The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

You are merely speculating. Speculation is useless.

Your claim is imaginative fiction. You have ZERO evidence to support your imagination.

Of course, Philo did not write what you imagined because your imaginative modern invention NEVER happened.

Let's get this right. I'm saying that Philo did NOT write about meeting Peter in Rome because Peter wasn't in Rome. But you seem to be saying that Philo NOT writing about meeting Peter didn't happen. Does that mean I invented Philo not writing what he didn't write? And it's a modern invention that Philo never wrote about meeting Peter?

I've said it twice, but it needs saying again. One day, dejudge, you will be Pope.

Your story is not true. You made it up in an attempt to historicise your imagined Jesus and companions.

So I made up a story that Peter never went to Rome in order to historicise Peter? What a strange thing for me to have done.

 

[dejudge]

Let's get this right. I'm saying that Philo did NOT write about meeting Peter in Rome because Peter wasn't in Rome. But you seem to be saying that Philo NOT writing about meeting Peter didn't happen. Does that mean I invented Philo not writing what he didn't write? And it's a modern invention that Philo never wrote about meeting Peter?

Philo could not have written about your imaginative modern fictional accounts of Peter and Paul.

Your story NEVER happened.

I've said it twice, but it needs saying again. One day, dejudge, you will be Pope. So I made up a story that Peter never went to Rome in order to historicise Peter? What a strange thing for me to have done.

Again, you write more fiction. You can't even remember the fiction you wrote about Peter and Paul in a matter of minutes.

You have no historical evidence for an HJ and believe your own imagined fiction stories.

 

[Craig B]

Philo could not have written about your imaginative modern fictional accounts of Peter and Paul.

Your story NEVER happened.

This is very strange. I'm stating that Philo wrote nothing about Peter or Paul. I don't have any "story" about Philo writing about them.

It's you, not I, and not Philo, who raves nonsense about Peter and Paul being Bishops of Rome and writing the Codex Vaticanus and suchlike balderdash.

 

[Belz...]

What bizarre nonsense and intellectual dishonesty you post.

You don't like the meaning of "consensus" in the dictionary!!!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

consensus--a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

Speaking of dishonesty, why did you omit the second definition in your link?

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

 

[Joey McGee]

Now, you even consider the dictionary as ignorance.

Childish, and hilarious!

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

I dare you to edit this article. I think it would be funny if you tried.

I am merely exposing that you have no historical evidence for the HJ argument and put forward the well known fallacy that there is a consensus.

I'm not really interested in debating the evidence, the consensus in academia is a fact. It's fair to argue that this isn't evidence that it is absolutely true, but it's impossible to argue that there is no consensus.

Scholars have NEVER EVER conceded at any time in the history of the Quest for an HJ that Jesus did exist as a mere man with a human father.

NEVER EVER? Why is "never" insufficient? Are you trying to impress me?

In fact, Christian cults and the Roman Government of antiquity have conceded that Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost AT the Council of NICEA and also in 381 at Constantianople.

Wow... we're talking about today's modern academics at respectable institutions in the Western world.

You have been writing so much ignorance and fiction that you don't realise that people here know the history of the QUEST for an HJ.

I couldn't give a **** less what "the people here" think about the QUEST!!!11!! They're wrong. And there is literally nothing in the world riding on this being proven one way or the other. Not only do I have nothing personally invested in it, I can't see how it will affect the world at all.

The historical Jesus was a known lie since at least the 2nd century.

[/QUOTE]Did you really have to bold this? So, because people thought he didn't exist from the beginning that's proof that he didn't? Is that supposed to impress me? I thought you were hard on logical fallacies...

This is truly funny!

 

[dejudge]

This is very strange. I'm stating that Philo wrote nothing about Peter or Paul. I don't have any "story" about Philo writing about them.

You can't even remember your own fiction story. This is an excerpt of your imaginative baseless invention.

"Peter was recruited into these tales to indicate that there were no differences between Paul and the surviving companions of Jesus".

You have no historical evidence for your supposed Paul, Jesus and surviving companions.

Philo wrote nothing about Paul, Jesus and surviving companions.

It's you, not I, and not Philo, who raves nonsense about Peter and Paul being Bishops of Rome and writing the Codex Vaticanus and such like balderdash.

