ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags historical jesus , jesus

Reply
Old 22nd May 2020, 04:29 PM   #1441
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,915
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I think I know what bothers me about this. The case against the existence of a guy name Jesus that is the basis of the mythical Jesus is essentially attempting to prove a negative. Anything beyond, "probably" is just not a reasonable claim. There is quite literally no evidence that he did not exist, no such evidence can really exist(aside from a an actual confession from the creator of the stories.) Those that claim that the explanation that best fits the evidence is that no Jesus existed, should explain why those that study the history and region almost all agree, Jesus probably was a real person. Not just christian and muslims, atheists do to. Its not dissimilar from denying AGW. The vast majority of relevant experts agree, but it snowed last month so I don't believe them.

Those that insist the burden of proof is on those that think he existed, ok, I guess but the burden isn't that high if the claim is just, "there was probably a wandering preacher named Jesus around 2000 years ago." There clearly were guys named Jesus, there were clearly a number of similar preachers, so what's so hard to believe that there was a wandering preacher named Jesus who said stuff similar to what Jesus is alleged to have said? The Jefferson Bible was a thing. Basically the Gospels stripped of the supper natural and most everything but the things Jesus supposedly said.

The basic narrative just isn't that extraordinary. A guy started preaching a message that pissed of the powers that be and they had him killed. His followers were all a bit surprised that it all ended so ignominiously and made up a very convoluted story to justify their continued belief. It was a time when real mortal people were occasionally deified, so that's not all that out of the ordinary. It was a time when almost nobody could read and write, lack of records isn't all that out of the ordinary. Its not all that different from the 7 day adventists. Its a church that remains after a preacher's end time prediction failed.

This version isn't pulled out of nowhere, its the version that exists in the Gospels once the supernatural is removed.

Meh. If I say I was mugged 10 years ago, that's not so hard to believe. I f I say I was mugged 10 years ago by that guy over there. Well, nobody would convict that guy over there, but not many folks would say that was evidence that I was never mugged, even if I said that guy was a wizard who mugged me using magic, especially if I live in a culture where lots of folks believe in wizards.


All of the points that you raise have already been addressed here on just the last few pages alone. If you look at my last 4 or 5 posts then you will see it responds in detail to all that you said above.

One of the points you make above (it's been made literally 1000 times before in threads here) is that it would not be extraordinary for a non-miraculous preacher named Jesus to be executed by the local rulers. And perhaps it would not be extraordinary for people to have later written fictional stories about him.

Yep, that would not be extraordinary at all. It's entirely possible. But the big problem is that there is no evidence to support that. The evidence that you actually have from the biblical writers says the complete opposite of that scenario. And it's those biblical accounts that are the entire and total reason for anyone ever hearing any mention of Jesus in the first place.

What you are talking about doing, is simply crossing out all of the things there were actually originally claimed as the description of Jesus. And doing that (crossing it all out) purely and entirely on the basis than unless you do cross it all out, then it becomes inescapably obvious that the biblical writers were creating mythical accounts of an unknown messiah who had been promised and believed from many centuries before in the OT ... so what is the justification for completely changing the story told by those who were said to be there at the time?

As I said before, if you cross out enough bits about superman or winne-the-pooh, then its' easy to claim that it would also leave a figure that was in no way extraordinary.

As for believing biblical scholars, we could cut to the chase and just ask to see what actual evidence they claim to have discovered? And that's also a question that sceptics here have asked well over 1000 times in these threads. And so far the best evidence by far that any of them have offered is that one half-sentence in one of Paul's letters where it said "other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother" (that part-sentence was never mentioned again by Paul, or by James, or by anyone else) ... Bart Ehrman claimed in his 2013 book that the sentence was evidence so strong that it proved Jesus to be a certainty ... he told the audience at his book launch "you'd think his own brother would know if Jesus was real !!" ... but as we have discussed in detail here over 1000 times, there are multiple things wrong with assuming that sentence must mean that the person "James" indeed had a blood brother who was actually Jesus.

The bottom line through all of this is - for nearly 2000 years the Church claimed that the evidence for Jesus was overwhelming. Biblical scholars still make that claim today. But the truth is that there is actually no reliable or credible evidence of a real Jesus ever being known to anyone at all. And anyone with any shred of honesty or self-respect will admit that.

We do have a lot of other evidence though. And as explained several times over the last few pages, that evidence all shows far beyond any credible argument, that the biblical writers were inventing mythical stories of a messiah that none of them had ever known (though it was a messiah that they knew a great deal about, because it had been essential prophecy taught in "scripture" from many hundreds of years BC).

If you want to believe Jesus was probably a real person, and to believe that upon zero actual evidence of a known living Jesus, and to believe it against all the unarguable evidence showing that story of Jesus was invented myth, then that's a matter for you to decide.

Personally I take the position that the evidence is so poor, in fact it's really zero, that we should not even try to guess whether it's more likely or less likely that he existed. He might have existed, but there's no real evidence of it. And that's about all we can honestly say about it.

Last edited by IanS; 22nd May 2020 at 04:33 PM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 05:12 PM   #1442
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,811
Yeah. The problem with ahhell’s point is that there is a lot (a lot!!) of cultural momentum behind the assumption, that causes this ‘consensus.’ Compare it to how many people, including atheists, who assume Exodus is generally true, that Jews were a slave class in Egypt who built the pyramids or something, wandered the desert for forty years, etc etc. though modern archaeologists and historians can tell you no, it doesn’t look like that happened.

When you get to scholars who really have looked into it and still claim the evidence supports HJ, I’d like to know what evidence that is, that they find compelling. I honestly don’t trust that they’re not being influenced by not wanting to sound like a crank.

