The Historical Jesus III

[IanS]

I think you're starting to become repetitive dejudge.

Perhaps you could discuss the different sources in the Synoptic Gospels, and we can see if they contain equally implausible material. So far, the guy is either a water walking transfiguring ghost who created the universe, or he's a crazy rabbi with a family in Galilee. Is there any way of deciding which of these characters is most plausible?

The only known source for the written content of the gospels and letters, in fact a proven and unarguable source, is the Old Testament. And that has been shown as a matter of indisputable "Fact" by authors like Randel Helms who have written entire books on the matter. So the OT was certainly being used as a source of their Jesus stories by all the gospel writers.

The other very obvious and proven influences, known as a matter of indisputable fact, were the earlier Greek, Egyptian and Persian religions, elements of which had become increasingly adopted in that region from about 300 BC onwards. As well as the later influence from Roman religious beliefs that had been introduced to the region from about 30 BC onwards.

Those are all sources which I have put to you at least 100 times before in these HJ threads. And their influence upon the much later biblical story of Jesus, is a matter of unarguable fact.

The biblical writers were certainly using all of that as their source for creating their Jesus beliefs.

Paul's letters, which actually say almost nothing about any earthly activities of Jesus, even explicitly and repeatedly emphasise that his Jesus beliefs were being taken from the OT, i.e. invariably "according to scripture".

 

[IanS]

You are deliberately deceiving people. I have stated that Mark says Jesus had brothers, including a James. Elsewhere, in Paul, we have a James who is a "brother" of "the Lord".

Neither the gospel of Mark nor any of the canonical gospels are of any use as evidence of Jesus, or as evidence that the writer actually knew anything at all about anyone being the brother of Jesus, because in the only known extant copies the anonymous authors were writing centuries after any brothers of Jesus had long since all died.

Now you might be tempted to say that if, as bible scholars and theologian writers all claim, the gospel of Mark was first written by it's original author some time around 70 AD, then that author, although he was anonymous (it was not "Mark" himself) might have personally known or met people who claimed to be the brother of Jesus.

But there are several problems with any claim like that.

Firstly we cannot simply assume that any original gospel of Mark from c.70 AD would have said the same about any brothers as we find written 300 years later in the first more-or-less useable extant copies.

But secondly, and far worse - there is actually no evidence at all in any copies of g-Mark (or any of the gospels) of where the authors ever got that belief from. That is - it is simply said that he had brothers, but there is no mention of how the anonymous late writers ever knew that. And as evidence, a completely un-evidenced anonymous claim like that is utterly worthless.

There is course some actual earlier evidence of where any idea of a brother "James" actually came from. And that is the evidence in Paul's letter known as P46 circa.200 AD. That is the earliest, original, primary source for any mention of James as a "Jesus lords brother".

But that's also useless as credible evidence for how Paul would ever have known that anyone called "James" was the actual family brother of Jesus, for all the long list of reasons that I just set out for you in the earlier post (a list which I have set out in detail for you at least 50 times here before!).


IOW what we actually have as the evidence of James being the family brother of Jesus, is really just that one single never again repeated ambiguous half-line in a 200 AD Christian copy of one of Paul's letters, saying "other apostles saw I none, save James the lords brother". As far as anyone can honestly tell, the entire idea of a "brother James" goes back to Paul.

That is of course exactly the problem that many of us pointed out when Bart Ehrman’s book was published in 2013 (“Did Jesus Exist”). I.e. he was relying on the bible as his source of evidence for belief that Jesus had a brother named as "James" in Paul's letter ... IOW, he was claiming that Jesus must have existed as a matter of what he called “definite certainty”, because it says so in the bible!

 

[tsig]

He was a fictive protagonist in a collection of contradictory fables full of fabricated magic and supernatural claptrap on top of hearsay of further hearsay of magic and supernatural demons and devils and rapist-gods and adulterating holy poltergeists and demigods who gestate inside the wombs of the progeny of a Babylonian peripatetic illegal immigrant coward who pimped his half-sister-wife and a delusional huckster who went around claiming to be god and walked about pretending to be a walking dead zombie.

The 1001 Arabian nights had similar tall tales and yet I do not see you so hot under the collar trying to prove Sinbad The Sailor was a real historic sailor and getting so hostile and irrational when someone points out how imbecilic such a pursuit is to the point of wishing they had lobotomies.

So why all the special pleading and bellicose ad hominems and belligerent illogic and utter wishful thinking?