Again, you write more fiction.

It is you who invented a story that "Peter was recruited into these tales to indicate that there were no differences between Paul and the surviving companions of Jesus".

All you have done is to replace ancient myth fables with your penultimate amazing modern fiction.

 

[Joey McGee]

You have only confirmed the HJ argument is a farce.

Instead of presenting historical evidence for HJ you put out the well established propaganda that there was a consensus for an HJ.

This is so ********** up and stupid. It's not "propaganda". What is being propagandized? Whether or not he was a real person is not a big deal, it's all ******** and should be forgotten by humanity. It's a historical curiosity. It's a simple yes or no question. I guess it is impossible for you to imagine that there are people who are just doing their jobs and answering the question with the best known methods.

We know the real consensus of Scholars [Christian or not, for or against HJ].

The consensus among Scholars is that there is little or NO historical evidence for an HJ

OK, should be easy for you to show that this consensus exists by finding expressions about it from the scholars themselves, as is obviously very easy to find for anyone who googles consensus historical Jesus the other way.

and the NT is riddled with discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems, forgeries, false attribution and events which most likely did not happen.

This is certainly true. There is no mutual exclusivity, perhaps your inability to separate the accuracy of the bible with the fact that a man probably existed in real life and it's just ******** stories about him.

Based on the consensus and the evidence from antiquity Jesus was most likely a myth/fiction character who NEVER had any real existence.

Where is the evidence of this consensus? Should be incredibly easy for you to demonstrate.

 

[Craig B]

You can't even remember your own fiction story. This is an excerpt of your imaginative baseless invention.

You have no historical evidence for your supposed Paul, Jesus and surviving companions.

Your statements display no understanding. I wrote "Peter was recruited into these tales to indicate that there were no differences between Paul and the surviving companions of Jesus".

But the tales are fictitious. I am not arguing that later Christian stories about Peter have any historical value. However, it is a matter of fact that later Christian writers invented stories about Peter and Paul together in Rome. It is you who accept this drivel, not I. For it is you who call them Bishops of Rome and tell us that they preached a transfiguring water-walking son of a ghost.

Philo wrote nothing about Paul, Jesus and surviving companions.

Good. We agree on that

 

[Mcreal]

Richard Carrier has a blog-post on Euhemerization -

"Euhemerus took celestial (ahistorical) gods (Zeus and Uranus) and then turned them into historical 'men'. Not the other way around. Therefore, anyone who does that is doing what Euhemerus did. They are therefore 'euhemerizing' a god. Just as Euhemerus 'euhemerized' Zeus and Uranus."

" ... making a fake history out of a supernatural story"

"Euhemerized gods are always historically non-existent."​

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Mcreal
Joey McGee appeals to authority and appeals to tradition.

Appeal to tradition is just stupid, I'm not appealing to authority at all, I'm just pointing out what the consensus is in the relevant fields of academia.

Which is appeal to authority and appeal to numbers; and does also involve a component of tradition.

I really don't care whether he did or not, but I notice that there are people who really, really need to believe that he did not at all, and I find it funny.

For me, whether or not he existed has absolutely no bearing on my life, or how I think about the religion, or the rest of the planet. For some people, they don't just have a lot invested in it emotionally, it's central to their worldview. I didn't know this was such a big deal and so many people were off the rails about it. This thread has shown me things. I am going to do my best to forget about it now.

Which is weird. why are you so invested in it, then??

It is best to use premises about evidence for Jesus, joined as arguments, to make the point.

I'm not really interested in debating the evidence ...

which is also weird.

 

[dejudge]

This is so ********** up and stupid. It's not "propaganda". What is being propagandized? Whether or not he was a real person is not a big deal, it's all ******** and should be forgotten by humanity. It's a historical curiosity. It's a simple yes or no question. I guess it is impossible for you to imagine that there are people who are just doing their jobs and answering the question with the best known methods.

You have no historical evidence for an historical Jesus. All you have are so************** up and stupid.

Scholars using the evidence [ *********** up stories]and the best methodology argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

OK, should be easy for you to show that this consensus exists by finding expressions about it from the scholars themselves, as is obviously very easy to find for anyone who googles consensus historical Jesus the other way.

