The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Well, yes Justin does. But so? In the paragraph before, he talks about two advents of Christ:

"... two advents of Christ were predicted to take place,--one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious. and Judge of all"​

"When Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven" obviously refers to the second advent.

The historical Jesus argument is just a blatant farce.

What second advent of an historical Jesus are you talking about?

If Jesus was a real human being he cannot come a second time.

Only Myth Jesus can come two or more times and still be God from the beginning.

When Jesus came the first time from Nazareth he was a Transfiguring water walker but Paul said the LORD came from heaven and was God Creator/

When the son of God CAME to earth he had NO Birth and NO Flesh according to Marcion.

Jesus came as an Apparition for the first time.

The historical Jesus NEVER did come.

The Historical Jesus, a mere man with a human father, is a well known lie according to Irenaeus

 

[Mcreal]

... [Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho] talks about two advents of Christ:

"... two advents of Christ were predicted to take place, --one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious. and Judge of all"​

"When Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven" obviously refers to the second advent.

.
These are reflections on the narratives about the pre-Resurrection appearance and the post-Resurrection appearance?

Which "were predicted to take place"?

• "He would appear ..."
  
• "He would come ..."

 

[Craig B]

What "visions" and when?

You must address that question to maximara who wrote

If anything Paul seem to make a point of using terms to obscure just when the events in his visions supposedly occured.

 

[maximara]

What "events" occur in his visions?

What "events" occur in his visions?

Last Supper for one. Seeing Jesus for another.

Back to dating for a moment we date Paul's writing based on what Luke says Jesus ministry begun. But is we throw that out the timeline becames real flexable.

 

[Craig B]

Last Supper for one. Seeing Jesus for another.

These are, according to you, "events" that occur in Paul's visions. Let's look at Paul's epistles. Here's the Last Supper

Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, 11:23-26, which was likely written before the Gospels, includes a reference to the Last Supper but emphasises the theological basis rather than giving a detailed description of the event or its background.

"For I received of the Lord ... " That's it.

I'll give you it as an "event". OK. But it's described very vaguely, if at all, as a "vision". He "received of the Lord".

He never records "seeing Jesus" on the road to Damascus. Neither does Acts say that. He sees a light. At noonday in Syria!

Paul never refers to his own experience as a ‘conversion’. In fact, in his letters, there is no clear mention of a trip to Damascus and no narrative detailing what took place, as there is in Acts, as we shall see. There is ‘no light, no voice, no companions, no Ananias to interpret the significance of it all.’[ However, the descriptions in Galatians (1:13-17) and Philippians (3:4-7) suggest that what Paul experienced was a change of commitment, values and identity that was sudden and unexpected. Is this what we mean by ‘conversion’?

http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20110125_1.htm

Gal 1:15-17 reads

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

No explicit "vision" there.

 

[GDon]

.
These are reflections on the narratives about the pre-Resurrection appearance and the post-Resurrection appearance?

Which "were predicted to take place"?

• "He would appear ..."
  
• "He would come ..."

Yes. Both advents of Jesus -- pre- and post-Resurrection -- were predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures... at least according to Justin Martyr. So both were future events from that perspective. But Justin is clear elsewhere that Jesus's first advent has already taken place.

 

[GDon]

But what they do shows is that the Christ Myth theory as a general concept is not off in tin foil land (though things like Zeitgeist are there but their are historical Jesus theories just as bonkers)

I agree with that, and so do most critics of the Christ myths. In fact, Ehrman is the one who raises the existence of a historical Jesus to almost certainty.

Unfortunately the "Zeitgeist" movie and its Christ Myth theories originating from Acharya S represent the most popular Christ Myth view out there. Richard Carrier has complained many times that whenever he tries to talk about his own theory, people raise the points in Zeitgeist to him.

On the other hand, both Dr Robert Price and Earl Doherty have endorsed Acharya S's work to a reasonable degree. This doesn't help the other Christ Myth theories striving for credibility.

