence for an HJ is weak.

Craig B in a most ridiculous fashion uses the very same NT to prove the Transfiguring water walker, the Son of God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator was really real!!!

What penultimate amazing absurdity.

It is obvious that Craig B still believes NT Jesus was born although he admits the NT stories are fiction.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The NT are Ghost stories--Not historical accounts.

Mark 6:48 ----And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Jesus was a myth/fiction character from conception to ascension.

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

I've a slight feeling I've seen these things in posts from you before, dejudge. How are you on the multiple source theories of the Gospels? And do you have a view on the Synoptic Problem? I would be grateful for any observations.

 

[Belz...]

What absolute bizarre nonsense.

I know, that's why I said your case is interesting. Silly, but interesting.

You have already admitted that the HJ argument or the evidence for an HJ is weak.

One can provisionally conclude on weak evidence, you know.

Craig B in a most ridiculous fashion uses the very same NT to prove the Transfiguring water walker, the Son of God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator was really real!!!

What penultimate amazing absurdity.

It is obvious that Craig B still believes NT Jesus was born although he admits the NT stories are fiction.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The NT are Ghost stories--Not historical accounts.

Mark 6:48 ----And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Jesus was a myth/fiction character from conception to ascension.

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

The rest of this has nothing to do with my post.

 

[maximara]

Source, please. Source, please.

Been provided the first time I presented this some years ago. Do try to keep up.

Never mind that "Google is your FRIEND"

And so is the "Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ" article over at rationalwiki. Those little numbers throughout the work? These are things called REFERENCES.

The bit he cites states that Christians are the same thing as worshippers of (pagan) Serapis. The very next sentence, which he or his source omits, says this:

"There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer.There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue[/B], no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ"

Actually there are several versions of this thing.

We have

"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high-priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus. They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt"

Then we have THIS version (via the HJ crowd):

"There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore."

The passage Craig B claim is after the former one is actually IN the provided text. As you will note the Christian version adds quite a lot.

 

[Craig B]

Been provided the first time I presented this some years ago. Do try to keep up.

Never mind that "Google is your FRIEND"

And so is the "Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ" article over at rationalwiki. Those little numbers throughout the work? These are things called REFERENCES.

I thought it might be possible to discuss this matter rationally and courteously.

Regrettably it is not. Would highly-qualified scholar Richard Carrier put such unhelpful and dismissive expressions in his peer-reviewed writings? Well ... OK, maybe he would.

 

[dejudge]

What absolute bizarre nonsense.

You have already admitted that the HJ argument or the evidence for an HJ is weak.

Craig B in a most ridiculous fashion uses the very same NT to prove the Transfiguring water walker, the Son of God born of a Ghost, the Lord from heaven and God Creator was really real!!!

What penultimate amazing absurdity.

It is obvious that Craig B still believes NT Jesus was born although he admits the NT stories are fiction.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The NT are Ghost stories--Not historical accounts.

Mark 6:48 ----And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Jesus was a myth/fiction character from conception to ascension.

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

I've a slight feeling I've seen these things in posts from you before, dejudge. How are you on the multiple source theories of the Gospels? And do you have a view on the Synoptic Problem? I would be grateful for any observations.

I am dealing with discussion about "the historical Jesus". The Synoptics present massive problems for the HJ argument.

Jesus in the Synoptics was a Transfiguring water walking son of a Ghost.

Jesus and Satan were together and conversing in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple.

It is obvious that Satan and Jesus were figures of myth/fiction.

 

[Craig B]

... It is part of my attempt to evaluate the different versions of this text, and I repeat my request for comments from the well-informed.

Here's a 19th century translation which most certainly doesn't equate Serapis with Christ.

I am now become fully acquainted with that Egypt which you extol so highly. I have found the people vain, fickle, and shifting with every breath of opinion. Those who worship Serapis are in fact Christians; and they who call themselves Christian bishops are actually worshippers of Serapis. There is no chief of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian bishop, who is not an astrologer, a fortune teller and a conjuror. The patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is compelled by one party to worship Serapis, by the other, Christ.

Gregorovius, Ferdinand, 1821-1891. "The Emperor Hadrian” London, Macmillan & co,;, 1898.

 

[maximara]

But that they do refer to earlier events - and situations, like an extant temple - IS evidence that they were written earlier.

The flaw with THAT is 1 Clement and Hebrews both of which act as if the temple still exist but have dates in the 80-140 CE and 50-95 CE range respectively.

Yet 1 Clement which some Christian Scholars date as late as 140 CE has this:

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes. - 1 Clem 41:2

This would seem to indicate that when 1 Clement was written the Temple system was still operational. But the Temple and its system of sacrifice ended with its destruction in 70 CE. And even if as some suggested the Sadduccees carried on sacrifices in the ruins odds are this ended well before 130 CE...which is still 10 years before the latest date given to 1 Clement.

In fact, 1 Clement is dated to 95 – 97 CE by the majority of scholars (W.C. van Unnik, "Studies on the so-called First Epistle of Clement. The literary genre," in Cilliers Breytenbach and Laurence L. Welborn, Encounters with Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement, Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2004, p. 118. ISBN 9004125264.)

So we have a work that is acting like the Temple is still intact but scholars STILL claim it is written in the late 90s...and they don't see anything wrong with that or how it would royally hose the way Mark is dated?!?