You have exposed that you have little or no knowledge of Scholarship.

Scholars, across the board,[ Christians, Non-Christians, For and against HJ] have accepted that there is little or NO historical evidence of an HJ and that the NT is fundamentally riddled with fiction/mythology, forgeries or false attribution.

There is no mutual exclusivity, perhaps your inability to separate the accuracy of the bible with the fact that a man probably existed in real life and it's just ******** UP STUPID stories about him.Where is the evidence of this consensus? Should be incredibly easy for you to demonstrate.

All you have are just ********** up stories of Jesus.

Please read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Bart Ehrman shows that virtually every story of Jesus [plausible or not] is probably non-historical.

Even though Bart Ehrman argues for an HJ he still agrees with those who argue for an MJ like Carrier that the NT is riddled with historical problems, and events that most likely did not happen.

The consensus is solidly supported by the evidence from antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth was probably a figure of fiction and mythology based on ************UP STUPID stories of Jesus in and out the NT.

 

[Craig B]

Richard Carrier has a blog-post on Euhemerization -

"Euhemerus took celestial (ahistorical) gods (Zeus and Uranus) and then turned them into historical 'men'. Not the other way around. Therefore, anyone who does that is doing what Euhemerus did. They are therefore 'euhemerizing' a god. Just as Euhemerus 'euhemerized' Zeus and Uranus."

" ... making a fake history out of a supernatural story"

"Euhemerized gods are always historically non-existent."​

but deified men are often historically existent. And that is what is being discussed.

 

[dejudge]

Your statements display no understanding. I wrote "Peter was recruited into these tales to indicate that there were no differences between Paul and the surviving companions of Jesus".

But the tales are fictitious. I am not arguing that later Christian stories about Peter have any historical value. However, it is a matter of fact that later Christian writers invented stories about Peter and Paul together in Rome. It is you who accept this drivel, not I. For it is you who call them Bishops of Rome and tell us that they preached a transfiguring water-walking son of a ghost.

Good. We agree on that

I do not agree with your fiction story that "Peter was recruited into these tales to indicate that there were no differences between Paul and the surviving companions of Jesus"

You have manipulated those same admitted fiction stories as historical evidence for your un-evidence Paul, Jesus and surviving companions.

In fact, in the myth fables of apologetics Peter was in Rome BEFORE Paul so you have invented another fiction story because you don't like the one from the Christians.

In the myth fables called the New Testament and Apologetics , Peter was in Rome around 43 CE and Paul went there around c 62 CE.

Fiction is fiction even when it is invented in the 21st century by a non-Christian.

I have no interest in your imaginative modern fiction stories. Your stories don't make sense and are not even plausible.

Christians of antiquity have already admitted THEIR JESUS was born of a Ghost, was God from the beginning, was from heaven, God's Own Son and of the same substance as a Ghost.

Jesus was a myth/fiction character from the beginning like Romulus or Adam.

 

[dejudge]

but deified men are often historically existent. And that is what is being discussed.

But, people of the Roman Empire did believe mythological characters were historically existent.

That is what is being discussed.

The writer under the name of Tacitus believed Myth Romulus was really a king or founder of Rome.

And not only Romulus but Jupiter, Hercules, Diana, Apollo and other myth Gods.

Bur what is even more significant is the BELIEF that Myth characters were actually historically existent was not confined to the illiterate and unlearned.

The very learned Roman writers and Emperors of Rome in antiquity did also believe MYTH characters and Ghosts did actually exist.

The Roman Government did concede that THEIR Jesus CHRISTUS was really God of God and historically Born of a Ghost.

 

[Mcreal]

but deified men are often historically existent. And that is what is being discussed.

That is not what Carrier is discussing.

Jesus may well be an euhemerized entity -

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

[Mcreal]

But, people of the Roman Empire did believe mythological characters were historically existent.

As did the Greeks and the Egyptians.

The writer under the name of Tacitus believed Myth Romulus was really a king or founder of Rome.

And not only Romulus but Jupiter, Hercules, Diana, Apollo and other myth Gods.

Bur what is even more significant is the BELIEF that Myth characters were actually historically existent was not confined to the illiterate and unlearned.