I straight up scoffed at the idea that Jesus could just be made up when I first heard it and I’m not even slightly religious. It’s just not common knowledge that most of the familiar writing is from waaaay after his time. I had always assumed stuff like the sermon on the mount was written by someone who was there. I’d have assumed any scholar who said it wasn’t, was a crank, right up till I ended up looking into it myself. I still don’t mention it to anyone basically ever, for the same reason.

But IanS is right, there’s just not enough left to look at to reach a firm conclusion. The closest you can get is to compare how much we have, source and distance-wise, to how much we have about other apparently real figures of the era, of various levels of importance. From what I understand, that makes it look iffy, but ‘what would have been written if he was real, and would we expect to still have any of it’ can scarcely rise above speculation.

Last edited by Lithrael; 22nd May 2020 at 05:37 PM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:33 PM   #1443
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
What is most amusing is that it is easily argued that Bible Adam did not exist however some have no idea whether or not Bible Jesus, the water walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost character did exist.

Bible Adam and Bible Jesus are no different they are fiction characters that never ever existed at anytime.

Bible Jesus is the last Adam. Bible Jesus was a Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45
Quote:
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Bible Adam and Bible Jesus never ever had any history,

Last edited by dejudge; 22nd May 2020 at 07:34 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 11:15 PM   #1444
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,505
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
IMHO there is a spectrum of beliefs about Jesus.
A. Definitely existed, the Gospels are either entirely true or basically true.
B. Definitely existed but just as a human being and the Gospels are basically true but for the miracles.
C. Probably existed as a human man but the Gospels don't tell us much about him.
D. I don't know
E. Probably didn't exist in any form.
F. Definitely didn't exist in any form.

The underlined are unsupported by the evidence. A is clearly false. If you believe B through E, you are reasonable.
Not quite. If you have no valid evidence for something, but you do have evidence for the lack of it, then you can say that it definitely doesn't exist.

For example, in the late 1800's stories started appearing about a famous British detective, purportedly narrated by his friend and biographer Dr. John H. Watson. However it is now widely accepted that they were both fictional characters, and there definitely was no historical Sherlock Holmes.

But surely there were real-life people who lived in Baker street (a real place), one of whom might have been a detective named 'Holmes' (or similar), so how can we say for certain that such a person did not exist?

Well for a start, the novels are obvious fiction and the events in them certainly didn't happen. Secondly, there are no contemporaneous records of a famous person with the name 'Holmes' (or similar) that the stories could have been based on, which would be expected to if he existed. Thirdly, there are contemporaneous records and other evidence indicating that the character - and even his biographer - were fictitious.

OTOH, we do know that the person who wrote all known books containing those stories actually existed, and we know that he was a doctor. Finally, we know that he studied under a renowned forensic scientist at Edinburgh University by the name of Dr Joseph Bell - who was not named Holmes, was not a consulting detective for Scotland Yard (though he did do some forensic work for the police), and did not live in Baker street.

So that's two out of the three doctors involved that we know existed, one a forensic scientist who could reasonably have been the famed detective, and a real place that he could have lived at. This is more evidence than we have for a historical Jesus, yet nobody today argues that Joseph Bell was the 'Historical Sherlock Holmes'. In fact, everyone agrees that Sherlock Holmes definitely didn't exist in any form. Because the evidence for the lack of his existence outweighs the evidence for it.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 22nd May 2020 at 11:22 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 11:21 PM   #1445
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
1.People believe it is not plausible that there was an HJ.
2. There is no historical evidence whatsoever of a human character who was worshiped as a God by Jews in the time of Pilate or at anytime up to the 2nd century.
3. The Jesus character was fabricated.
You are not being honest, I think.
We are not talking about a Jesus who was worshipped as a god at the time of Pilate. The deification came later, and you most know that. So it is pointless to argue the point with you.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 11:34 PM   #1446
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
What is most amusing is that it is easily argued that Bible Adam did not exist however some have no idea whether or not Bible Jesus, the water walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost character did exist.

Bible Adam and Bible Jesus are no different they are fiction characters that never ever existed at anytime.

Bible Jesus is the last Adam. Bible Jesus was a Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45

Bible Adam and Bible Jesus never ever had any history,
I don't think you understand the text you quote. Jesus was a person who was reborn as a spirit. So says Paul. "51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." Jesus was a perishable human being who clothed himself with immortality unlike Adam who was not immortal but when he died merely returned to the dust from which God originally created him. That is what Paul is very clearly saying.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 11:51 PM   #1447
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Scientology is a well documented recent one, foundational teachings entirely pulled out of Hubbard's arse.
Certainly. And it's well documented that Scientologists exist. Just ask Tom Cruise.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 12:46 AM   #1448
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,915
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post

Meh. If I say I was mugged 10 years ago, that's not so hard to believe. I f I say I was mugged 10 years ago by that guy over there. Well, nobody would convict that guy over there, but not many folks would say that was evidence that I was never mugged, even if I said that guy was a wizard who mugged me using magic, especially if I live in a culture where lots of folks believe in wizards.

That is not, however, a valid comparison with the people described as "witnesses" in the biblical case. You are talking about you yourself being mugged and giving your own personal account of what you say happened to you. But that's not what the gospel writers were doing. They were anonymous people, who were apparently trying to pass themselves off as named disciples (Mark, Mathew, Luke, John), who wrote about numerous claimed events, which they themselves had never witnessed, and where they give no information at all as to where they got the stories from ... except that we now know that they were getting the stories from ancient OT religious prophecy ... and the stories themselves have since turned out to be untrue invented fiction ...

... so to put that in your analogy of a modern day mugging - you would be an anonymous person, pretending to be someone else, where you claimed that unknown sources had given you an account of things that once happend to someone else, but where you never explain who it was that gave you the account, and where your story was that someone else was mugged in the unknown past by a supernatural spirit in the skies! …

... and after all of that, we then find out that you had got the basis of your mugging stories from a book written 300 years ago!