Why are you not so interested in proving that Ali Baba or Sinbad were real persons as you are in establishing an even more fantastical tall tale to have had some "core truth"?

Couldn't the 1001 nights have had a core truth too and Scheherazade was a real person who just exaggerated a little the real story of the real Sinbad?

[imgw=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Scheherezade_tells_her_stories.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Ali-Baba.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Sinbad_1.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Trevisani_baptism_christ.JPG[/imgw]

The only thing I have ever got is links to Christian apologetics sites.

The ridiculous "criteria of embarrassment" then the appeal to authority "all university professors of ancient history agree" and my favorite "multiple attestations" where the books of the NT are the testators are popular.


Other than a few secular passages of questionable authority the NT is all we have that speaks of Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

I think you're starting to become repetitive dejudge.

I am obligated to respond to your repeated fallacious argument.

The very Gospels and Christians of antiquity have shown that you write repeated fiction.

Jesus was NOT described as a carpenter in gMark.

It was a QUESTION.

Jesus was described as a Transfiguring Water Walker in gMark 6 and 9.

Perhaps you could discuss the different sources in the Synoptic Gospels, and we can see if they contain equally implausible material. So far, the guy is either a water walking transfiguring ghost who created the universe, or he's a crazy rabbi with a family in Galilee. Is there any way of deciding which of these characters is most plausible?

Your HJ is implausible since you use the Crazy, Fiction/myth in the New Testament as an historical source.

You have NO idea that people of antiquity and even today believe that the Holy Ghost, God the father and Jesus the Son were ONE and the same substance.

You have NO idea that the historical Jesus was a KNOWN Heretical lie since at least the 2nd century.

The HJ argument is the very worst argument known to mankind. It is derived from known discrepancies, historical problems, contradictions fiction, forgery, and false attribution.

 

[Leumas]

The only thing I have ever got is links to Christian apologetics sites.

The ridiculous "criteria of embarrassment" then the appeal to authority "all university professors of ancient history agree" and my favorite "multiple attestations" where the books of the NT are the testators are popular.


Other than a few secular passages of questionable authority the NT is all we have that speaks of Jesus.

Cherry picking galore and wishful thinking by the oodles and special pleading by the piles and bare assertions by the buckets and appeal to brainwashed biased vested "authority" by the heaps.

And all for what?

To warp and wriggle the imbecilic fables and myths to wring out of them a drop of possible perhaps maybe more likely what may have been conceivably a feasible perchance imaginably a grain of a kernel of a morsel of an essence of a germ of a hint of what could perchance be a real amalgam of various characteristics of various people lumped together.

And when one points out the utter preposterous inanity of all this illogic they want to give him a lobotomy performed by dead psychiatrists for the crazy person he is for daring to point out the imbecility of their holy grail quest.

It is quite fine to have a hobby but when one's hobby drives one to utter irrationality on the same level of Glasgow football fans who go around trying to slaughter Aberdeen fans after they lose a match, then something is really going haywire.

 

[Leumas]

...
Jesus was NOT described as a carpenter in gMark.

Indeed!!

But even if it were, how does one know that "there are reasons for supposing this bit of a gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material" and that it perhaps perchance has a possible kernel of a grain of a hint of a "core truth"?

Why accept that part to hedge one's bets on but not the part that he was delusional and claimed to be the son of god and that he will sit on God's right hand side in heaven?

Why accept that bit as attesting to him having been a carpenter (by assuming that a carpenter's son must also have been a carpenter) while the other bit is rejected as an attestation to him having been a BLASPHEMING DELUDED MORON?

Cherry picking and wishful thinking compounded with utterly preposterous ILLOGIC.

...
Jesus was described as a Transfiguring Water Walker in gMark 6 and 9.

Indeed!!

What amazing ILLOGIC would make one think that a fairy tale full of magic and demons had it right when it said that the deluded moron protagonist of the tall tale is a son of a carpenter but it was just fabrication when it said that he thought he was the son of god?????

It is not as if thinking oneself to be the son of a god is an impossible miracle or magical thing that can be rejected.

Jesus according to gMark claimed to be the son of god... this is totally possible and it indicates that he was a deluded blasphemer and not an observant Jewish preacher.... so why reject that information and yet argue tooth and nail that he was a carpenter and call anyone who points out the illogic of doing that as a crazy person in need of lobotomy by a dead psychiatrist?

