The Historical Jesus III

[Craig B]

Huh?

it's not Raskin's falsification: it's Raskin's proposition that Christians either falsified the text that Tacitus had written; or falsified the whole text.

To make my meaning absolutely clear. Raskin is suggesting (for whatever reason) that words found in the text of Annals should be set aside and replaced with other words which are not in the text as we have it. I call that his falsification of the text. But if you want to call it something else, go ahead.

 

[Leumas]

To make my meaning absolutely clear. Raskin is suggesting (for whatever reason) that words found in the text of Annals should be set aside and replaced with other words which are not in the text as we have it. I call that his falsification of the text. But if you want to call it something else, go ahead.

So explaining a possible forgery by saying that the Christian forgers changed a couple of names from what they might have been originally is considered to be a falsification of the text by your reckoning...huh?

So what do you call chucking out the entire gospel of "John"... or removing chunks of verses of the text?

What do you call that with your amazing illogic?

What do you call claiming that "Mark" had no story about the resurrection when in fact he had an entire chapter about it?

Given your illogic you must be calling it all sorts of things other than falsification to keep on the wishful thinking for a rationalized and downgraded version of the ill begotten son of the ghostly 1/3rd of a magical sky daddy.

For about the hundredth time, this passage is not by Paul.

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

... gJohn contains little or no genuine historical material, but is late and elaborated.....

Mark may have believed that Jesus rose from his grave, but he doesn't know any story about it. The posthumous activities of Jesus, which appear in different forms in the later gospels, were simply unknown to Mark. A later hand added 12 verses with a risen Jesus story into GMark, but almost nobody believes that passage to be authentic. Not even the editors of the NIV Bible translation accept it as genuine, as you will see if you look up Mark 6 in that version.

Mark 16

• 
  [*]16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. [*]16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. [*]16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? [*]16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. [*]16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. [*]16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. [*]16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. [*]16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.[*]16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
  [*]16:10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
  [*]16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
  [*]16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
  [*]16:13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
  [*]16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
  [*]16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
  [*]16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  [*]16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
  [*]16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
  [*]16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
  [*]16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

 

[Craig B]

So explaining a possible forgery by saying that the Christian forgers changed a couple of names from what they might have been originally is considered to be a falsification of the text by your reckoning...huh?

So what do you call chucking out the entire gospel of John... or removing chunks of verses of the text?

I don't say, John really wrote x, but that doesn't suit me, so I'll put in y instead.

You might argue rationally that the Tacitus Christ passage is an interpolation, or that it is a historical error. But I think it's falsification to say, I'm deleting some words from it and inserting others, when there is no suggestion that any version exists with the hypothesised replacement words in it.

Who is this Raskin guy anyway? His website makes him look like a bit of a nut. People often expatiate on Carrier's credentials. Anyone done that for Raskin? If so, I'd appreciate a link.

 

[dejudge]

...."Change four words and presto chango you have evidence for Jesus and we KNOW the "Chrestians" was tampered with."

This business of scoring out words and putting others in that you prefer could equally be used to provide evidence for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

What did you just say?? Can you please repeat your outburst??

"The business of scoring out words and putting others in" that you prefer could equally be used to provide evidence for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

You are PRESENTLY in the very same business of "scoring out words and putting others in" to provide evidence for YOUR HJ.

STOP your business of "scoring out words and putting others in" to provide 'evidence' for your JESUS.

Galatians 1:19 ----But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Galatians 1.19 does NOT mention the word JESUS.

Stop your business of "scoring out words and putting others in" to provide 'evidence' for your JESUS.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44

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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

1. Tacitus' Annals 15.44 does not identify any character called JESUS.

2. Tacitus' Annals 15.44 does not contain the word 'Crucify'.

3. Tacitus' Annals 15.44 does not contain the word 'Obscure'.

4. Tacitus' Annals 15.44 did NOT contain the word for 'Christians'.

Amazingly, Craig B has condemned the very same business that he is in to provide evidence for his OBSCURE HJ.

