The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

The argument that Pauline writings are authentic and composed c 50-60 CE may be just as bad or even worse..

No there is some degree of logic behind saying that seven of the epistles were written c 50-60 CE and where dictated-wrote by one author.

You have confirmed that your argument that Pauline writings are authentic and composed c 50-60 CE is just as bad or even worse than the HJ argument.

There is no evidence of an historical Paul and no manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated to to the 1st century.

In effect, there is a very large DEGREE of logical fallacy behind YOUR BASELESS argument [VOID of Evidence].

Actually there were MULTIPLE SECTS of Christians who did NOT worship men as Gods.

The SUBSECT of Christians, believers of Jesus the Christ, ONLY WORSHIP God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

The SUBSECT, the Jesus cult of Christians, did NOT worship any human being as Gods.

Paul gives conflicting views as to what his visionary Jesus is. One place Jesus is a man born of the seed of David, another he is a demi-god, and elsewhere he seems to be god himself.

What conflict are you talking about?

You forget that the Pauline Jesus was a Ghost/God/man.

You forget that the Pauline Corpus is comnpatible with the TEACHINGS of the Church that Jesus and God are ONE and the same substance.

You have completely forgotten that the Pauline Jesus is in conflict with history.



1. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was the Lord God from heaven.

2. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was KILLED by the Jews.

3. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was made a Ghost/Spirit.

4. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was God's OWN Son.

5. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was God Creator.

6. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus is EQUAL to God.

7. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus has the very same NOMINA SACRA as GOD.

8. In the Pauline Corpus the author got information from Jesus AFTER DEATH.

9. In the Pauline Corpus the author was SEEN of Jesus AFTER DEATH.

10. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was NOT a man.


The Pauline Jesus as expected is NOT in conflict with MYTH/FICTION.


The Jesus cult Christians ONLY WORSHIP MYTH/FICTION characters as Gods.

The Pauline Jesus MUST be a MYTH/FICTION character.

 

[IanS]

He was an earthly descendant of David, made son of God through the resurrection, as David was through his anointing as king. Words could not be clearer, and the messianic "son of God" is here the same as was applied to David and Solomon in the Tanakh. We've been through all this before, by the way.

Afaik modern bible scholarship says that David was quite likely no more than a fictional character from OT religious legend (along with Moses, Solomon and Abraham, who also likely never existed as real people). In which case you are claiming that Jesus must have existed because he was a family descendent of an imaginary person ... and your evidence for any such thing is religious prophecy from the old testament, as if that could ever be regarded as s source of credible historical fact.

You are guilty of using religious fiction from an age of ignorance, and trying to claim that as your evidence for belief in an unknown, un-evidenced supernatural god called "Yehoshua".

You are just quoting the bible to us.

 

[Belz...]

Having irrational "logic" pointed out as being irrational is not insulting.

Jack Chick IS INSANE. You're saying that I'm making him look rational by comparison. That's not saying that my logic doesn't work, it's saying that I'm worse than a madman.



My point is that if the definition of "evidence" is "observation that supports a hypothesis", then it stays evidence for that hypothesis even if another hypothesis is better supported and thus gets the consensus.

You can say it's wrong, but how is that irrational ?

 

[Belz...]

You see in their dictionary evidence means any bloody thing they wish it to be so as to keep alleviating their cognitive dissonance with as much chicanery and skullduggery as they could possibly get away with.

1) Who's "they" ? Atheists ?
2) I quoted from an actual dictionary. Where do you get your meaning for words ?

Then you won't mind sharing that extra biblical evidence with us.

What ? I actually named one. How can you read posts and then act as if you didn't ?



I really don't understand this. If we were discussing any other topic no one would be this passionate about it. Seems religion is still a hot button.

 

[tsig]

1) Who's "they" ? Atheists ?
2) I quoted from an actual dictionary. Where do you get your meaning for words ?



What ? I actually named one. How can you read posts and then act as if you didn't ?



I really don't understand this. If we were discussing any other topic no one would be this passionate about it. Seems religion is still a hot button.