Mark 14:61-64

• 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
• 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
• 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

...
The HJ argument is the very worst argument known to mankind. It is derived from known discrepancies, historical problems, contradictions fiction, forgery, and false attribution.

Indeed!!

It is nothing but an utterly inane holy grail quest.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is indeed the very worst argument known to mankind.

HJers argue that parts of the NT are authentic.

HJers never realised that authenticity is NOT related to veracity.

HJers do not have a clue that even if it can be proven that Moses wrote Genesis that the Creation story will still be fiction.

HJers have no clue that even if it proven that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel under his name that the Jesus story from Conception to Ascension would still be fiction/myth.

Hjers seem to have no idea that even if it can be proven that Paul wrote letters to Churches that the same letters ADMIT Jesus was the Lord GOD from heaven.

HJers seem to have no idea that the NT Canon was used in antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

 

[Leumas]

The HJ argument is indeed the very worst argument known to mankind.

HJers argue that parts of the NT are authentic.

HJers never realised that authenticity is NOT related to veracity.

HJers do not have a clue that even if it can be proven that Moses wrote Genesis that the Creation story will still be fiction.

HJers have no clue that even if it proven that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel under his name that the Jesus story from Conception to Ascension would still be fiction/myth.

Hjers seem to have no idea that even if it can be proven that Paul wrote letters to Churches that the same letters ADMIT Jesus was the Lord GOD from heaven.

HJers seem to have no idea that the NT Canon was used in antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus [a man with a human father].

Have a look at this post and especially the highlighted bits

Is there a particular COHERENT reason that you choose ONLY those four books about Jesus? Why do you consider the writers of those 4 books about Jesus to be truthful and factual?

Couldn't they have been as FANCIFUL or UNTRUTHFUL as ALL THE OTHER GOSPELS written about Jesus?

• The Gospel Of Peter
• The Gospel Of Mary
• The Infancy Gospels
• The Gospel Of Judas
• The Gospel Of Thomas
• The Gospel Of The Nazarenes
• The Gospel Of The Ebionites
• The Gospel Of The Hebrews
• The Apocalypse Of Peter
• The Apocalypse Of Paul
• The Coptic Apocalypse Of Paul
• The Acts Of Peter And The Twelve
• The Acts Of Peter And Paul
• The Acts Of Paul And Thecla
• HECK a trillion acts..... Acts of Andrew, Acts of Barnabas, Acts of John, Acts of the Martyrs, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Pilate, Acts of Philip. Acts of Thomas, Acts of Timothy, The Lost Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles

The Infancy Gospel Of Thomas tells us that child Jesus was a vile bully and a spoiled brat. He went around killing anyone that annoyed or disagreed with him. He execrated his teachers and elders in an arrogant know-it-all way. Generally just a dick in every possible way.

So why do you believe Matthew et al as opposed to Thomas et al?

The above were ALL books that were VERY MUCH loved and read in the proto-churches and quoted on regular basis by early Christians who, after the Roman Imperial Edict of Thessalonica, were prohibited and ordered BURNT on pain of death.

So Christianity used to have MANY MANY more books than just the 4 god-spiels you think are truthful... YET some ROMAN SECTARIAN Christians decided they were not truthful and KILLED ANYONE who did not burn them.

So Christianity as we have it today has been dictated and formulated by, and is the result of ROMAN DICTATORIAL DESPOTISM and ROMAN SECTARIAN VIOLENCE defeating and wiping out all other opposition to its IMPERIAL EDICTS.

• Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years
• The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason

Why exactly do you consider what Matthew et al said was any more or less truthful than the numerous other writers who wrote about what Jesus supposedly said and did?

Could it be that you believe in the Canonical flimflam as opposed to the other poppycock only because you were born in a culture that has been bamboozled and hoodwinked for millennia, ever since your ancestors were forced by the edge of the sword to swallow the crap story or else swallow boiling molten lead?

Maybe if you applied some unbiased skepticism and logic, you would have been able to realize that the Canonical writings (much like all the other Jesus Fables written by Christians) are just MYTHS no different from the ones your ancestors had to abandon by force from their own crap religious fabrications previously enforced on them by their own kinfolk shysters and hucksters and mountebanks and replaced by the ones imported from Judea via Roman Imperialism via Conquistadores via Colonialism via Slavery via Evangelism.
If only you could remove the heavy dark pall of social and cultural inculcation and indoctrination that you have had to live under ever since childhood, you would realize that the Canonical Jesus MYTHS along with the non-canonical ones are just a load of claptrap like any other fables from any time before or after and from any culture far and near.