You must score out ALL the myth and fiction from gMark, gMatthew and the Pauline Corpus to PROVIDE evidence for your OBSCURE HJ.

Mark 1:28---- And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

Your very obscure HJ argument is a product of "The business of scoring out words and putting others in" .

The Transfiguring water walking Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and God Creator from heaven.

You CANNOT score out any words!!!

The Obscure HJ argument is an established Farce.

 

[Leumas]

...

...
When you become Pope will you give me a Plenary Indulgence just in case?

You and the Pope use the very same COLLECTION OF MYTHS AND FABLES called the New Testament to argue Jesus existed.

You are blessed. You BELIEVE Jesus existed WITHOUT seeing him.

CHURCH HISTORY 1---9. “Blessed are you who hast believed in me without having seen me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved.

Do not forget this verse which Craig B will not accept of course because he, according to his own illogic, falsifies the NT by removing an entire gospel out of it.

• John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[Leumas]

I don't say, John really wrote x, but that doesn't suit me, so I'll put in y instead.

You might argue rationally that the Tacitus Christ passage is an interpolation, or that it is a historical error. But I think it's falsification to say, I'm deleting some words from it and inserting others, when there is no suggestion that any version exists with the hypothesised replacement words in it.

See... I told you ....

...Given your illogic you must be calling it all sorts of things other than falsification to keep on the wishful thinking for a rationalized and downgraded version of the ill begotten son of the ghostly 1/3rd of a magical sky daddy.

 

[dejudge]

You are greater than Harry Lemon!
Of course I know that Julius Caesar was a real man. I have even read De bello Gallico when I was student. In reality, a copy of a copy of a copy…, you know.
I have taken Julius Caesar as an example of a man with “deified” predecessors. On this point Caesar and Jesus were similar: mythical origins.
This is to say: that it is silly to claim that a man was considered a “ghost” because his predecessors were deified.

Again, you present blatant absurdities!!! Julius Caesar is considered a figure of history because there is HISTORICAL DATA that supports his historicity.

THERE is NO and NEVER was historical data for Jesus of Nazareth.

NEVER EVER!!!

Jesus of Nazareth is like Romulus or the hundreds of Myths of the Greeks/Romans.

Jesus of Nazareth and Romulus the founder of Rome were born of a Ghost, when they died their bodies vanished, Day was turned into night, they resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Jesus of Nazareth and Romulus NEVER EVER had any historical data.

Jesus of Nazareth is NOT even mentioned in any accepted contemporary historical source of antiquity.

The very Roman Government and Jesus cults of antiquity did CONCEDE that Jesus of Nazareth was BORN of a Ghost.

 

[Craig B]

"The business of scoring out words and putting others in" that you prefer could equally be used to provide evidence for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

You are PRESENTLY in the very same business of "scoring out words and putting others in" to provide evidence for YOUR HJ.

STOP your business of "scoring out words and putting others in" to provide 'evidence' for your JESUS.

Galatians 1:19 ----But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Well, I don't like that, so I'm going to take out "James" and put in "Tooth Fairy" and I'm going to remove "brother" and put in "sister"; and now I've proved that the Tooth Fairy is Jesus of Nazareth's sister, cos I'm going to put "Jesus" and "Nazareth" into that passage first chance I get.

 

[Leumas]

Nowhere in the Old Testament is suggested the crucifixion of a messiah or prophet . The early christians quoted some equivalences so unlikely that they hint more to an ulterior intent of justification "by scriptures" of an embarrassing crucifixión than a free association drawn from the Bible.

I find a curious thing that the mythicists support the prophetic explanation of the gospels, typical of christian fundamentalism, just because they intend to justify the absurd theory that the evangelists thought that Jesus was not a man (deified). In Spain we say that sometimes los extremos se tocan (extremes meet one another). It fits here.

This is the most imbecilic illogic you have written so far.

The writers of the NT thought the OT had those things.... the OT does not have to be saying what THEY THOUGHT it was saying for THEM TO BELIEVE IT.