Last edited by IanS; 23rd May 2020 at 12:48 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 12:55 AM   #1449
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,007
Question

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Certainly. And it's well documented that Scientologists exist. Just ask Tom Cruise.
So,
does that mean Xenu existed ?
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 06:51 AM   #1450
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You are not being honest, I think.
We are not talking about a Jesus who was worshipped as a god at the time of Pilate. The deification came later, and you most know that. So it is pointless to argue the point with you.
I am glad you mention honesty.

How in the world can you now honestly claim the deification of Jesus was later when it is also claimed Paul was preaching about Jesus the son of God since the time of Aretas?

Examine the Epistles and Acts.

Romans 8:3
Quote:
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.
1 Corinthians 1:9
Quote:
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
Galatians 2:20
Quote:
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Acts 9 19-20
Quote:
Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
It is dishonest to argue that the deification of Jesus was later while at the same time claiming that Paul preached about Jesus the son of God since at least 37-41 CE.

It is amazing how dishonest some can be!!!

Last edited by dejudge; 23rd May 2020 at 06:52 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 07:15 AM   #1451
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I don't think you understand the text you quote. Jesus was a person who was reborn as a spirit. So says Paul. "51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." Jesus was a perishable human being who clothed himself with immortality unlike Adam who was not immortal but when he died merely returned to the dust from which God originally created him. That is what Paul is very clearly saying.
More dishonesty again!!!

In the Epistles to the Corinthians it is claimed Jesus is the Son of God who was raised from the dead on the third day and that he was seen by the very supposed author of the Epistle.


1 Corinthians 1:9
Quote:
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:28
Quote:
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:8
Quote:
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
All Christian writers of antiquity who made reference to the Pauline Epistles argue that Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead.

Why do you constantly mis-represent the teaching of the Epistles?

It is simply dishonest to claim the Pauline Epistles support heretical teachings yet was Canonised by the Church.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 01:20 PM   #1452
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am glad you mention honesty.

How in the world can you now honestly claim the deification of Jesus was later when it is also claimed Paul was preaching about Jesus the son of God since the time of Aretas?

Examine the Epistles and Acts.

Romans 8:3

1 Corinthians 1:9

Galatians 2:20

Acts 9 19-20

It is dishonest to argue that the deification of Jesus was later while at the same time claiming that Paul preached about Jesus the son of God since at least 37-41 CE.

It is amazing how dishonest some can be!!!
Evidently the problem is one of simple ignorance. Here is wiki on the expression "son of God"
The term "son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way of referring to humans with special relationships with God. In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's "Firstborn son"[2]. In Psalms, David is called "son of God", even commanded to proclaim that he is God's "begotten son" on the day he was made king.[3][4] Solomon is also called "son of God".[5][6] Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God."
it was a title of davidic kings, having then no connotation of divinity, and Paul considered Jesus to be such a king, not a God.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 04:23 PM   #1453
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,505
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Evidently the problem is one of simple ignorance...

In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's "Firstborn son".
The Bible is full of stuff like this, statements that the original audience knew were not meant to be taken literally. But those words were later presented to a different audience which was ignorant of the context - perhaps a less sophisticated audience who were more inclined to take the words literally, and perhaps even needed something more tangible to believe in.

Most of the Biblical stories about Jesus were clearly designed to serve some purpose other than biography, such as to fulfill prophesy, justify breaking laws or resolve moral dilemmas. Without historical and cultural context they can easily be misinterpreted. Did Jesus have an actual blood brother named James? Did he really curse a fig tree, and ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? Or were these all just literary inventions designed to validate religious dogma? If so, how do we know that the protagonist himself wasn't also a literary invention?

We are told that Jesus (Yeshua or Y'shua in Hebrew) was a common Jewish name during the Second Temple period, and therefore it is not unlikely that a religious figure would bear this name. But its literal meaning "to deliver; to rescue" is commonly translated as "Yehowah saves" or "salvation". This is mighty convenient for Christianity, and makes you wonder if it was applied retroactively. Seems like too much of a coincidence to me - more likely evidence against a Historical Jesus that for it.

I suspect that if all the stories about Jesus in the New Testament were closely scrutinized, we would find that all of them were literary inventions. But could a cult leader whom we can call "the Historical Jesus" (even if he was not named such) have been the basis for the stories? If they were never intended to be a biography then there is no reason to suppose a real person was behind them - except for apologetics.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 05:04 PM   #1454
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,505
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
All Christian writers of antiquity who made reference to the Pauline Epistles argue that Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead.
True, but they also 'argued' that he had other supernatural attributes such as being able to walk on water and perform miracles etc. The argument for a secular historical Jesus is that the supernatural parts were inventions, but the man himself wasn't.

There are are many examples of ordinary humans being described as gods. This does not mean they didn't exist. What would be suspicious is if the earliest writings described an ethereal being which only became human in later documents. This might indicate that it was pure invention rather than deification of an actual person.

A better argument against Christian writers of antiquity knowing of a historical Jesus is simply that none of them were in a position to know, nor did they care. Pretty much everything they wrote was ahistorical, and much it was obvious invention. Even the name 'Jesus' is suspicious! Therefore we can't trust that any of it is true.

If someone wrote stories today about a 'friend' who didn't seem to exist outside their writings, we would be fully justified in concluding he was an invention - especially if he conveniently 'ascended to Heaven' without a trace. But we are expected to believe that a historical Jesus could have existed even though no evidence of him exists outside of the Bible, and the evidence inside it is unbelievable.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 07:53 PM   #1455
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Evidently the problem is one of simple ignorance. Here is wiki on the expression "son of God"
The term "son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way of referring to humans with special relationships with God. In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God's "Firstborn son"[2]. In Psalms, David is called "son of God", even commanded to proclaim that he is God's "begotten son" on the day he was made king.[3][4] Solomon is also called "son of God".[5][6] Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God."
it was a title of davidic kings, having then no connotation of divinity, and Paul considered Jesus to be such a king, not a God.
How dishonest can you be!!!