 

[Craig B]

Cherry picking galore and wishful thinking by the oodles and special pleading by the piles and bare assertions by the buckets and appeal to brainwashed biased vested "authority" by the heaps.

And all for what?

To warp and wriggle the imbecilic fables and myths to wring out of them a drop of possible perhaps maybe more likely what may have been conceivably a feasible perchance imaginably a grain of a kernel of a morsel of an essence of a germ of a hint of what could perchance be a real amalgam of various characteristics of various people lumped together.

And when one points out the utter preposterous inanity of all this illogic they want to give him a lobotomy performed by dead psychiatrists for the crazy person he is for daring to point out the imbecility of their holy grail quest.

It is quite fine to have a hobby but when one's hobby drives one to utter irrationality on the same level of Glasgow football fans who go around trying to slaughter Aberdeen fans after they lose a match, then something is really going haywire.

Absolutely. As wiki puts it

Despite this there remains a strong consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship that a historical Jesus did live in that area and in that time period.

But we know Ehrman is a psychopath football fan whose hobby is trying to murder Aberdonians and he is heap brainwashed and biased, so he wriggles imbecilic fables. The world's going haywire, I tell you!

 

[IanS]

Absolutely. As wiki puts it

Quote:
Despite this there remains a strong consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship that a historical Jesus did live in that area and in that time period.

But we know Ehrman is a psychopath football fan whose hobby is trying to murder Aberdonians and he is heap brainwashed and biased, so he wriggles imbecilic fables. The world's going haywire, I tell you!

The "strong conciseness" of belief in Jesus that you are citing from that Wiki quote, is a consensus amongst overwhelmingly religious Christian bible scholars and theologians!

And the point about Bart Ehrman is that he is apparently recognised worldwide as an academic authority on the historicity of Jesus. And yet when he wrote his 2013 book specifically claiming to set out all the evidence which he says makes Jesus a "definite" "certainty" in which "all properly trained scholars on the planet agree with him", he could not actually produce even one credible piece of reliable evidence for anyone ever knowing any human Jesus at all !! ... None! Zero!

Instead the best he could do was to make the absurdly pathetic claim that Jesus must have existed because in the bible it says he had a brother called James!

That is the level of the lack of objectivity and self-interested bias that pervades your claimed "strong consensus".

 

[Craig B]

... And the point about Bart Ehrman is that he is apparently recognised worldwide as an academic authority on the historicity of Jesus. And yet when he wrote his 2013 book specifically claiming to set out all the evidence which he says makes Jesus a "definite" "certainty" in which "all properly trained scholars on the planet agree with him", he could not actually produce even one credible piece of reliable evidence for anyone ever knowing any human Jesus at all !! ... None! Zero!

Instead the best he could do was to make the absurdly pathetic claim that Jesus must have existed because in the bible it says he had a brother called James!

That is the level of the lack of objectivity and self-interested bias that pervades your claimed "strong consensus".

Bias? Lack of objectivity? Compared to attempted mass murder these failings are mere bagatelles! Why are you missing out the most serious criticism, eh?

It is quite fine to have a hobby but when one's hobby drives one to utter irrationality on the same level of Glasgow football fans who go around trying to slaughter Aberdeen fans after they lose a match, then something is really going haywire.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus was NOT described as a carpenter in gMark.
It was a QUESTION.

I have dealt with this in #791, which I note THAT you are AFRAID to comment on because it blows your absurd exegesis out OF THE water and reduces it to a PILE of detritus fit only for the rubbish HEAP.

If you are suggesting that these are real questions designed to elicit information and not rhetorical affirmations, you should abandon the practice of Biblical exegesis before you kill people by making them laugh themselves to death.

Here are your questions: posed by the people of Jesus' home town, too. Crazy home town. What is this place? A mental health institution?

Mark 6:1 He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said

Here are the "questions", dejudge

Q1 Where did this man get all this?
Q2 What is this wisdom that has been given to him?
Q3 What deeds of power are being done by his hands!
Q4 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon
Q5 are not his sisters here with us?