Very passionate post.

 

[tsig]

None of those are related to religion, are they ? I think you are deliberately missing the point, here.



In the case of the historical Jesus, it was informed by a personal need for Jesus to be not real, hence my question.



Because I'm not satistifed that he was a fairy tale and nothing more. In case I wasn't clear before: I'm not accepting Jesus as a real historical person. Nor am I rejecting this possibility. I'm simply saying that there is, actually, some evidence to work with, some of which is outside of the bibble.

Then you won't mind sharing that extra biblical evidence with us.

1) Who's "they" ? Atheists ?
2) I quoted from an actual dictionary. Where do you get your meaning for words ?



What ? I actually named one. How can you read posts and then act as if you didn't ?



I really don't understand this. If we were discussing any other topic no one would be this passionate about it. Seems religion is still a hot button.

Above is the post I responded to, perhaps you could point out where you named a source? I can read posts but I cannot read what isn't there.

 

[Belz...]

Very passionate post.

Thank you. I do get emotional when I'm compared to insane people.

Above is the post I responded to, perhaps you could point out where you named a source? I can read posts but I cannot read what isn't there.

Here's the original post I made:

Depends what you consider 'evidence'. Are the Josephus passages evidence ? Even if they are not genuine ? Is Christianity itself not evidence ? Even if it turns out to be based on a total myth ? After all, the motions of the stars is evidence for geocentrism. It's just that the preponderence of evidence points to heliocentrism.

The bibble is the major part of the evidence, but I disagree that it is the whole of it, under any definition of 'evidence' that I know of. Do I find said evidence convincing ? To a degree; probably not to Craig's degree, but more than Maximara's. However, what I won't do is either deny categorically that the evidence is there, nor will I categorically claim that it's solid.

Here's the point again: if we accept the definition of "evidence" that I posted earlier, then any observation that fits a hypothesis is evidence for that hypothesis. Therefore those passages from Josephus are evidence outside of the bibble, countering Leumas' claim. I'm quite happy to use a different definition of evidence, however, provided that it's reasonable and that we can more-or-less all agree to it. Personally I like going with dictionary definitions, but I'm open to suggestions.

 

[dejudge]

He was an earthly descendant of David, made son of God through the resurrection, as David was through his anointing as king.

Your statement is quite absurd and contrary to the TEACHINGS of the Church which Canonised the Pauline Corpus.

The NT and the Pauline Corpus do not support the Heresy that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.

The NT and Pauline Corpus was used in antiquity to argue AGAINST an historical Jesus.

The Pauline writer specifically stated that Jesus was the Lord from heaven.

Jesus of the NT was God the Ghost, God the father and God the Son simultaneously.

1 Corinthians 15:45;--- And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

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

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

Philippians 2---5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

Romans 8:3 ---For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

The Jesus cult of Christians do NOT worship men as Gods.

The Jesus cult of Christians ONLY worship MYTH/FICTION characters as Gods.

Examine the CREED of the Jesus cult of Christians.

They worship ONLY GOD the Ghost, God the father and GOD the Son.

Jesus was a MYTH/FICTION character in the Pauline Corpus.

 

[maximara]

Jack Chick IS INSANE. You're saying that I'm making him look rational by comparison. That's not saying that my logic doesn't work, it's saying that I'm worse than a madman.

Here's the point again: if we accept the definition of "evidence" that I posted earlier,

And THERE is the first problem.

then any observation that fits a hypothesis is evidence for that hypothesis.

No. All that shows is that the hypothesis you have formed can explain your observation.

It is when you get to observations that require patches to the original hypothesis to keep it going to point the system gets ridiculously complicated or uses ad hoc handwaving that you know it is time to go back to the hypothesis drawing board.

The same thing occurs when an observation of something that the hypothesis says should not occur.

Aristotle's Earth sun universe had buckets of problems explaining retrograde motion of the observable planets and outright "broke" regarding comets.

Newtonian cosmology had problems with magnetism and "broke" with regards to how light behaves.

Therefore those passages from Josephus are evidence outside of the bibble,

Potentially forged material is not evidence.