In the Bible Jesse is the father of David and Solomon is the son of David.

Ruth 4:17
Quote:
And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
2 Samuel 12:24
Quote:
And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the Lord loved him.
Son of God is also a name given to characters deemed to be sons of God in Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

Why are you blatantly mis-representing the very teachings of the Church which Canonised the Epistles?

In the Epistles it is claimed Jesus is God's own son and he is Lord.

Unlike David, Jesus had no human father in the Epistles but known as the Son of God and Lord.

1 Corinthians 1:9
Quote:
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 8:3
Quote:
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
Jesus is Lord in the Epistles just like the God of the Jews is Lord in Hebrew Scripture.

Romans 1:7
Quote:
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:3
Quote:
Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:3
Quote:
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ
It is simply false that Jesus was deified later if you argue that Paul preached about God's own Son - his Lord and Saviour Jesus since 37-41 CE.

Last edited by dejudge; 23rd May 2020 at 07:55 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 08:24 PM   #1456
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
True, but they also 'argued' that he had other supernatural attributes such as being able to walk on water and perform miracles etc. The argument for a secular historical Jesus is that the supernatural parts were inventions, but the man himself wasn't.
But such an argument cannot be corroborated by any historical evidence. If you were to remove all the supernatural events from Satan then you may say he was just a bad man but such a claim would be ridiculous.

Inventing a fiction character from the NT fable is not how history is done. Perhaps, you don't realise that even the non-supernatural events were also made up.

The baptism, the triumphant entry, the trial and crucifixion are all implausible fiction.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
There are are many examples of ordinary humans being described as gods. This does not mean they didn't exist. What would be suspicious is if the earliest writings described an ethereal being which only became human in later documents. This might indicate that it was pure invention rather than deification of an actual person.
There are many examples of myth characters which were and are still believed to exist or have existed. This does not mean they were human.

I am not dealing with speculation [not dealing with maybe this or maybe that]

I am dealing with the existing evidence.

Based on the existing evidence Jesus, the disciples and Paul were figures of fiction.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

A better argument against Christian writers of antiquity knowing of a historical Jesus is simply that none of them were in a position to know, nor did they care. Pretty much everything they wrote was ahistorical, and much it was obvious invention. Even the name 'Jesus' is suspicious! Therefore we can't trust that any of it is true.
If you think have a better argument then you should present it.

The best arguments are always based on the existing evidence.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

If someone wrote stories today about a 'friend' who didn't seem to exist outside their writings, we would be fully justified in concluding he was an invention - especially if he conveniently 'ascended to Heaven' without a trace. But we are expected to believe that a historical Jesus could have existed even though no evidence of him exists outside of the Bible, and the evidence inside it is unbelievable.
I have no obligation to accept fiction as history.

Just as I rejected the historicity of Adam I also reject the historicity of Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Based on my research, the stories of Jesus, the disciples and Paul were fabricated after the Fall of the Jewish Temple and no earlier than the 2nd century.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:31 PM   #1457
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Adam and Eve ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Noah ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Samson ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Moses ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Solomon ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Harry Potter ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Bacchus / Dionysus ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Zeus and friends ...

Human beings write fiction, for all sorts of reasons.
Surely you know that ?


Kapyong
You haven’t answered the question. “who, and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure" in this instance? Your response merely implies the Jesus myth theory, which takes the line that the entire story of Jesus is pure fiction (like Harry Potter) with no claims to historical fact of any sort. But, the likes of Bart Ehrman and the majority of biblical scholars consider the Jesus myth idea is a fringe theory, supported by very few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticized for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:41 PM   #1458
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,532
Have you seen surveys of historians showing that this consensus is real? The last time I saw a claim like that getting made over & over again in debates on a different subject, it turned out to be a lie.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:45 PM   #1459
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
So, now you admit that you believe in miracles.
Not at all.

Quote:
The so-called miracle of Fatima must be propaganda it could never have happened.

Nobody who lived in 1917 could have identified a character called the Blessed Virgin Mary who supposedly lived in the time of Pilate.
What part of “group psychology” don’t you understand? The event happened, whereby a huge crowd gathered to view the predicted appearance of the virgin Mary and believed the sun danced around the sky. It’s well documented – Google it.

Quote:
How can you be so gullible???
You missed the bit where I said: “Obviously, in reality, there was no such occurrence but tens of thousands believed there was”.

Quote:
Was Paul looking in the sun when he met Peter and James? He was blinded by a bright light when he heard a voice but saw no-one.
Oh dear!!!

Actually Paul, I believe, was having a frontal lobe epileptic seizure on the Damascus road when he had his seemingly divine revelation. Similar has been attributed to Muhammad as well.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 01:35 AM   #1460
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,915
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
True, but they also 'argued' that he had other supernatural attributes such as being able to walk on water and perform miracles etc. The argument for a secular historical Jesus is that the supernatural parts were inventions, but the man himself wasn't.

There are are many examples of ordinary humans being described as gods. This does not mean they didn't exist. What would be suspicious is if the earliest writings described an ethereal being which only became human in later documents. This might indicate that it was pure invention rather than deification of an actual person.

A better argument against Christian writers of antiquity knowing of a historical Jesus is simply that none of them were in a position to know, nor did they care. Pretty much everything they wrote was ahistorical, and much it was obvious invention. Even the name 'Jesus' is suspicious! Therefore we can't trust that any of it is true.

If someone wrote stories today about a 'friend' who didn't seem to exist outside their writings, we would be fully justified in concluding he was an invention - especially if he conveniently 'ascended to Heaven' without a trace. But we are expected to believe that a historical Jesus could have existed even though no evidence of him exists outside of the Bible, and the evidence inside it is unbelievable.


Obviously I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying, and I think we are in general agreement on the subject of a HJ.