I agree with point one but not point two. George Wells in Jesus Legend points out all the issue Paul has with regard to the Gospels story which he could (and in some cases should) have used but doesn't. In fact, if you really look as what Paul is writing the time the events he see through visions are indeterminate. If anything Paul seem to make a point of using terms to obscure just when the events in his visions supposedly occured.

I've found the post that explains the evidence for thinking that Jesus was a near contemporary to Paul. I'll add a post tomorrow with the logic outlined.

The one thing about Paul though is that he rarely dates anything in his epistles. That's to do with Jesus as well as with himself and the early church. But this is not unusual for letters in his day. I wrote about this on my website, here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html#Section3

There are many examples of similar early epistles, as I point out in my review. It staggers me that a scholar such as Carrier has not examined the literature of the day to see if Paul is unusual or not on the supposed silence.

 

[dejudge]

Yes. Both advents of Jesus -- pre- and post-Resurrection -- were predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures... at least according to Justin Martyr. So both were future events from that perspective. But Justin is clear elsewhere that Jesus's first advent has already taken place.

You forget that Justin stated the nature of the Jesus who came according to the Scriptures.

You conveniently forget that Justin's Jesus came WITHOUT sexual union.

Please, help us stop the propaganda.

Jesus came as a Ghost in the writings of Justin.

First Apology attributed to Justin Martyr

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

It is extremely clear that Justin's Jesus is a myth/fiction character who NEVER CAME just like the Sons of Jupiter.

Jesus of Nazareth and the Sons of Jupiter are of the SAME substance [mythology and fiction].

The ADVENT of Jesus is a product of FALSE prophesy and BLASPHEMY.

No Jewish Scripture referred to the Son of a Ghost.

 

[dejudge]

On the other hand, both Dr Robert Price and Earl Doherty have endorsed Acharya S's work to a reasonable degree. This doesn't help the other Christ Myth theories striving for credibility.

Jesus of Nazareth is actually described as a myth/fiction character in ALL Existing MANUSCRIPTS.

You forget that Christians of antiquity did state their Jesus was BORN of a Ghost.

You forget that Jesus was the Lord God from heaven in the Pauline Corpus.

People who argue for an historical Jesus use the very same Christian Bible a major source of fiction, mythology, forgeries and false attribution.

Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any real existence.

 

[Craig B]

You forget that Justin stated the nature of the Jesus who came according to the Scriptures.

But the Historical Jesus didn't.

You conveniently forget that Justin's Jesus came WITHOUT sexual union.

But the Historical Jesus didn't.

Jesus came as a Ghost in the writings of Justin.

But the Historical Jesus didn't.

It is extremely clear that Justin's Jesus is a myth/fiction character who NEVER CAME just like the Sons of Jupiter.

But the Historical Jesus isn't.

Jesus of Nazareth and the Sons of Jupiter are of the SAME substance [mythology and fiction].

But the Historical Jesus isn't.

The ADVENT of Jesus is a product of FALSE prophesy and BLASPHEMY. No Jewish Scripture referred to the Son of a Ghost.

Therefore the Historical Jesus is not an invention derived from the Tanakh. Thanks.

 

[dejudge]

I agree with that, and so do most critics of the Christ myths. In fact, Ehrman is the one who raises the existence of a historical Jesus to almost certainty.

Ehrman argues that his sources, the books of the NT, are riddled with historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions, forgeries or false attribution and events which most likely did not happen.

Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is probably the very worst argument for an HJ since Ehrman openly shows that his sources are NOT credible.

Ehrman exposed that stories of Jesus which appear historically plausible are indeed fiction and would not have happened as described like the accounts of the census, the Triumphal entry, the trial under the Sanhedrin or Pilate and the Barabbas exchange.

Essentially, "Did Jesus Exist?" actually documented the hopeless fallacious HJ argument.

"Did Jesus Exist" is the "flagship" of logical fallacious arguments at any level.

 

[dejudge]

You conveniently forget that Justin's Jesus came WITHOUT sexual union.

But the Historical Jesus didn't.

The historical Jesus DIDN'T exist.