Now perhaps you can bring yourself to believe that "are not his sisters here with us?" is a real question, to which they didn't know the answer, but persons with any sense will realise that it can't be, because the sisters were there and could tell the answer. The people knew these things. Anyway they were not asking, is this man the carpenter, son of Mary etc? They were saying Is not this man the carpenter? which is a way of saying he is. As in the case of Og's giant bed referenced in #791. Thomas Paine makes this observation about the expression in the Age of Reason, as a normal Biblical method of affirmation.

I stated there that I thought you were probably the only person with this delusion about the questions, but I see it's now a folie à deux, for you have been joined by an approving commentator!

Indeed!!

But even if it were, how does one know that "there are reasons for supposing this bit of a gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material"

Leumas can't think of any reason why this statement

"Mr X Is a carpenter"

is more likely to be authentic than this one

"Mr X created the universe and can walk on water".

But I can think of such reasons, and I would advise Leumas to think about this very hard and maybe he'll guess correctly what they might be.

But don't worry about that just now, dejudge. Just please let me have your comments on my post #791, which I wrote for your benefit after all.

ETA Here's another example of a "question". The Book of Jashar ... the Book of Joshua 10:13 states:

And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of the Upright (Sēper haYYāšār)?

So Joshua's "just askin'", eh?

 

[Leumas]

...I stated there that I thought you were probably the only person with this delusion about the questions, but I see it's now a folie à deux, for you have been joined by an approving commentator! Leumas can't think of any reason why this statement "Mr X Is a carpenter" is more likely to be authentic than this one "Mr X created the universe and can walk on water".

But I can think of such reasons, and I would advise Leumas to think about this very hard and maybe he'll guess correctly what they might be.

You are really being utterly disingenuous and deliberately straw manning.

You know jolly well what I said because you can still read English, yet you deliberately misrepresent and distort what I said with pathetically false claims that can be so readily proven to be false.

Have a look at what I said.... and hopefully you can see that it is YOUR Folie à une

...What amazing ILLOGIC would make one think that a fairy tale full of magic and demons had it right when it said that the deluded moron protagonist of the tall tale is a son of a carpenter but it was just fabrication when it said that he thought he was the son of god?????

It is not as if thinking oneself to be the son of a god is an impossible miracle or magical thing that can be rejected.
Jesus according to gMark claimed to be the son of god... this is totally possible and it indicates that he was a deluded blasphemer and not an observant Jewish preacher.... so why reject that information and yet argue tooth and nail that he was a carpenter and call anyone who points out the illogic of doing that as a crazy person in need of lobotomy by a dead psychiatrist?

Mark 14:61-64

• 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
• 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
• 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

...

 

[dejudge]

I have dealt with this in #791, which I note THAT you are AFRAID to comment on because it blows your absurd exegesis out OF THE water and reduces it to a PILE of detritus fit only for the rubbish HEAP.

Your statement is just established fallacy. I am extremely delighted that you use gMark as your history for Jesus of Nazareth.

Your history book [gMark] has destroyed your own fallacies.

You make reference to QUESTIONS about Jesus in Mark 6.3 but completely forgot that Jesus WALKED on Water WITHOUT question in the very same chapter.

Mark 6

49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:

50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.

Your history book [gMark] shows that Jesus was NOT human.

Now, look in Mark 1 and 9.

For FORTY days Jesus was in the company of Satan and Angels before he TRANSFIGURED.

Without QUESTION Jesus was a Ghost in the myth/fiction fables call gMark and the New Testament.

Mark 1:13

And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

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.

 

[Leumas]

…But we know Ehrman is a psychopath football fan whose hobby is trying to murder Aberdonians and he is heap brainwashed and biased, so he wriggles imbecilic fables. The world's going haywire, I tell you!

Pathetic straw manning of the most disingenuous caliber.

Bart Ehrman did not advocate performing lobotomies on his debaters because they point out his illogical fallacies.

Bias? Lack of objectivity? Compared to attempted mass murder these failings are mere bagatelles! Why are you missing out the most serious criticism, eh?

It is quite fine to have a hobby but when one's hobby drives one to utter irrationality on the same level of Glasgow football fans who go around trying to slaughter Aberdeen fans after they lose a match, then something is really going haywire.

More deliberate and disingenuous straw manning!

Bart Ehrman did not call people who disagree with him crazy to the point where they need treatment from a long dead renowned psychiatrist or a lobotomy.

...But if that's what he's got in his subconscious he needs a visit from Dr Freud. Or a lobotomy.

Bart Ehrman does not consider himself qualified to perform psychiatric diagnosis on an internet forum and has not accused people who disagree with him of being psychologically damaged to the point of irrationality.... labelling people as crazy because they point out his utter sophistry.