But just on that highlighted part about history describing other well known human people as gods … if you are thinking of historical figures such as various Roman Emperors or other well known rulers being described as gods, then none of those are really comparable with Jesus.

In the case of all those Roman Emperors and similarly powerful rulers of antiquity, although sycophantic and fearful minions often told the ruler that he (it was nearly always a “he”) was radiating and glowing with the aura of having being made into a god, they very often told their rulers and leaders that what they were doing was miraculous and showing supernatural powers etc. And of course those rulers themselves were probably in the habit of claiming to have the supernatural powers of a god.

However, what we know from historical writing of the lives of all those ancient emperors and other rulers, is that 99% of their history described their entirely human activities such as having all sorts of people executed, commanding military forces into constant wars and battles with all sorts of other people, having all sorts opulent massive palaces and other monuments built in adoring memory of their own name etc. etc. Only the remaining 1% (or less) involved those grandiose sycophantic claims to having supernatural god-like powers.

But in the case of Jesus it's entirely the other way around. In his case it's 99% of what was said about him that was supernatural and god-like. And that is far more like the descriptions that we have for all the countless imaginary gods of ancient history ... Osiris, Dionysus, Zeus and countless hundreds of others.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 03:21 AM   #1461
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
What part of “group psychology” don’t you understand? The event happened, whereby a huge crowd gathered to view the predicted appearance of the virgin Mary and believed the sun danced around the sky. It’s well documented – Google it.
Nobody saw the virgin Mary in 1917. It is well documented propaganda.


Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Actually Paul, I believe, was having a frontal lobe epileptic seizure on the Damascus road when he had his seemingly divine revelation. Similar has been attributed to Muhammad as well.
Ok. Paul lived no earlier than the 2nd century and had a frontal lobe epileptic seizure and believed he was living in the time of Aretas. He believed he met Jesus and apostles who never existed. It is well documented.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 05:40 AM   #1462
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
You haven’t answered the question. “who, and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure" in this instance? Your response merely implies the Jesus myth theory, which takes the line that the entire story of Jesus is pure fiction (like Harry Potter) with no claims to historical fact of any sort. But, the likes of Bart Ehrman and the majority of biblical scholars consider the Jesus myth idea is a fringe theory, supported by very few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticized for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
May I suggest you read The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos? You may find some insights there regarding all those consensus New Testament scholars whose opinions you value. IIRC, Avalos professes agnosticism on HJ btw.

You should also read Did Jesus Exist by Ehrman. It is bad. Very bad. Ehrman not only fails to address MJ theory head on, he asserts that imaginary documents are evidence for HJ. No, I am not kidding. His book is really one of apologetics, not scholarship. If this is the best HJ supporters can do, then MJ wins.



Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 07:53 AM   #1463
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Let me make my position clear.

The so-called HJ is a fiction character fabricated whole cloth from the fables of the NT.

Every so-called Scholar who argue for an HJ did precisely what the authors of NT did.

NT authors used Hebrew Scripture to fabricate a plausible fiction character that was accepted by people as a God.

Today, so-called Scholars are actively using the Canon of the Church, works of fiction, forgeries and false attribution to assemble plausible fiction characters which people today would accept as an historical man.

HJ is a direct product of fiction-not history.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 09:15 AM   #1464
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,532
Why do you refuse to use the adjective "fictional"? Why do you keep replacing it with the noun "fiction" when clearly what your sentence unmistakably needs there is an adjective?

Last edited by Delvo; 24th May 2020 at 10:58 AM.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 11:53 AM   #1465
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Why do you refuse to use the adjective "fictional"? Why do you keep replacing it with the noun "fiction" when clearly what your sentence unmistakably needs there is an adjective?
Ok. I will do some changes.

The so-called HJ is fiction.

The so-called HJ never ever existed and is made up from whole cloth using dis-credited NT fables about a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 02:06 PM   #1466
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
You haven’t answered the question. “who, and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure" in this instance?

In fact I answered with two separate posts where I pointed out :

1) We DON'T KNOW.

2) So what if we don't ?


You ignored that issue entirely.

I also asked you to clearly spell out your argument -

We don't know who, or why, they made up the mythical/fictional Gospel of Mark, therefore this means .... WHAT ?

Same thing for the example of Adam and Eve - we DON'T KNOW who made up Genesis - so what ?

We are similarly ignorant of the author's mind for almost every single ancient book ever written - so what ?

If you have an argument here, I cannot figure out what it is - please be clear

Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 02:14 PM   #1467
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,007
Post

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
You should also read Did Jesus Exist by Ehrman. It is bad. Very bad. Ehrman not only fails to address MJ theory head on, he asserts that imaginary documents are evidence for HJ. No, I am not kidding. His book is really one of apologetics, not scholarship. If this is the best HJ supporters can do, then MJ wins.
Yah, here is what Ehrman claims as sources in DJE? :
G.Mark
G.Luke
G.Matthew
G.John
G.Thomas
G.Peter
P.Eg.2

Then he doubles down further with another list (that doesn't quite match the seven gospels he named; note the {count} is by me) :

By Prof Ehrman
Quote:
"In addition to Mark {1}, we have Q {1}, M (which is possibly made of multiple sources {1-2+}), L (also possibly multiple sources {1-2+}), two or more passion narratives {2+}, a signs source {1}, two discourse sources {2}, the kernel (or original) Gospel behind the Gospel of Thomas {1}, and possibly others {0-2+}."
Minimum ten books, possibly fourteen or more.

Plus five missed from above - G.Matthew, G.Luke, G.John, G.Peter, P.Egerton 2 - gives a grand-total of :

15 - 19+ sources for a historical Jesus, according to Prof Ehrman.

In truth it is ONE : G.Mark.


Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 03:06 PM   #1468
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,505
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But just on that highlighted part about history describing other well known human people as gods … if you are thinking of historical figures such as various Roman Emperors or other well known rulers being described as gods,
No, I am thinking of cult leaders who claimed to be, and/or were believed to be by their followers. The most famous in modern times would probably be Sun Myung Moon. Some other names you might recognize include Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Haile Selassie.

List of people claimed to be Jesus

Quote:
But in the case of Jesus it's entirely the other way around.
I agree. It seems that 'the Christ' started out as a fully supernatural being, then was given a back-story that could have described the life of a human religious figure. This was a smart move by the early Christian Church because it made him seem more real, an actual person that people could relate to.

Compared to other gods, Jesus's 'miracles' were little more than party tricks - much easier for the people of the time to accept without evidence - and the rest of his 'biography' is quite believable even to atheists (until you examine it more closely). This Historical Jesus narrative countered suggestions that he was no more than a myth. Detractors could claim that he wasn't a god, but couldn't hand wave away the 'historical' bits. It worked so well that we are still debating the subject today.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 24th May 2020 at 03:08 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 06:07 PM   #1469
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No, I am thinking of cult leaders who claimed to be, and/or were believed to be by their followers. The most famous in modern times would probably be Sun Myung Moon. Some other names you might recognize include Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Haile Selassie.
You must not forget that the Jews and the Jesus cult do not worship men as Gods. If Jesus did actually exist as a man then he would not have been worshiped as a God.

Jesus cult christians worship their God Creator Jesus, not the created.

Romans 1
Quote:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
People of antiquity who worship Bible Jesus as a God did not worship men who claim to be Jesus. A Human Jesus could not walk on water, transfigure, resurrect, appear to their followers and ascend to heaven.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I agree. It seems that 'the Christ' started out as a fully supernatural being, then was given a back-story that could have described the life of a human religious figure. This was a smart move by the early Christian Church because it made him seem more real, an actual person that people could relate to.
There is no 'back story about Jesus as a known human being.

The stories of Saul/Paul and Epistles are at least after gLuke was already written.

The stories of Jesus got more and more supernatural with time which is evident in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.

In the NT early version of the Jesus story [ gMark] he was a water walking ,transfiguring and resurrecting being.

Next in gMatthew, gLuke and Acts Jesus is born of a Ghost and ascended in a cloud.

After that in gJohn and the Epistles, Jesus is God's own Son, God Creator from the beginning, the Lord God and Saviour.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

Compared to other gods, Jesus's 'miracles' were little more than party tricks - much easier for the people of the time to accept without evidence - and the rest of his 'biography' is quite believable even to atheists (until you examine it more closely). This Historical Jesus narrative countered suggestions that he was no more than a myth. Detractors could claim that he wasn't a god, but couldn't hand wave away the 'historical' bits. It worked so well that we are still debating the subject today.
Jesus was God Creator in the NT. That is not 'little more than party tricks'.

Now, 'what historical bits' are you talking about? Nothing in the NT about Jesus, the disciples and Paul have been corroborated by any historical source of antiquity.

There are no known 'historical bits" in the NT with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Last edited by dejudge; 24th May 2020 at 06:21 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 08:52 PM   #1470
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,505
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You must not forget that the Jews and the Jesus cult do not worship men as Gods. If Jesus did actually exist as a man then he would not have been worshiped as a God.
And according to the Bible he wasn't. Not only did the Jews not worship Jesus, they killed him!

Quote:
There is no 'back story about Jesus as a known human being.
But there is, in the Bible. An invented one perhaps, but that's what a backstory usually is.

Quote:
The stories of Jesus got more and more supernatural with time which is evident in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.

In the NT early version of the Jesus story [ gMark] he was a water walking ,transfiguring and resurrecting being.

Next in gMatthew, gLuke and Acts Jesus is born of a Ghost and ascended in a cloud.

After that in gJohn and the Epistles, Jesus is God's own Son, God Creator from the beginning, the Lord God and Saviour.
You are arguing for a Jesus who initially was just a man who did 'magic tricks', and was only elevated to 'god' status after death. Walking on water, turning water in wine, healing the sick etc. are the kinds of tricks that you would expect from a cult leader, not a god. Even the resurrection was a trick (which he had performed before on another man). No doubt there were numerous cult leaders and other shysters doing similar things at the time, just as they do today. Of course the 'magic tricks' were just that, not supernatural events. But the important thing is that they could have been performed by an ordinary man - a historical person.

Later writings would be expected to have more 'magic' in them as the writers embellished the stories more and incorporated others. So we could take the 'biography' of Jesus in the Bible, consider the virgin birth and miracles etc. to just be the expected tall tales that such figures attract, and poof! - a Historical Jesus!

Quote:
Now, 'what historical bits' are you talking about? Nothing in the NT about Jesus, the disciples and Paul have been corroborated by any historical source of antiquity.
Did I say there were any? No. What I meant was that the Bible itself was attempting to provide the history. You may argue that since the Bible is full of obvious lies and inventions that it is not a reliable source, but absent evidence of absence from other sources it is still evidence for it.

Quote:
There are no known 'historical bits" in the NT with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.
This is your claim, but you have to do more than just asserting it to convince us. The Bible itself is definitely historical. You admit that there is no other historical evidence for or against the existence of a historical Jesus. That means the biblical evidence, however weak, is still positive evidence for the existence of a man by the name of Jesus being the originator of Christianity. You can rightfully reject all the supernatural bits about Jesus in the Bible out of hand, but the 'historical' bits cannot be dismissed so easily.

In your attempt to refute the argument you think I was making, you have argued against your own one. If you want to continue your crusade to convince us that Jesus definitely did not exist, you had better change tack fast!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 24th May 2020 at 09:03 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2020, 09:54 PM   #1471
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
And according to the Bible he wasn't. Not only did the Jews not worship Jesus, they killed him!
That is only part of the story.