The very learned Roman writers of antiquity did also believe MYTH characters and Ghosts did actually exist ...

Good points. Carrier also addresses Romulus -

"Not all euhemerizers were rationalists like Euhemerus, btw. Romulus and Osiris were euhemerized, but they were miracled up a bit. So was Dionysus. And Hercules. And Isis. etc."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8161

 

[Joey McGee]

Which is appeal to authority and appeal to numbers; and does also involve a component of tradition.

You don't get it, I'm not saying it's true because there is a consensus, I'm saying that there is a consensus. This obviously means something, it means that your side has a large amount of work, and explaining, to do to the world.

Which is weird. why are you so invested in it, then??

If it could be conclusively proven that all of the evidence he was a real person was fraud, this wouldn't bother me, wouldn't change my feeling about the religion, or religion in general, or the world. Fraud is a part of religion, and the scale of it varies, this isn't important to me. What interests me is the need for people to have the narrative that it was all fraud, and how closely they tie this to their hatred of certain institutions and people. Normally, this is a red flag kind of situation. For people to not really acknowledge this conflict of interest, and at the same time be so animated in their dismissal, I think it's striking, and has to be pointed out.

It is best to use premises about evidence for Jesus, joined as arguments, to make the point.

which is also weird.

I don't think anyone will be convinced by any arguments or evidence here, and I don't think it would be worth my time, this thread is already long enough. While you may not agree, the psychological need that people have for it to be fraud is a point that needed to be made, that's my contribution. And the fact that certain people are in denial about the academic consensus, the level of it, this is also important.

 

[Joey McGee]

You have no historical evidence for an historical Jesus. All you have are so************** up and stupid.

Scholars using the evidence [ *********** up stories]and the best methodology argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

So the consensus of scholars that agree he existed, they aren't using the evidence? English your first language or no?

You have exposed that you have little or no knowledge of Scholarship.

Exposed? You're really into "exposing" the truth. I bet you think that you "destroy" your opponents arguments and "annihilate" their positions.

Scholars, across the board,[ Christians, Non-Christians, For and against HJ] have accepted that there is little or NO historical evidence of an HJ

There really is a consensus that is the opposite of what you say. The consensus could be wrong, but it's been shown here, and is easily provable to anyone willing to utilize Google, that this is so. Where is your evidence that this is incorrect and is the opposite?

and that the NT is fundamentally riddled with fiction/mythology, forgeries or false attribution.

The consensus is also in agreement that many things in the bible didn't happen in real life. This isn't an argument of Jesus existed, therefore the bible is true, no one is saying that. No wonder you don't have a clue.

All you have are just ********** up stories of Jesus.

Yes, they are all ********** up.

Please read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Bart Ehrman shows that virtually every story of Jesus [plausible or not] is probably non-historical.

Even though Bart Ehrman argues for an HJ he still agrees with those who argue for an MJ like Carrier that the NT is riddled with historical problems, and events that most likely did not happen.

How do you not see that this means absolutely nothing in regards to the yes/no question of was he a real person? Are you honestly thinking this through forwards and backwards to make sure you aren't riding off the rails?

The consensus is solidly supported by the evidence from antiquity.

This does not make sense.

Jesus of Nazareth was probably a figure of fiction and mythology based on ************UP STUPID stories of Jesus in and out the NT

Maybe if you keep repeating it, someone out there will start to change their mind.

 

[Mcreal]

If it could be conclusively proven that all of the evidence he was a real person was fraud, this wouldn't bother me, wouldn't change my feeling about the religion, or religion in general, or the world. Fraud is a part of religion, and the scale of it varies ...

Yes, Fraud is a big part of religion. Reducing that, and its effects, is important to me.

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes, Fraud is a big part of religion. Reducing that, and its effects, is important to me.

Do you honestly think that proving Jesus was a made up person will help you fight against the negative effects of religion in society? That's insane. Only when people value science and reason will they be able to circumvent these negative effects, and there is no valid reason why the scale of the fraud would help people. Whether he existed or not, it's still all clearly ********. Whether it was fraud or not, it's easy to point out the fraud happening today without proving fraud happened 2000 years ago.