Otherwise Vortigern and Rowena would be evidence of a lost Shakespeare play. The same is true of the Hitler Diaries giving a "true" inside to the mind of Adolf Hitler.

Jack Chick uses the like of Alberto Rivera and Creationist science ala Kent Hovind much of which when it is not outright lying is so full of misdirection it might as well be a David Copperfield show.

Look at the insane bloody knife analogy were were given. It was akin suggesting that if someone was killed today by a gun that was last owned by Edward Teach then that would be evidence that Edward Teach did the crime despite Edward Teach being dead since 1718.

To even consider such a position is

As I said if one has to resort to logic that makes Jack Chick's stuff look rational you know the position has problems.

The bloody knife analogy is akin to saying ALL the evidence presented for the Bermuda Triangle or Ancient Astronauts is still valid even after all the flaws, misrepresentations, and fraud are revealed. Might as well say The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is valid evidence of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

Heck, here is "evidence" of a secret meeting between FDR and Hitler in 1934:

http://orig00.deviantart.net/d84e/f/2013/033/7/d/hitlerandfdr_by_animadefensor-d5tnphi.png

So we are dealing with logic as bad as Jack Chick's

 

[Craig B]

There is Philippians 2:5-6 KJV. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Ok how can any being be equal to God if they are not God?

Not Paul's words.

Philippians 2:1. Is it not generally agreed that Paul is not the author of this passage, and that it is part of a free-standing hymn, known as the "Kenosis Hymn"?

But this is also true of the other text you cite.

Then you have Colossians 1:16 which in English is a headache. Is the 'him' there the Father or the Son?

Not Paul's words.

The starting point for much discussion relating to Colossians 1:15-20, and in particular, the suggestion that it represents an early Christian hymn or confession, is the assumption made by many since the nineteenth century that the style of this section is unusual. The argument runs along two lines. On the one hand, it is maintained that liturgical material possesses its own distinctive style which, presumably, can be recognized as such. On the other hand, it has been argued that the style of these verses is significantly different from regular Pauline epistolary prose and therefore evidence that Paul did not compose them himself, but rather quoted them from some other source.

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol15/hymn_balchin.pdf

Or they could have been interpolated into manuscripts from later sources, as some commentators have suggested; and I think that's probable.

 

[maximara]

Or they could have been interpolated into manuscripts from later sources, as some commentators have suggested; and I think that's probable.

Oh I agree that Paul has been 'fiddled with'. After all from what I have read NONE of the seven epistles formally credited to Paul is actually a single letter but rather two or more letters edited together.

Of course Paul's seven epistles are little trips to nowhere with regards to a historical Jesus

 

[Belz...]

And THERE is the first problem.

Going with dictionary definitions is a problem ?

Before I address anything else we're going to have to solve this issue.

What's YOUR definition of evidence, and why is it better than the dictionary's ?

 

[dejudge]

Not Paul's words........ this is also true of the other text you cite......Not Paul's words.

You have been trapped by your own absurdities. You are now claiming that supposed authentic letters attributed to Paul contains words that are not from Paul.

You have confirmed that Pauline writings are products of forgeries or false attribution.

The letters of the HANDWRITTEN manuscripts of Pauline Corpus dated to the 2nd century or later cannot be shown to be PAUL'S WORD if it is assumed he lived in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

To this day no-one can find a single shred of evidence to corroborate an historical Paul.

All we have are known pack of lies, mythology, forgeries or false attribution called the Pauline Corpus with Ghost stories of the Lord God from heaven.

The Jesus cult of Christians who Canonised the Pauline Corpus ONLY Worship Myth/Fiction characters as God.

The Pauline Jesus was a GHOST/GOD/MAN from heaven.

 

[Craig B]

You have been trapped by your own absurdities. You are now claiming that supposed authentic letters attributed to Paul contains words that are not from Paul.

Yes. That must be very difficult for you, and I apologise for presenting you with such a brain-numbingly complex concept. Not I alone, but scholars in general, believe that Paul, or perhaps one of his early copyists, has included words from hymns extolling Jesus within the texts of Pauline epistles.