... You very evidently have a "thing" about this, which inhibits you from rational consideration of the subject.

but I see it's now a folie à deux, for you have been joined by an approving commentator! Leumas

I consider a person who advocates LOBOTOMIES to be performed on his debaters because he sees it as the only way to stop them from calling out his illogic, to be irrational on at least the same level of irrationality as crazed out football hooligans.

I am sure most educated people would agree that it is hooliganism to call people crazy and prescribe lobotomies for their craziness just because they point the following illogic in one's position

• bare assertions
• wishful thinking
• special pleading
• straw manning
• appeal to biased authority
• circular reasoning
• cherry picking
• argument by ignorance
• argument by incredulity
• ad hominem
• appeal to motive
• poisoning the well
• red herrings

 

[Leumas]

Absolutely. As wiki puts

Despite this there remains a strong consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship that a historical Jesus did live in that area and in that time period.

But that does not make him an "observant Jewish preacher" does it.

... he is also depicted as an observant Jew... There seems here to be a core of material identifying him as a Jewish preacher.

Can you explain how a blaspheming deluded man who thought that he was the son of god and that he will sit on the right hand side of god in heaven could be considered as an "observant Jewish preacher"

Can you explain why you reject the verses below from ALL THREE gospels (not counting gJohn which you have decided to CHERRY PICK out entirely) while YOU KEEP HARPING ON ABOUT THE CARPENTER stuff being true?

There are reasons for supposing that some gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material.

Do you have "reasons for supposing that the gospel material below is less likely to be authentic" than the carpenter stuff you love so much... that is other than bare assertions and wishful thinking and special pleading and appeal to biased authority?

Why are you hedging your bets and suppositions and wishful thinking on the carpenter bit in gMark but not the BLASPHEMER bits in the very same gospel?

There is nothing magical about a guy being deluded to the point of claiming to be the son of god... it is not a magical event or a miracle for a delusional man to claim he is the son of god.

So you cannot apply that criterion here....ALL THREE gospels (in addition to gJohn which you cherry pick out) report that Jesus is a BLASPHEMER who was so deluded to think that he can forgive sins and is the son of God.

Do you have any rational logical reason to reject those verses while you HOLD TENACIOUSLY to the reality of the carpenter verses?

The carpenter verses are only in Matthew (carpenter's son) and Mark (carpenter) and they are contradictory while the blaspheming stuff is THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT.... why so much betting on those two contradictory verses to be true while verses attested to by the entire NT you reject as false?

Why do you not consider the following verses as part of the "core truth"... is it just utter wishful thinking and special pleading on top of piles of other illogical fallacies?

Matthew 16:15-19

• 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
• 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
• 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
• 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
• 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mark 14:61-64

• 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
• 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
• 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Matthew 26:63-66

• 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
• 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
• 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Luke 22:69-71

• 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
• 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
• 22:71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Matthew 11:20-27

• 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
• 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
• ....
• 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
• 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
• 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Mark 2:5- 12

• 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
• 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
• ...
• 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
• 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Matthew 9:2-7

• 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
• ...
• 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
• 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

​

 

[IanS]

The "strong consensus" of belief in Jesus that you are citing from that Wiki quote, is a consensus amongst overwhelmingly religious Christian bible scholars and theologians!

And the point about Bart Ehrman is that he is apparently recognised worldwide as an academic authority on the historicity of Jesus. And yet when he wrote his 2013 book specifically claiming to set out all the evidence which he says makes Jesus a "definite" "certainty" in which "all properly trained scholars on the planet agree with him", he could not actually produce even one credible piece of reliable evidence for anyone ever knowing any human Jesus at all !! ... None! Zero!

Instead the best he could do was to make the absurdly pathetic claim that Jesus must have existed because in the bible it says he had a brother called James!

That is the level of the lack of objectivity and self-interested bias that pervades your claimed "strong consensus".

Bias? Lack of objectivity? Compared to attempted mass murder these failings are mere bagatelles! Why are you missing out the most serious criticism, eh?

It is quite fine to have a hobby but when one's hobby drives one to utter irrationality on the same level of Glasgow football fans who go around trying to slaughter Aberdeen fans after they lose a match, then something is really going haywire.

Which "mass murder" is that? We are talking about Jesus and the biblical writing, remember? So are you talking about the death of Jesus? (if you are talking about Scottish football, then that it is not mentioned at all in the bible).