All that proves is that they were stupid and interpreted the OT incorrectly.

But that does not refute the fact that THEY BELIEVED IT and accordingly fabricated their epistles and gospels fables to REFLECT THEIR BELIEFS.

Let me see if I can explain this in terms you might understand better....

They misinterpreted the OT as describing a messiah that will die and suffer for the people and be killed.

So they believed that stuff.

So they forged their tall tales around that belief.

You coming in the 21st century arguing that the OT does not say such stuff is ONLY USEFUL in showing that the NT fabricators were misguided.... but not that they could not have believed it since they very obviously did so because they said so right there in the fairy tales they wrote.

So now you come up with a hypothesis that they only used the OT as a POST HOC excuse to alleviate their cognitive dissonance of having had their believed messiah killed and thus looked through the OT to justify it.

Well done.... nice hypothesis.... but a hypothesis nevertheless because YOU WERE NOT THERE and you could not have known what really happened... the only source of details about what is alleged to have happened is the writings of those people you are now saying were just fabricating stuff post hoc and were rationalizing.... in other words YOU ARE RATIONALIZING their rationalizations.

Do you get that????

You are rationalizing what you claim to have been a rationalization!!!

Do you understand that???

Your only source of information is the NT!!!!

You have no way of knowing what is what if it were not for the NT!!!!

Now you come along and CIRCULARLY UNREASON that the NT is wrong and the writers were wrong and hypothesize YOUR OWN VERSION OF EVENTS.

YOU ARE MAKING UP THINGS about made up things!!!

You are RATIONALIZING FAIRY TALES!!!

Have you considered that according to the FAIRY TALES the people who were supposedly there and believed in the killed messiah were not OT experts and most of them couldn't even read or write.

So YOUR HYPOTHESIS that they went searching the OT to justify the death of their false messiah is VERY VERY UNLIKELY given they did not know how to read or write and did not speak Greek or Hebrew.

Ahistoricists propose an alternative hypothesis that the story was fabricated by "Paul" and others after him who knew how to read and write and knew Greek and the Septuagint OT very well and thus have known Isiah and the Psalms and other "scriptures" very well and must have therefore used them to fabricate their FAIRY TALE.

Are you the only one allowed to hypothesize about the fairy tales called the NT?

Why do you deny other people their hypothesizing rights?

You saying this

I find a curious thing that the mythicists support the prophetic explanation of the gospels, typical of christian fundamentalism, just because they intend to justify the absurd theory that the evangelists thought that Jesus was not a man (deified). In Spain we say that sometimes los extremos se tocan (extremes meet one another). It fits here.

Is a typical modern day MYTH-MAKER asinine casuistry and pathetic apologetic sophistry.

The historical pathetic nothing of a nobody Jesus HYPOTHESIS is nothing but a MODERN DAY MYTH MAKING process.... a REENACTMENT of the ancient myth making one that created the now known to be an embarrassingly impossible magical ill begotten son of a ghostly 1/3rd of a magical sky daddy.

 

[dejudge]

Well, I don't like that, so I'm going to take out "James" and put in "Tooth Fairy" and I'm going to remove "brother" and put in "sister"; and now I've proved that the Tooth Fairy is Jesus of Nazareth's sister, cos I'm going to put "Jesus" and "Nazareth" into that passage first chance I get.

Obscure HJ is a direct product of "scoring out words and putting others in".

OBSCURE HJ is NOT in the ENTIRE Galatians of Papyri 46.

Who scored OUT the NOMINA SACRA and put in OBSCURE HJ?

The people in the business of "scoring out words and putting others in".

Jesus of Nazareth is NOT found in the ENTIRE manuscript designated Papyri 46.

In fact, the Canonised NEW TESTAMENT is evidence that there was a business of "scoring out words and putting others in".

The Long gMark is direct evidence of the "business".

 

[Craig B]

16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

I don't like that. So here:

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to the Tooth Fairy, out of whom he had cast seven devils.​

See, I've just proved the existence of the Tooth Fairy again.