In the NT it is claimed that thousands of Jews were converted sometimes as much as 5000 in a day.

Acts 2
Quote:
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 4.
Quote:
4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
Acts 21
Quote:
:20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law
In the NT, after the Jews killed or caused the death of Jesus thousands of them repented of their sins and became believers.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But there is, in the Bible. An invented one perhaps, but that's what a backstory usually is.
There is no back story in the NT about Jesus. The NT is all fiction with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul with the Epistles being the last writings- not the first.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You are arguing for a Jesus who initially was just a man who did 'magic tricks', and was only elevated to 'god' status after death. Walking on water, turning water in wine, healing the sick etc. are the kinds of tricks that you would expect from a cult leader, not a god. Even the resurrection was a trick (which he had performed before on another man). No doubt there were numerous cult leaders and other shysters doing similar things at the time, just as they do today. Of course the 'magic tricks' were just that, not supernatural events. But the important thing is that they could have been performed by an ordinary man - a historical person.
I have never argued that Jesus was initially just a man.

Please, I am arguing that Jesus, the disciples and Paul never ever existed and that their stories are fiction.

The earliest version of the Jesus depicts him as a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting being. Such a being is not human. Later writers added more fiction claiming that he was God's own Son, the Creator and was born of a Ghost before he ascended to heaven.

You cannot present any historical evidence that another man was resurrected after being dead for at least four days.



Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Later writings would be expected to have more 'magic' in them as the writers embellished the stories more and incorporated others. So we could take the 'biography' of Jesus in the Bible, consider the virgin birth and miracles etc. to just be the expected tall tales that such figures attract, and poof! - a Historical Jesus!
So, since the earliest stories claimed Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring and resurrecting character he magically becomes historical because later stories add more fiction to a fictitious character.

Such an argument makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

Did I say there were any? No. What I meant was that the Bible itself was attempting to provide the history. You may argue that since the Bible is full of obvious lies and inventions that it is not a reliable source, but absent evidence of absence from other sources it is still evidence for it.
So, you do see the obvious fiction and lies in the Bible about Jesus? Lies and fiction is evidence of non-historicity.

Are you arguing that obvious lies and inventions are evidence that Jesus existed?



Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

This is your claim, but you have to do more than just asserting it to convince us. The Bible itself is definitely historical. You admit that there is no other historical evidence for or against the existence of a historical Jesus. That means the biblical evidence, however weak, is still positive evidence for the existence of a man by the name of Jesus being the originator of Christianity. You can rightfully reject all the supernatural bits about Jesus in the Bible out of hand, but the 'historical' bits cannot be dismissed so easily.
Whether or not you want to be convinced means nothing at all to me.

My position cannot be contradicted at all. There is no historical evidence anywhere that can contradict my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul never ever existed.



Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

In your attempt to refute the argument you think I was making, you have argued against your own one. If you want to continue your crusade to convince us that Jesus definitely did not exist, you had better change tack fast!
You don't know what you are talking about. It is you who claimed there were historical bits in the NT about Jesus when no such historical bits exist anywhere.

You seem to have no idea that fictitious events in the NT do not have to be supernatural.

Last edited by dejudge; 24th May 2020 at 09:57 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 12:30 AM   #1472
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
In fact I answered with two separate posts where I pointed out :

1) We DON'T KNOW.

2) So what if we don't ?
I see. So, you don’t actually know by whom nor for what purpose Jesus was made up from whole-cloth. But you nonetheless just KNOW that he was a totally fictional figure. Well, that’s convincing.

Quote:
We don't know who, or why, they made up the mythical/fictional Gospel of Mark, therefore this means .... WHAT ?
It means that you don’t have an argument, merely an assumption. Just because many aspects of the Jesus story are obviously highly embellished crap, doesn't mean that the whole shebang is totally fictional.

Quote:
Same thing for the example of Adam and Eve - we DON'T KNOW who made up Genesis - so what ?
No, it’s NOT the same thing for Adam and Eve and the rest of the ancient OT myths. They form part of the creation narratives common to all religions. A great many of them in the OT derive from Mesopotamian legends - especially the flood. Whereas, in all likelihood the mythical aspects that coalesced around the man Jesus – miracles, resurrection etc. - were simply anecdotal stories that kept growing in the telling.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 01:12 AM   #1473
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,915
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
You haven’t answered the question. “who, and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure" in this instance? Your response merely implies the Jesus myth theory, which takes the line that the entire story of Jesus is pure fiction (like Harry Potter) with no claims to historical fact of any sort. But, the likes of Bart Ehrman and the majority of biblical scholars consider the Jesus myth idea is a fringe theory, supported by very few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticized for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view.

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

First of all, that highlighted question is the well known fallacy of an "argument from incredulity" otherwise known as the "argument from ignorance". It means that just because you personally cannot imagine how something could happen, that does not mean that the thing is untrue .... IOW - it's a case you claiming to be incredulous and uncomprehending of how it could be possible for anyone in the 1st century to have told untrue stories about a promised supernatural messiah from God.

However, that is an untenable and and frankly disingenuous attempt at an argument from people who frequently make that "argument from ignorance/incredulity". Because you must know very well that all throughout mankind's history, people have made claims to witness countless different gods, deities, angels, demons etc. doing all sorts of things. There have been hundreds if not thousands of such religions and deities, with countless thousands of completely untrue invented witness accounts of how people had seen all those deities doing all sorts of things … but now in an educated 21st century we “know” that all of those witness stories were untrue fanatical superstitious inventions – none of the those deities were ever real, and none of what the followers claimed to witness ever happened … the stories, all the many thousands of them, were complete inventions.

Why did people do that hundreds and thousands of years ago? They did it because at the time almost everyone ignorantly believed in countless ancient superstitions and religions that claimed supernatural answers for everything in the world all around them. People were strongly disposed to endorse all those beliefs by fanatical claims to having witnessed all sorts of quite detailed experiences of encountering the various deities.