But are you saying that bible scholars and theologians, people who entered that profession almost always entirely and completely because of their deeply devout belief in Jesus, god and the bible, are not likely to be biased in their beliefs about Jesus & Christianity?

Because if you are you trying to claim that the background and the personal history of bible scholars is impartial and neutral on the subject of Jesus and Christianity, then you demonstrably as wrong as it's possible ever to be.

 

[Craig B]

Which "mass murder" is that? We are talking about Jesus and the biblical writing, remember? So are you talking about the death of Jesus? (if you are talking about Scottish football, then that it is not mentioned at all in the bible).

I hope Leumas will not be too cross with you!

But are you saying that bible scholars and theologians, people who entered that profession almost always entirely and completely because of their deeply devout belief in Jesus, god and the bible, are not likely to be biased in their beliefs about Jesus & Christianity?

Because if you are you trying to claim that the background and the personal history of bible scholars is impartial and neutral on the subject of Jesus and Christianity, then you demonstrably as wrong as it's possible ever to be.

I am saying that the consensus, absent bias, is in favour of HJ. You can argue that those who propose it are biased liars and charlatans if you want. Who can gainsay you if you call people mere liars and frauds?

But to say that stating something different from your opinion is the most wrong thing that it is possible for a human to say, is simply preposterous.

 

[IanS]

A. "Mr X Is a carpenter"

is more likely to be authentic than this one

B.."Mr X created the universe and can walk on water".

But I can think of such reasons, and I would advise Leumas to think about this very hard and maybe he'll guess correctly what they might be.

But you are presenting a completely false choice. Because nobody is being asked to choose only either A or B.

Nobody here (or anywhere else, except perhaps for the most deluded Christians in churches all over the world) has ever suggested that Jesus/God actually created the universe and/or actually walked on water.

And as far as Jesus being a carpenter is concerned, that is only possible if he actually existed! And as has been explained to you (many times), as a matter of indisputable fact, there is actually no evidence of the existence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone at all. None. Zero.

But if you want to know what truly is, as you put it "most likely", then it's extremely likely as a matter of indisputable factual evidence that what the biblical authors wrote about Jesus was packed with untrue fiction, and that their Jesus beliefs came from what had been written centuries before as messiah properties in the OT. That is extremely likely. In fact Paul in particular insistently and repeatedly stresses to his readers that "scripture" was indeed the source of his Jesus beliefs.

In fact, Paul gives no other source at all except for repeatedly citing scripture as his source. And of course, as Randel Helms has shown, the gospel writers were certainly using the OT as a source for their Jesus stories.

 

[IanS]

I am saying that the consensus, absent bias, is in favour of HJ. You can argue that those who propose it are biased liars and charlatans if you want. Who can gainsay you if you call people mere liars and frauds?

But to say that stating something different from your opinion is the most wrong thing that it is possible for a human to say, is simply preposterous.

Well are biblical NT scholars likely to be neutral in their beliefs about Jesus, or not?

And if you say they are likely to be neutral and unbiased, then are you also going to deny that virtually all of them (if not perhaps every last one of them) entered that profession precisely and entirely because of their pre-existing bias and total lack of neutrality as highly committed Christian believers in God, Jesus and the bible?

Because that background and that very specific and devoutly religious personal faith interest, is certainly about as far as it's possible to be from ever being unbiased neutral practitioners in this field.

A few, such as Bart Ehrman, may have lost a great deal of their original religious faith. But afaik, there is no reason to think that the vast majority of New Testament bible scholars remain anything other than practicing Christians (espescially in the USA where afaik, most bible studies courses are taught).

And as Hector Avalos said in the YouTube films that I linked here several times before (and as he probably repeats in his book The End Of Biblical Studies) - even for those few like Bart Ehrman who begin to seriously question their faith, there is a very obvious reason why they are not likely to admit, even to themselves, that Jesus was perhaps never a real person after all. And that is because their career and their livelihood (and that of their families), depends on them keeping their job of lecturing all about Jesus and the bible!


Robert Price interviewing Hector Avalos on subject of neutrality and bias amongst NT Biblical Scholars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOj51_tY4_E&list=PLbHjC5HxXWCmgnnUR-r7pOoYZW7jd1oEA

Hector Avalos lecture, Part One
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o

Hector Avalos Part Two, Audience Q & A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiiPK-FXicc