By the way, NIV rejects the long ending, because it is not found in the earliest mss. They've got versions without these verses. Now, has Raskin got a version of Tacitus with his proposed words in it? If not, your comparison with Mk 16 is beside the point.

 

[Craig B]

This is the most imbecilic illogic yet.

The writers of the NT thought the OT had those things.... the OT does not have to be saying what THEY THOUGHT it was saying for THEM TO BELIEVE IT.

All that proves is that they were stupid and interpreted the OT incorrectly.

But that does not refute the fact that THEY BELIEVED IT and accordingly wrote their epistles and gospels to REFLECT THEIR BELIEFS.

Let me see if I can explain this in terms you might understand better....

They misinterpreted the OT as describing a messiah that will die and suffer for the people and be killed.

So they believed that stuff.

So they forged their epistles and gospels around that belief.

You coming in the 21st century arguing that the OT does not say such stuff is ONLY USEFUL in showing that the NT fabricators were misguided.... but not that they could not have believed it since they very obviously did so because they said so right there in the fairy tales they wrote.

So now you come up with a hypothesis that they only used the OT as a POST HOC excuse to alleviate their cognitive dissonance of having had their believed messiah killed and thus looked through the OT to justify it.

Well done.... nice hypothesis.... but a hypothesis nevertheless because YOU WERE NOT THERE and you could not have known what really happened... the only source of details about what is alleged to have happened is the writings of those people you are now saying were just fabricating stuff post hoc and were rationalizing.... in other words YOU ARE RATIONALIZING their rationalizations.

Do you get that????

You are rationalizing what you claim to have been a rationalization!!!

Do you understand that???

Your only source of information is the NT!!!!

You have no way of knowing what is what if it were not for the NT!!!!

Now you come along and CIRCULARLY UNREASON that the NT is wrong and the writers were wrong and hypothesize YOUR OWN VERSION OF EVENTS.

YOU ARE MAKING UP THINGS about made up things!!!

You are RATIONALIZING FAIRY TALES!!!

Have you considered that according to the FAIRY TALES the people who were supposedly there and believed in the killed messiah were not OT experts and most of them couldn't even read or write.

So YOUR HYPOTHESIS that they went searching the OT to justify the death of their false messiah is VERY VERY UNLIKELY given they did not know how to read or write and did not speak Greek or Hebrew.

Ahistoricists propose an alternative hypothesis that the story was fabricated by Paul and others after him who knew how to read and write and knew Greek and Hebrew and the OT very well and thus have known Isiah and the Psalms and other "scriptures" very well and must have therefore used them to fabricate their FAIRY TALE.

Are you the only one allowed to hypothesize about the fairy tales called the NT?

Why do you deny other people their hypothesizing rights?
You saying this

Is a typical modern day MYTH-MAKER asinine casuistry and pathetic apologetic sophistry.

The historical pathetic nothing of a nobody Jesus HYPOTHESIS is nothing but MODERN DAY MYTH MAKING process.... a REENACTMENT of the ancient myth making one that created the magical ill begotten son of a ghostly 1/3rd of a magical sky daddy.

I must say that your undertaking to explain it in terms that people might understand better has not been fulfilled.

 

[dejudge]

I don't like that. So here:

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to the Tooth Fairy, out of whom he had cast seven devils.​

See, I've just proved the existence of the Tooth Fairy again.

You write fiction!!! We know what you like!! You say there is no resurrection story in gMark when it says the transfiguring water walking Jesus is RISEN.

gMark's story is that the transfiguring water walker resurrected as he predicted.

You SCORE out the mythology in the NT and then call it Biology and History.

You can't score out this.

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.

Matthew 14:25 ----And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

Mark 9. 2 .....he was transfigured before them.

Jesus of Nazareth was a myth/fiction character since NOTHING can be scored out.

 

[Leumas]

By the way, NIV rejects the long ending, because it is not found in the earliest mss. They've got versions without these verses....

Whether the short version or the long version.... Mark 16 is a story about the resurrection of Jesus.... go read whichever version you prefer.