This look less like using historical criticism to determine a date and more like 'let's pick a date and see how we can shoehorn this work into that date'.

Some consistency in how these guys use historical criticism would be welcome but then again Hector Avalos and Richard Carrier have both gone into detail on just how SNAFUED, TARFUED and FUBARED the historical method is in Bible studies in general and the whole thing with Jesus in particular. Joke is too kind a word, totally unmitigated screw up would be closer to the mark.

 

[Craig B]

The flaw with THAT is 1 Clement and Hebrews both of which act as if the temple still exist but have dates in the 80-140 CE and 50-95 CE range respectively.

Yet 1 Clement which some Christian Scholars date as late as 140 CE has this:

Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes. - 1 Clem 41:2

This would seem to indicate that when 1 Clement was written the Temple system was still operational.

That surprises me not at all. The rituals in the Temple were regarded as having eternal significance, so will be described in an "eternal present tense" even after the destruction of the institution.

But what we get in the NT are accounts of specific incidents involving the Temple as an extant location, and descriptions of people actually visiting it. That's different from abstract relations of the rituals which are to be conducted there, which can continue to be enumerated even after their suspension.

This distinction makes the following part of your post look ridiculous, I regret to say. Carrier shows it's all a bunch of Snafus etc. Is there to be no end to your absurd aggrandisement of this mediocre scribbler?

Some consistency in how these guys use historical criticism would be welcome but then again Hector Avalos and Richard Carrier have both gone into detail on just how SNAFUED, TARFUED and FUBARED the historical method is in Bible studies in general and the whole thing with Jesus in particular. Joke is too kind a word, totally unmitigated screw up would be closer to the mark.

Yuk. Preposterous.

 

[dejudge]

I am now become fully acquainted with that Egypt which you extol so highly. I have found the people vain, fickle, and shifting with every breath of opinion.

Those who worship Serapis are in fact Christians; and they who call themselves Christian bishops are actually worshippers of Serapis.


There is no chief of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian bishop, who is not an astrologer, a fortune teller and a conjuror. The patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is compelled by one party to worship Serapis, by the other, Christ.

The passage has confirmed that the mention of Christians cannot be assumed to mean followers of Christ.

 

[Craig B]

The passage has confirmed that the mention of Christians cannot be assumed to mean followers of Christ.

It has confirmed that followers of Serapis were not followers of Christ.

 

[dejudge]

The passage has confirmed that the mention of Christians cannot be assumed to mean followers of Christ.

It has confirmed that followers of Serapis were not followers of Christ.

I am happy that you now admit that the followers of Serapis called Christians were NOT the followers of Christ who were also called Christians.

Your HJ was NOT Christ.

People called Christians were NOT followers of the assumed obscure HJ/rebel/criminal/false prophet/ liar/idiot called Jesus.

The Christ was a spiritual being according to Christians.

The physical Christ has not yet come.

 

[Mcreal]

I am now going to start a serious examination of the Hadrian-Servianus letter which is bandied about in various forms. We will need to look closely at the text, and I appeal to any classical scholars here for help.

Here is how a contributor to wiki renders, and comments on, the text. I am going to state that the context and subject matter - fickleness of Egyptian thought - absolutely demands the reading it receives in this source.

Let us now read the wiki version. My bold.

... There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. [The letter continues on to non-religious matters.]

The bolded sentence makes clear that S and C are regarded as separate beings, and that H is deriding the inconstancy of the Egyptians in switching from one to another. That is exactly what H says he is talking about, of course.

There are three sentences there. They refer to three separate scenarios -

1. "Those who worship Serapis [who] are, in fact, Christians; .. those who call themselves bishops of Christ [who] are, in fact, devotees of Serapis."

2. The middle sentence about "no chief of the Jewish synagogue; no Samaritan; no Christian presbyter (who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer); or an anointer."

3. The separate issue about a non-specified Patriarch who, when he visits Egypt, is *forced* to worship two entities.

ie. Sentence 3 is about a separate person and situation to sentence 1.

Hadrian was himself at least a part time worshipper of Serapis: Hadrian had a personal serapeum -

Protected by a monumental dome, the sanctuary was composed of a public area and a more intimate subterranean part that was dedicated to the chthonic aspect of Serapis.

To mark the inauguration of his temple, Hadrian struck coinage that carry his effigy accompanied by Serapis, upon a dais where two columns support a round canopy. In this manner, the emperor became synnaos, a companion of the god's arcane naos and equal beneficiary of the cult of Serapis at Canopus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapeum#Hadrian.27s_Villa

Taylor, R. (2004). Hadrian's Serapeum in Rome. American Journal of Archaeology, 108(2), 223-266.

.

and, See The Serapeum And The Canopus Of Hadrian's Villa especially the bottom of that web-page.

as far as

[The letter continues on to non-religious matters.]

This seems to follow -

"They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt."​

 

[Mcreal]

It has confirmed that followers of Serapis were not followers of Christ.

Serapis was known as Serapis Chrestus/Christos.

 

[Craig B]

Serapis was known as Serapis Chrestus/Christos.

A source reference would be nice. The Hadrian letter seems to state that "The patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is compelled by one party to worship Serapis, by the other, Christ." which means that these are two separate beings, since one party supports Serapis, and another party supports Christ.