One text containing quotations from other texts! I know that's very hard to grasp. But that seems to be how it is. Sorry.

 

[Belz...]

You have been trapped by your own absurdities. You are now claiming that supposed authentic letters attributed to Paul contains words that are not from Paul.

A completely absurd concept called "reporting", "stealing" or "copying".

 

[Leumas]

Going with dictionary definitions is a problem ?

Before I address anything else we're going to have to solve this issue.

What's YOUR definition of evidence, and why is it better than the dictionary's ?

I think instead of deploying sophistry and language and semantics chicanery it would behoove you to get yourself some science books and logic books and also read up on something called the Scientific Method.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Lack of sufficient education or ability to reason properly, logically, rationally and systematically so as to be able to fathom that delusions, feelings acquired by gastrointestinal movements and information gleaned from fairy tales and myths do not an evidence make.

Ah... also ... proposals for evidence which have already been proven false do not continue to be evidence or worthy of discussing any longer as evidence regardless of how fake or forged or irrelevant or untrue it has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO BE.

Ah... also... it is imbecility to refuse to evaluate what one considers to be evidence and to continue to hold on to it, well, religiously without any evaluation and to refuse to consider any rebuttal of said evidence.

Ah... one more thing... the proposal of evidence that is being evaluated is not itself evidence for itself.

 

[Belz...]

__

None of that answers the question, which wasn't directed at you anyway. I have already posted the dictionary definition of evidence. I thought, naively I guess, that we would all agree to it, but I guess I underestimated the MJ woo mindset.

Because, yeah, as someone who's been pretty much on the fence on this issue in recent years, the behaviour of the MJ proponents here is apalling and childish.

Anyway, fine, let's get _another_ definition and work with it, but stop dancing around. If you can't provide one, then I'll go with the dictionary definition and you'll be right where you started: wrong.

 

[Craig B]

@Belz

Obviously you just aren't smart enough to discuss such things with Leumas, because it seems you suffer from

Lack of sufficient education or ability to reason properly, logically, rationally and systematically so as to be able to fathom that delusions, feelings acquired by gastrointestinal movements and information gleaned from fairy tales and myths do not an evidence make.

These are substantial handicaps to sound reasoning.

 

[tsig]

None of that answers the question, which wasn't directed at you anyway. I have already posted the dictionary definition of evidence. I thought, naively I guess, that we would all agree to it, but I guess I underestimated the MJ woo mindset.

Because, yeah, as someone who's been pretty much on the fence on this issue in recent years, the behaviour of the MJ proponents here is apalling and childish.
Anyway, fine, let's get _another_ definition and work with it, but stop dancing around. If you can't provide one, then I'll go with the dictionary definition and you'll be right where you started: wrong.

You're going to decide there was an HJ based on the perceived behavior of posters on this forum?

 

[dejudge]

None of that answers the question, which wasn't directed at you anyway. I have already posted the dictionary definition of evidence. I thought, naively I guess, that we would all agree to it, but I guess I underestimated the MJ woo mindset.

What nonsense you write!!!

You have no idea that the NT is evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of myth/fiction.

Look at some of the MASSIVE amount of evidence for Myth/fiction Jesus based on the meaning of evidence in the DICTIONARY

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.



Mark 6:49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out.

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.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.


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

The Jesus story is NOT evidence of history but of myth and fiction.

The Jesus cult of Christians WORSHIPED MYTH/FICTION characters as GODS.

Jesus of Nazareth MUST be a MYTH/FICTION character in order to be PLAUSIBLE.

Only a MYTH/FICTION character can be believed to GOD CREATOR by the Jesus cult.

A real known DEAD Jesus is theologically useless.

Who would worship a KNOWN DEAD and ROTTEN body as a God, Lord and Savior?

The HJ argument is the very worst argument known to mankind since it relies on ADMITTED diecredited books of the NT packed with fiction, mythology, discrepancies, contradictions, forgeries or false attribution and events which did not and could not have happened.