Your statement below is ARRANTLY WRONG..... why are you unable to admit that your statement is JUST WRONG?

Mark may have believed that Jesus rose from his grave, but he doesn't know any story about it. The posthumous activities of Jesus, which appear in different forms in the later gospels, were simply unknown to Mark...

 

[Leumas]

I don't like that. So here:

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to the Tooth Fairy, out of whom he had cast seven devils.​

See, I've just proved the existence of the Tooth Fairy again.
...

Well... that is exactly what you and other modern-myth-makers are doing with your hypotheses about a downgraded nothing of a pathetic nobody called Jesus extruded out of an ancient collection of myths and fairy tales about what is now well understood to be an embarrassingly impossible magical ill begotten son of a ghostly 1/3rd of magical sky daddy that has been used to bamboozle, coerce, hustle and huckster the entire western culture and the rest of the world for millennia.

 

[Craig B]

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.

I think that Eusebius forged that, in the Sinai Codex, and it should really say:

When as his mother The Tooth Fairy was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of Santa Claus.​

Anyone got the dope on Raskin yet?

 

[dejudge]

I think that Eusebius forged that, in the Sinai Codex, and it should really say:

When as his mother The Tooth Fairy was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of Santa Claus.​

Anyone got the dope on Raskin yet?

Your Obscure HJ argument is BANKRUPT.

You score out the myth/fiction in the NT for Jesus of Nazareth and then call it Biology and History.

 

[Leumas]

I think that Eusebius forged that, in the Sinai Codex, and it should really say:

When as his mother The Tooth Fairy was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of Santa Claus.​

...

Yup... that is precisely the illogic you and other modern day myth makers are using in your attempts at extruding a downgraded nothing of a man out of an ancient collection of fairy tales and fables about an ill begotten son of a ghost after a magical sky daddy (who used to make people snip off the tips of their genitals as a ratification of fake real estate deals) sent his 1/3 to rape and commit adultery with a 13 years old virgin descended from a family of incestual pimps and injected her womb with his other third who sat there for 9 months and then oozed out of her so that he could wait yet another thirty years doing nothing and then went to have some fun with 12 merry men whom he enticed to leave their families and work and businesses to go have naked feet washing orgies with him and then participated in a climactic gay BDSM roleplay and then flew riding on a cloud to outer space to rejoin himself to the other two thirds.

 

[David Mo]

Again, you present blatant absurdities!!! Julius Caesar is considered a figure of history because there is HISTORICAL DATA that supports his historicity.

You cheat. We are speaking about the birth and ascendants of Jesus and Julios Caesar and now you change to the historical data.

Well, there are not "historical data" about Heraclitus. Was he a ghost? Speaking about Heraclitus as a real existent man is a "blatant absurdity"?

The very Roman Government and Jesus cults of antiquity did CONCEDE that Jesus of Nazareth was BORN of a Ghost.

Wow! Some press release from the Jews Affairs Bureau, perhaps?

"Jesus cults"? What are these?

 

[dejudge]

You cheat. We are speaking about the birth and ascendants of Jesus and Julios Caesar and now you change to the historical data.

The obscure HJ argument is BANKRUPT.

You have NO historical data for obscure HJ of Nazareth.

There is historical data for Julius Caesar.

The Roman Government and Jesus cults have NEVER EVER conceded that Julius Caesar was born of a Ghost.

The Roman Government and Jesus cults of antiquity CONCEDED that Jesus of Nazareth was truly God of God and truly born of a Ghost.

See the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople.

Well, there are not "historical data" about Heraclitus. Was he a ghost? Speaking about Heraclitus as a real existent man is a "blatant absurdity"?

Well, there is NO historical data for the Devil. Was he a man?

Jesus of Nazareth and the Devil were in conversation together in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple in the time of Pilate.

Speaking about Jesus and the Devil as real existent men is a "blatant" absurdity.

The HJ argument is BANKRUPT.

You score out the myth/fiction of Jesus in the NT and call it history.

Matthew 4:5 ---Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple