The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

If you want to imagine that all these NS imply that the thing or person they refer to is God, then you are sunk more profoundly in error than I previously thought, and it may be that you will escape from this only at the expense of great toil and difficulty, which will be most distressing for you, l regret to say.

You used the same MSS with the Nomina Sacra for the LORD who is God and Jesus.



The Nomina Sacra is found in the earliest MSS of Acts.

Examine the Codex Sinaiticus.

The earliest manuscipts of Acts contains the Nomina Sacra Lord who is God and Jesus.

In Acts of the Apostles Jesus has the same Nomina Sacra has the Lord who is God.


Acts 9:5 And he said: Who art thou, Lord [KE] ? And he said: I am Jesus whom thou persecuteth!

Acts 22:8 But I answered: Who art thou, Lord [KE]? And he said to me: I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom thou persecutest.

Acts 26. 15 But I said: Who art thou, Lord[KE] ? and the Lord [KC] said: I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest,

Jesus in Acts is the Lord who is God.

Jesus is a myth/fiction character based on the EVIDENCE in Acts.

 

[Craig B]

In fact, The Theosophical Quarterly (1916) Volume 14 - Page 219 stated "Christos is one who explains oracles, 'a prophet and soothsayer,' and Chresterios one who serves an oracle or a god."

I'm not sure on how Greek make plurals but if Chresterions was a way to reference groups who served an oracle or a god then why the followers would call him Christ but themselves Chrestians (corrupted form of Chresterions) makes sense. Or perhaps Chrestians is the plural from of chresterios; Who here knowns ancient Greek?

Not knowing Ancient Greek is the least of your worries if you are inclined to take the Theosophical Quarterly as a serious source of information.

 

[Agatha]

There is far too much incivility and personalisation in this thread. Despite several moves of posts to AAH, participants continue to attack each other instead of addressing the arguments in a civil fashion. Further breaches of rule 0 and/or rule 12 following this modbox may be carded and in turn may lead to further action such as suspensions or putting the thread on moderated status. This is not the desired outcome, so kindly bear your MA in mind as you compose your posts.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[dejudge]

More on evidence, as regards a matter we have discussed here. Was Paul's "Lord" the same as Jesus? A source tells us he was. Acts 9...

Let us discuss more of the evidence that Paul's "Lord" was the same as the Lord called Jesus in Acts.


In Acts Jesus was the Lord who resurrected and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

It is clear that the very same Nomina Sacra for the Lord who is God in the Greek Christian OT is the same Nomina Sacra for the Lord called Jesus in Acts, the Pauline Corpus and the Entire NT.

There are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of references to the Nomina Sacra KU, KE, KY, KV for the LORD who is called Jesus and God.

The Codex Sinaiticus which is the earliest existing Greek Bible do show that the LORD called Jesus and the LORD called God do have the very IDENTICAL Nomina Sacra [KU, KE, KY, KV]

The earliest Pauline Corpus P46 also contains the IDENTICAL Nomina Sacra for the LORD called Jesus [KU, KE, KY, KV]

The more we examine the evidence in the Greek Bible the more it is confirmed that Jesus was a myth/fiction God of the Jesus cult since at least the 2nd-3rd century.

In fact, Jesus appeared to have been fabricated as a direct copy of or equal to the God of the Jews.

The earliest known manuscripts do confirm the mythology of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

Let us discuss more of the evidence that Paul's "Lord" was the same as the Lord called Jesus in Acts.

There's absolutely no point. You relentlessly repeat the same collection of things, paying not the least attention to any comment anyone may make on them. You refuse to acknowledge that any evidence exists at all.

So if you have anything to say about Paul's Jesus, and what he means by Lord, well then simply say it. I have already written about this matter, but I will be happy to read whatever you decide to write.

 

[maximara]

Not knowing Ancient Greek is the least of your worries if you are inclined to take the Theosophical Quarterly as a serious source of information.

The actual Greek spelling as best I can make out from a source I found is χρηστήριος which modern sources translate as "oracular, prophetic" in the short translation and the online Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon give as "of or from an oracle"


Rev. John Groves' Greek-English Dictionary (Classical and New Testament Usages) 1828 page 605 give us:

Χρη̃̃σις –ιος, Att. – εως, ή (fr. χράω to use) use, utility, profit; a loan, an oracle, response; a quotation, extract, passage from another writer a χρησιν.
Χρησμολογίω - ω̄, (fr. Χρηςμὸς an oracle, and λέγω to speak) to speak oracles, prophesy, foretell; to interpret omens, explain oracles.
Χρησμολογίa –ας ή (fr. same) delivery of an oracle, prophecy, divination, foretelling; interpretation or application of an oracle.
Χρησμολόγος, -ου ό ή (fr. same) a deliverer of oracles, a diviner, prophet; an interpreter or expounder of oracles.
Χρησήρ, -η̃ρος, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) giving oracles, oracular.
Χρηστήριος, - ον, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) oracular, foreboding, prophetic.
Χρήστης, -ου, ό (fr. χράω to lend) a creditor, lender of money, usurer; a debtor, borrower; a declarer of oracles, prophet.

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline writer has already told us he was NOT the apostle of a man but of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:1 Paul an apostle, not of men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Galatians 1.1----παυλοϲ αποϲτολοϲ ουκ απ ανθρωπω ουδε δι ανου αλλα δια[ ιυ χυ και θυ πα τροϲ του εγιραντοϲ αυτων εκ νεκρω

The Nomina Sacra for Jesus in Galatians is IU

Galatians 1.19 does not mention IU.

Galatians 1.19 mentions the Nomina Sacra for the Lord KU who is God.

The Lord KU who is God is a myth/fiction character--God Creator.

The Lord Jesus is from heaven and God Creator in the Pauline Corpus.

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

Jesus in Acts and the Pauline Corpus is a myth LORD who is God.

 

[IanS]

You've misunderstood my point. I don't say you agree with Carrier's approach. It is the opposite: I'm saying you are at opposites to Carrier's approach. Carrier never invalidates a text for the reasons you do. He treats them seriously and worthy of analysis. And if you went to Carrier on this, he would agree with me over you on this.

No I did not misunderstand your point claim. But I think you may have misunderstood my reply (perhaps it was not clear). I am saying to you that I am not bound by what you say that Carrier says, about ruling out certain things as valid evidence in this subject. And neither should any properly educated objective honest person here be bound by what your say about that, or by whatever Carrier may or may not have said about it.

Educated honest responsible people can, and most certainly should, decide for themselves what counts as credible evidence of whatever it is that is being claimed vs. what does not count as credible evidence of that.

And what I said to you about that , is - where 11th century copyist writing from Christians is claimed to be accurate true original word-for-word copy of what authors like Tacitus and Josephus wrote 1000 years earlier in a few minimal sentences about Jesus, that time gap alone is fatal to the reliability of such Christian copyist writing as reliable evidence of a human Jesus.

I'll repeat my statement from the last post: Read what Carrier writes about Tacitus in OHJ. He tries to explain the Christ passage as an interpolation. Does he ever try to explain it as being irrelevant because it is a "copy of a copy of a copy"? No. He treats it as other scholars do: as a piece of evidence that requires analysis. If he regarded the whole thing as hearsay or irrelevant because it is a copy of a copy, why even try to explain that it is an interpolation?"?

OK, well firstly - I did not say it was a "copy of a copy of a copy", which you have apparently quoted from somewhere ... is that supposed to be a quote of what I said? If so please quote the post where I said it was a "copy of a copy of a copy".

And secondly - whilst you say that Carrier attempts to dismiss the passage on the basis of trying to show that it is an "interpolation", I have said here before several times that I myself would not favour that as the most supportable or the most damming criticism. And I have never myself said here that it is certainly an interpolation ... because I do not know if it is, and afaik neither Carrier or anyone else can be sure if the key parts have been dishonestly changed over what was originally written ... because apart from anything else we have absolutely no idea what Tacitus or Josephus originally wrote!

So imho, claims of specific interpolations are on somewhat shaky ground when offered as strong evidence against the authenticity of the original writing. IOW - specific "interpolations" would not be the first thing that I would rely on as criticism of Tacitus, Josephus or other such extremely late copying as evidence of a human Jesus.

If he regarded the whole thing as hearsay or irrelevant because it is a copy of a copy, why even try to explain that it is an interpolation?"?

Now you are mixing up two completely different things. Nobody is saying that the reason why "hearsay" is of little or no evidential value, is "because" the writing is a "copy of a copy". The complaint of it being "hearsay" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether anything is a "copy of a copy". Those are two entirely separate criticisms.

The problem with hearsay evidence is that it's been legally proven to be so seriously unreliable as to be ruled unfit even to be presented before a jury in most court trials in advanced western nations. But, in the case of writing from Tacitus and Josephus, their brief minimal remarks about Jesus are not merely hearsay, but actually completely anonymous hearsay. And anonymous hearsay is never admissible as evidence in any legal ruling ... because it has been proven in law to be so totally unreliable that it is likely to mislead judge and jury into making a completely mistaken decision.

But if that is a relevant question, why do you think Carrier wrote OHJ, examining those ancient texts that are 'copies of copies of copies', containing hearsay, as though those ancient texts contain something useful? Why does he use the same approach as other scholars with regards to the usefulness of those ancient texts in building a particular case? Why doesn't he just stop at "Just post the evidence of anyone at all ever writing to describe how they met a human Jesus"?

Well that is again the same question that has already been answered above in abundant detail and with very clear explanation. And it was already answered and explained in all my previous posts before you even started questioning me about it!