The Bible is about Jesus of Nazareth who was a transfiguring water walking Son of a God, God Creator, the Lord God from heaven who ascended in a cloud AFTER the resurrection.

Your HJ is NOTHING but imagination.

Your HJ is PLAUSIBLE FICTION.

 

[Craig B]

The historical Jesus DIDN'T exist.

The Bible is about Jesus of Nazareth who was a transfiguring water walking Son of a God, God Creator, the Lord God from heaven who ascended in a cloud AFTER the resurrection.

Your HJ is NOTHING but imagination.

Your HJ is PLAUSIBLE FICTION.

But Justin's Jesus DID exist? The CLOUD-ascending God Jesus did EXIST? The water WALKING Jesus did exist?

 

[Leumas]

But the Historical Jesus didn't.
But the Historical Jesus didn't.
But the Historical Jesus didn't.
But the Historical Jesus isn't.
But the Historical Jesus isn't.

Therefore the Historical Jesus is not an invention derived from the Tanakh. Thanks.

You are absolutely right.... your historical Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with the Buybull.

Your historical Jesus has as much to do with Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus Manuel José Gonzales de Valladolid has to do with him.

Your historical Jesus is not an invention derived from the Tanakh but he nevertheless is an invention from your imagination, or more correctly the MACHINATIONS of the biased authority you follow, derived right out of

• wishful thinking
• bare assertions
• cherry picking
• special pleading
• appeal to biased vested authority
• false attribution
• argument from ignorance
• argument from popularity
• argument from incredulity
• argument from credulity
• circular reasoning

And then they add injury to the above insult to reason by maligning any opposition to the preceding litany of illogical fallacies compounding further sophistry by flinging at them vicious

• ad hominems
• poisoning the well
• appeal to motive
• straw manning
• red herrings

And then you come along masquerading as an internet long distance quack-analyst and diagnose them as crazy and prescribe for them lobotomies.

So although historical Jesus is not invented from the same source as the NT Jesus, he does however share a similar origin as that of Jesus Christ.

The IMAGINATIONS and MACHINATIONS of sophists and hucksters trying to bamboozle hapless laymen.​

 

[IanS]

.
These are reflections on the narratives about the pre-Resurrection appearance and the post-Resurrection appearance?

Which "were predicted to take place"?

• "He would appear ..."
  
• "He would come ..."

Yes. Both advents of Jesus -- pre- and post-Resurrection -- were predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures... at least according to Justin Martyr. So both were future events from that perspective. But Justin is clear elsewhere that Jesus's first advent has already taken place.

What was it that Justin "clearly said elsewhere" about "Jesus's first advent (has) having already taken place"? Can you quote the passage that you are thinking of?

Of course Justin Martyr would presumably not in any case have personally ever known anything about Jesus "appearing", except for whatever was already said as a matter of earlier Christian religious legend. I.e.. there is no evidence that Justin Martyr had ever met Jesus!

 

[Leumas]

I recommend this video for any people utterly bewildered by all the wrangling and vitriolic squabbling over RUBBISH and words with one letter difference and what appears to be "scholarly" analysis of what is no more than the 1001 Arabian Nights equivalent of tall tales and fables and fairy tales and myths.

If you wish to clear all the confusion and shed off the pall of sophistry and illogic being laid on people's brains then watch this video (and part 2).

Also watch minute 0:58:00 to 1:02:30 for a very good description of how the FANFIC of Jesus tries to bamboozle people.

Watch minutes 0:40:00 to 0:47:00 for how forgery and circular reasoning are the mainstay of apologetics.

Part 1


Part 2

 

[Craig B]

So although historical Jesus is not invented from the same source as the NT Jesus, he does however share a similar origin as that of Jesus Christ.

The IMAGINATIONS and MACHINATIONS of sophists and hucksters trying to bamboozle hapless laymen.​

Is that what Higher Criticism is? Trying to bamboozle people. What for?

 

[maximara]

I agree with that, and so do most critics of the Christ myths. In fact, Ehrman is the one who raises the existence of a historical Jesus to almost certainty.