But none of those countless witness stories were ever true for any of those hundreds of different religions and their thousands of different deities.

If the stories were true for Jesus then he would be the one-&-only exception to all of that. He alone would be the one deity that really had been witnessed by all the people who told the stories about him … but keep in mind that all those Jesus stories have also turned to be impossible untrue fictional invention!

Put all that another way - if you think that you cannot understand how people would have invented untrue religious mythical accounts of Jesus, then you are in fact claiming that you also cannot understand or believe that people would have invented untrue stories for all the thousands of witness accounts claimed for all the other supernatural deities throughout human history.

Last edited by IanS; 25th May 2020 at 01:46 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 01:45 AM   #1474
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
No, it’s NOT the same thing for Adam and Eve and the rest of the ancient OT myths. They form part of the creation narratives common to all religions. A great many of them in the OT derive from Mesopotamian legends - especially the flood. Whereas, in all likelihood the mythical aspects that coalesced around the man Jesus – miracles, resurrection etc. - were simply anecdotal stories that kept growing in the telling.
Then G.Mark was written to explain why Jerusalem fell.

Look - the question is ambiguous :

In the sense :
"what motivations and/or thoughts and emotions drove the author to write this ?"
then the answer is obviously :
we don't know, how could we ?

But in the sense :
"what moral, conclusion, or point do we think the author was expressing ?"
THEN
we can form a conclusion, more or less tentatively.

In this case there seems to be a fairly clear point to the story - the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans was punishment to the Jews for crucifying Jesus.

Kapyong

Last edited by Kapyong; 25th May 2020 at 02:10 AM.
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 02:23 AM   #1475
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
First of all, that highlighted question is the well known fallacy of an "argument from incredulity" otherwise known as the "argument from ignorance". It means that just because you personally cannot imagine how something could happen, that does not mean that the thing is untrue .... IOW - it's a case you claiming to be incredulous and uncomprehending of how it could be possible for anyone in the 1st century to have told untrue stories about a promised supernatural messiah from God.
No, it's not an Argument from Ignorance. It's merely asking for an explanation to the unevidenced assertion that the entire Jesus story is completely invented from start to finish.

I am not doubting for one moment that the story comprises many invented, embellishments and factual inaccuracies. My only point is that more likely than not there is a core fact to the story. Namely that a man - probably some sort of peripatetic, charismatic preacher - existed upon which to hang the supposed miracles and wondrous events that we find in the gospels.

In short, I'm arguing that Jesus was merely a man, not a miracle-working man/god.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 02:28 AM   #1476
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post

Look - the question is ambiguous :

In the sense :
"what motivations and/or thoughts and emotions drove the author to write this ?"
then the answer is obviously :
we don't know, how could we ?
If you don't know then why make the unevidenced claim that the entire Jesus story is fiction without a single kernel of fact?
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 02:35 AM   #1477
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Nobody saw the virgin Mary in 1917. It is well documented propaganda.
What is well documented is that a huge crowd assembled in 1917 at Fatima to view a predicted appearance of the virgin Mary and claim they saw sun dance around the sky. Obviously, they didn’t really see this but they believed they did which is the point. It’s an example of group psychology and mass hysteria and a possible explanation of the 500 to whom Jesus supposedly appeared according to Paul in 1 Cor 15. And which you dismissed as an impossibility.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 04:55 AM   #1478
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,487
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
No, it's not an Argument from Ignorance. It's merely asking for an explanation to the unevidenced assertion that the entire Jesus story is completely invented from start to finish.



I am not doubting for one moment that the story comprises many invented, embellishments and factual inaccuracies. My only point is that more likely than not there is a core fact to the story. Namely that a man - probably some sort of peripatetic, charismatic preacher - existed upon which to hang the supposed miracles and wondrous events that we find in the gospels.



In short, I'm arguing that Jesus was merely a man, not a miracle-working man/god.
Is scientology entirely invented fro start to finish?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 05:03 AM   #1479
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
What is well documented is that a huge crowd assembled in 1917 at Fatima to view a predicted appearance of the virgin Mary and claim they saw sun dance around the sky. Obviously, they didn’t really see this but they believed they did which is the point. It’s an example of group psychology and mass hysteria and a possible explanation of the 500 to whom Jesus supposedly appeared according to Paul in 1 Cor 15. And which you dismissed as an impossibility.
What contradictory nonsense you post repeatedly. You have already admit they saw nothing in 1917. The sighting of the Blessed Virgin Mary is total fiction.

You seem to have forgotten that you believe Paul had a frontal lobe epileptic seizure.

The sighting of the resurrected Jesus by over 500 people at once is total fiction if Paul had a frontal lobe epileptic seizure.

Why are you dismissing the facts?
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2020, 07:04 AM   #1480
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
My only point is that more likely than not there is a core fact to the story. Namely that a man - probably some sort of peripatetic, charismatic preacher - existed upon which to hang the supposed miracles and wondrous events that we find in the gospels.



In short, I'm arguing that Jesus was merely a man, not a miracle-working man/god.
What is your evidence that this holy man, rabbi, wandering prophet actually existed?

Doherty makes a compelling argument that Christ Jesus was known only from scripture and revelation among the earliest Xians. The early epistles and Xian documents are lacking references to the earthly Christ Jesus even when we would expect them to help make a point. This is acknowledged by mainstream scholars.

I am aware of only two recent books that have defended the HJ position. Bart Ehrman failed bigley with DJE? If this is the best a renowned biblical scholar can do, then HJ loses and MJ wins in a landslide. The book really is that bad.

I have not read Maurice Casey's defense of HJ. From reviews, he went off the deep end and wrote a book that was worse than DJE?

So where are the biblical scholars who have tackled the Doherty thesis head on and refuted it convincingly?


Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.