 

[IanS]

There is no evidence of anyone at all ever writing to describe how they met a human Jesus. I hope that answers your question.

OK, good, now perhaps we can make some progress.

So, if in the biblical writing (and in fact in all non-biblical writing too), none of those writers had ever themselves known a human Jesus, then they cannot possibly ever be giving any evidence of their own about knowing Jesus.

So when they wrote to say Jesus performed miracles A, B and C, or just to say that he said X, Y & Z, or just that he visited various places, that at best could not actually be more than the writers “belief” about what they thought others had said about Jesus. Right?

So far, that is only evidence of the biblical writers beliefs about Jesus. It is not evidence of Jesus himself, it’s only evidence of their beliefs.

So who was it that told any of those biblical writers any of those stories that the biblical writers merely “believed”? Who were the informants that actually had known Jesus such that they could tell those stories to the biblical writers?

Can you name those eye-witness informants please and show where any of them wrote to confirm that they were the ones who gave all those accounts to the biblical writers?

Because if you cannot produce any such actual eye-witness informants, then all you are left with in the biblical writing (and in any non-biblical writing) is evidence of beliefs in an un-evidenced Jesus figure who was completely unknown to all of them. That is not evidence of Jesus. That is only evidence of peoples religious beliefs in an unknown un-evidenced figure of earlier OT mythology.

 

[Craig B]

So who was it that told any of those biblical writers any of those stories that the biblical writers merely “believed”? Who were the informants that actually had known Jesus such that they could tell those stories to the biblical writers?

Can you name those eye-witness informants please and show where any of them wrote to confirm that they were the ones who gave all those accounts to the biblical writers?

Because if you cannot produce any such actual eye-witness informants, then all you are left with in the biblical writing (and in any non-biblical writing) is evidence of beliefs in an un-evidenced Jesus figure who was completely unknown to all of them. That is not evidence of Jesus. That is only evidence of peoples religious beliefs in an unknown un-evidenced figure of earlier OT mythology.

Three repetitions again. Keeping up the output.

 

[IanS]

Is this all because you erred and claimed Tacitus was not alive during the Great Fire? Hey mistakes happen.

.

I did what? I never mentioned any "Great Fire".

Please quote where I ever said anything about a Great Fire.

 

[Craig B]

I did what? I never mentioned any "Great Fire".

Please quote where I ever said anything about a Great Fire.

You didn't, I agree. But you did produce another triple repetition of the "who knew Jesus personally?" thing.

Just quote the evidence of Tacitus claiming to have known Jesus.

As soon as you can produce evidence of Tacitus or anyone else claiming to have met a human Jesus, then we can start checking to see if their claims hold up.

So no more evasions - just post the evidence of anyone writing to say how they had known Jesus.

 

[Leumas]

There's absolutely no point. You relentlessly repeat the same collection of things, paying not the least attention to any comment anyone may make on them. You refuse to acknowledge that any evidence exists at all.

So if you have anything to say about Paul's Jesus, and what he means by Lord, well then simply say it. I have already written about this matter, but I will be happy to read whatever you decide to write.

I think the below says it perfectly about Paul and the whole HJ affair altogether

Well, yes, the analogy is very apt. Fanboys of a given gaming platform, or hell, even genre, can be just as quick to just assume that everyone else knows they're right, but have some kind of secret motive or deficiency that makes them say otherwise.
As I also keep saying, there isn't really all that much of a difference between fanboyism and devoting one's life to theology. So, yes, whether it's Ken Ham or Anselm or St Augustine, the only difference between them and some guy posting the 1000'th post about how clearly console players secretly wish they could afford a gaming PC, is that the former gang somehow is accepted as having some legitimacy and respectability.

If some guy spent decades giving speeches and writing letters about how reading between the lines and taking sentence fragments out of context in Elder Scrolls texts clearly shows that they always intended Skyrim to be played on consoles, and his console fan-clubs are what the devs had in mind all along, and how everyone who disagrees actually knows in their hearts that that's what they should be doing, you'd call him a deranged fanboy. But do that with the OT to justify Xianity, and he's called St Paul

 

[Leumas]

You didn't, I agree. But you did produce another triple repetition of the "who knew Jesus personally?" thing.

Why don't you answer the questions so that they won't have to be asked again?

Have you got any evidence of anyone ever claiming to have met a human Jesus?

So no more evasions please - just post the evidence of anyone writing to say how they had known Jesus the mere human.

Can you prove with evidence that there was anyone who claimed in writing that they knew a human Jesus?​

Instead of answering the questions you keep sophistically obfuscating and dodging by repeating that the questions are repeated instead of actually answering the questions.

This is nothing but arrant sophistry of the most banal kind in avoidance of answering the question.

So no more evasions please - just post the evidence of anyone writing to say how they had known Jesus who was not the son of a ghost.

Can you prove with evidence that there was anyone who claimed in writing that they knew a human Jesus who was not the son of a ghost who can walk on water?

 

[Craig B]

I think the below says it perfectly about Paul and the whole HJ affair altogether

I know what you think. Why you indulge in such utterances is known only to you. At any rate it's not like Carrier and his peer-reviewed stuff, is it?

 

[Leumas]

...anything to say about Paul's Jesus...

Phillipians 2:5-11

• 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
• 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
• 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
• 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
• 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
• 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
• 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[The Big Dog]

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,"

Well that is a very silly post, with deliberate personalised overtones at the end (as many of your posts have been).

This is a subject where frankly, sceptics should have no further "truck" with this argument that says historians trust Tacitus as a good source for what it says about Roman history of the time, so hence we should trust it also for what it's author says about Jesus.

We are not talking about what Tacitus may have said or not said about anyone else. Forget about all those other historical figures and events. We are not arguing anything either way about any of those things at all. So please stick to the point, which is what Tacitus may or may not ever have written about Jesus.

And what is now found in 11th century and later Christian copies of Tacitus, cannot possibly be anything Tacitus himself could ever have personally known, because he was not even born at the time!
And whether Carrier or Price think it's worth pointing out that such writing is vastly too late to be a credible as reliable source of fact about Jesus (and we are dealing here with what is said to be "fact" about Jesus, not mere possibility or inference etc.), and whether or not they care to make the point that such authors could at best only have posted nothing more than hearsay from unknown never mentioned sources, it is certainly a fact that hearsay like that is not at all reliable.

It's a total red-herring, in fact it's a piece of dishonest deceit, for HJ people here (or anywhere) to keep claiming that because historians use Tacitus as a very early source for other historical figures & events of the time ie pre circa 120 AD (events and figures which might very well be cross-checked with, and independently checked against, all sorts of other writing and even against all manner of physical remains etc.), that we must therefore treat such vastly late Christian copyist writing as credible for the absolutely minimal anonymous hearsay that it's original authors may or may not ever have written about any beliefs in Jesus.

1. Tacitus WAS alive during the time of the burning of Rome, and OF COURSE the events regarding the Christians and Pilate could have been "cross checked." Such a fundamental error makes the rest of your post completely suspect.
2. the vastly later writing to which you refer is also the source for other historical figures and events. It is curious that Mythists are prepared to find everything in Tactus authentic and authoritative EXCEPT the part about Christ.i

I did what? I never mentioned any "Great Fire".

Please quote where I ever said anything about a Great Fire.

your wish is my command

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Why are first hand eyewitness accounts the standard of proof? Can we ignore any historical source in which the author does not claim to have personally met all people involved, or is this a special case?

 

[Craig B]

Phillipians 2:5-11

• 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
• 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
• 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
• 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
• 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
• 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
• 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

For about the hundredth time, this passage is not by Paul. It is a free-standing hymn, called the kenosis hymn. Christians love it to bits, and say Paul found it and incorporated it into his Epistle; but even they don't say Paul wrote it. Most probably, it is a later intrusion, interpolated by a Christian hand.

 

[The Greater Fool]

IanS,

I'm sorry my last post was incomprehensible, I shall try again. This time I'll try some foundational statements. However, if this is going to be a case that entertaining a hypothetical is going to cause us hang-ups, best to stop now.

The main argument I am addressing is that the Jesus of the bible (Mythical Jesus, MJ) is a miracle performing demigod or god, and since demigods don't exist, the bible letters are dismissed as evidence to find a Historical Jesus.

My question concerns this dismissal.

Assume that a HJ existed. If we can't entertain this much hypothetical, then we are beyond discussion.

Assume that a HJ existed, a standard issue human, with no special powers, was able to convince followers that he was a demigod and could perform miracles. Again, in (hypothetical) reality he is a standard human. His worshippers when writing about him would attribute to him demigod or godly powers, because they were all fooled.

So, must we dismiss these accounts because the Jesus they portray was a demigod or god, even though he was (hypothetically) a standard issue human?

The point being that historians are looking for a standard issue human, so the presumption at the start must discount the miracles and demigod or godly claims. Historians presumably are looking for a human that could be the source of the MJ. Why must they necessarily discard biblical letters that speak of relations of Jesus because they also claim Jesus was a demigod?

What is the difference? The bible writers are wrong that a demigod walked among or near them. It doesn't follow that we must discard it all because they were wrong about Jesus' nature.

Of course, since Jesus was not a god or demigod is self evident. I am in no way trying to say Jesus, if he existed at all, is more than just a human. I am just addressing the dismissing of biblical letters because of the claims they make about Jesus. I'm sure there are other, better reasons for dismissing the biblical letters (like they were not written anywhere near Jesus' or his family's time period).