Unfortunately the "Zeitgeist" movie and its Christ Myth theories originating from Acharya S represent the most popular Christ Myth view out there. Richard Carrier has complained many times that whenever he tries to talk about his own theory, people raise the points in Zeitgeist to him.

Carrier points people to a blog review of "Zeitgeist" "Zeitgeist" is just painful to deal with as there is so much wrong there.

On the other hand, both Dr Robert Price and Earl Doherty have endorsed Acharya S's work to a reasonable degree. This doesn't help the other Christ Myth theories striving for credibility.

Based on D.M. Murdock (Acharya S.), Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. Stellar House Publishing. that endorsement comes with a caveat.

Acharya S. does have good points but it is far better to go to the sources she is referencing even with something that is reasonably straightforward like The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled then to go with her conclusions directly.

Much the same is true of Joseph Wheless 1930 Forgery in Christianity; there are some good ideas in there but you have to be careful on how you use them.

But the only reason that some of the more off the wall ideas get any milage is because the evidence for a historical Jesus is so poor and the efforts to save the questionable stuff come off as absurd and in some cases outright insane (Thallus) that anyone who actually sits down and thinks on the matter can see the holes.

Paul rambles about a Jesus he sees only in visions. If there was a real man he doesn't seem to be in these writings.

Four of what is thought to be as many as 50 ( ) by no one knows show and no one really knows when in the 70-130 CE period.

Every piece of supporting evidence has either been tampered with or is so late as to be useless.

That in a nut shell is what we have got and the fact part of the historical Jesus group is comparing this pathetic joke to the freaking Holocaust and Moon Land (which Ehrman on three separate occasions I know of has done) shows shows anyone who actually looks at the material that something is way wrong with the historical Jesus position for them to create such an emotional, as well as IMHO intellectually and morally bankrupt, strawman.

 

[dejudge]

But Justin's Jesus DID exist? The CLOUD-ascending God Jesus did EXIST? The water WALKING Jesus did exist?

What bizarre illogical questions!!!

God Creator must have existed based on your absurdities.

Justin's God was the Creator.

You have confirmed that the HJ argument is probably the very worst argument known to mankind.

Justin's Jesus was the Logos and born WITHOUT sexual union.

Justin's Jesus was FICTION/MYTH.

 

[Leumas]

..

That in a nut shell is what we have got and the fact part of the historical Jesus group is comparing this pathetic joke to the freaking Holocaust and Moon Land (which Ehrman on three separate occasions I know of has done) shows shows anyone who actually looks at the material that something is way wrong with the historical Jesus position for them to create such an emotional, as well as IMHO intellectually and morally bankrupt, strawman.

...I converted from agnosticism to theism, and then to a liberal Christianity (I won't go into reasons why here). Even though I'd never thought the Bible was anything other than a collection of myths and fables, ...

It is an utterly shameful and preposterous reversal of all sanity and logic and rationality that people who WORSHIP a god they fashioned for themselves out of what they fully realize and aver is nothing but a collection of myths and fairy tales turn around and start DECRYING people who point out that their FABRICATED GOD is nothing but a mythical character out of fairy tales and call them kooks.

Even the worst most absurd and kooky mythicists' writings could not even begin to approach the vicinity of the levels of ABSURDITIES AND ATROCITIES AND INSULTS TO ALL THAT IS SANE AND LOGICAL contained in the dementia called the Buybull.

Even more ABSURD is to come along and try to argue that this PROTAGONIST PERSONA in a FARCICAL FAIRY TALE of fables and myths was a real human albeit without any of the magic and imbecilic superstitions attributed to him in the ludicrous irrationality called the Buybull which the very same arguers for the reality of this MYTH are more than aware is nothing but a collection of fables.

This world is an arrant lunatic asylum of a TOPSY TURVY ALLICE IN WONDERLAND through the rabbit's hole cuckoo's nest if CRAZINESS like Christianity is argued for as if it were SANITY and people who point out the INSANITY of it all no matter how imperfect their argument happens to be are considered to be eccentric kooks.