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 Yesterday, 08:02 AM   #1481
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,531
Originally Posted by Senex View Post
I ask them about the Exodus. The Exodus is clearly indefensible on a historical level and that doesn't stop them from regurgitating things that are historically bulloney.
Not that it matters much to this thread or is likely to be what your acquaintences had in mind, but just because I think it's fun: there actually are Egyptian records of something that looks Exodusy to me. They say they threw out a group of foreign conquerors called "Hyksos" who had taken over part of northeastern Egypt for a few centuries. The Hyksos spoke a Semitic language (I think even NW Semitic, which is Hebrew's branch) and had names to match, even including a king named "Jacob". And although the idea that they were conquerors and got thrown out might sound like it doesn't fit with the Bible's claim that they were slaves and escaped, it actually does. Early in Exodus, it says the Israelites were doing very well for themselves there and Egypt turned against them because they became too successful & powerful, and later, in the chapters leading up to the final departure, there are multiple references to needing to hurry because their neighbors wanted them to go and might attack if they didn't go fast enough, so the Bible gives us actually a combination of escaping and getting driven out. (It's even used as the explanation for why the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Feast of Unleavened Bread! The story goes that they left without any yeast because they were suddenly packing up in such a rush to get going.) So we have not just independent corroboration, but competitor/opponent corroboration, of several parts of the Bible story, but not other parts. And the Egyptian tale apparently even caps it off with some kind of calamity like a huge violent storm or such because it was just Egyptian storytelling tradition for big important human events to be marked by nature like that, so we even have agreement on a presumably supernatural aspect of it too.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
My sources are the writings of antiquity like those attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Fair enough. Those who disagree should provide their own sources to refute your analysis, or shut up. Who's got something?
The last time I went through a list of sources like that, it turned out that not a single one of them other than Josephus (see below) would have been expected to talk about Jesus even if Jesus were real, so the fact that they didn't means nothing. It's like saying a certain principle in aircraft engineering must not be real because a certain group of marine biologists never mentioned it.

If you have any this time for whom talking about Jesus would actually be expected, and not doing so would actually be conspicuous/strange, which are they?

And Josephus (excluding the obviously fake Testimonium) only makes the "it's all nothing but fiction" case even worse anyway. He gives us a couple of wandering doomsday preachers in whom most aspects of a plausible real-world version of the Christian Jesus can be found. One whose name was unknown to Josephus became quite famous in that area in his time, gathered a large following, preached Jesusy-sounding stuff primarily at the Mount of Olives, and had his career ended in a Roman attack which killed or scattered his crowd (a battle which surprisingly fits the Bible scene involving a Roman cohort and Disciples with swords and an ear getting cut off), but is said to have escaped. Another a bit later on is named Jesus, was captured & beaten by Jewish authorites and then handed over to the Romans who beat him again, never offered any defense of himself in either case, and was personally interviewed by the governor, who found that he was innocent and not a threat and should be released, only to end up getting killed by Romans afterward anyway. Why do the "it was all simply made up just to create a new religion out of the lie" people never comment on those guys?

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence then why do atheists argue that the Christian God does not exist?
The Christian god is not argued against based only on absence of evidence. It comes with testable real-world predictions, and those have all failed.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
abaddon - I think you are forgetting something - we know that the foundational character/entity of a religion are made up in every recent religion. For Jesus to have actually been the creator/originator of Christianity would make him the exception. We have no reason to simply assume he may have existed in any form, there is much more evidence against him existing even as a person.
Which made-up "foundational character(s)" do you have in mind that are said to be humans whose life stories are similar to how we know some human lives go in their place & time, not aliens like Zenu or spinoffs from established major religions like Moroni?

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Which book mentions your failed prophet?
As I'm pretty sure you already knew, nobody's claiming that that's what the gospels called him. They're claiming that that's what he probably was in reality, which the gospels distort.

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.
Those really are nowhere near analogous. Harry Potter was never said to be real and used as a religious figure. Samson and Solomon are just Israelite kings said to live in a time when Israel had kings, so there's no particular reason to think they're entirely fictional rather than just embellished. The gods you named are personifications of aspects of nature or life, not supernaturalizations of humans. Noah and Moses are characters whom it would be reasonable to suspect were embellished from real people, but they also come with easy explanations for why such characters might have been invented if there were no such real people: they're icons in large-scale stories that work better if a central focal character is invented to represent humanity or a specific subset of humans through the story, like what modern movie reviewers call a "point-of-view character" or "audience surrogate". (In other words, a tale of global destruction needs a survivor, and a tale of captive people being led to freedom needs a leader.) Jesus fits none of those descriptions. The one he comes closest to is Samson & Solomon: alleged real people of a type that we know did exist in the given place & time, whom it would thus be unreasonable to declare made-up on the basis of only some supernatural stuff getting included in their stories.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
...some further thoughts on that :
"Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?"

The answer is : we don't know.
So what ?...

What's the argument ?
That we don't know who wrote a fictional Jesus, nor why - therefore Jesus cannot be fictional ?
That the insistence that he was made up doesn't make much sense on the face of it and is thus in need of explanation & justification to show how it would make more sense than it seems to at first.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
We do not know who wrote the original Adam and Eve story, nor why.
We will never know.

But that has no bearing at all on the story being true history, does it ?
That's another one of those global-scale stories that would benefit from having human characters as stand-ins for the rest of us to make its point about the way the world works. A tale of sin entering human life demands a first sinner, and a tale of the switch from wandering around eating what you find to farming benefits hugely from having a first farmer. Jesus started out as an utterly ordinary (as they were seen back then) guy just like several other guys, not a representative of humanity or the tribe in a grand tale of a transformation in the way life works.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
One of the points you make above 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.
No. You depict the progression of versions of the story exactly backward. The later his story was rewritten, the more supernatural it got. The oldest stuff about him is the most mundane, the most like other wandering Jewish doomsday dudes.

The oldest form of his story just has him wander around preaching for a while & get killed. There's some stuff like blindness-curing along the way, but that's routine, included in the package; all those guys like him were (said to be) miracle-workers. He doesn't even seem to have originally been said to have gotten resurrected (and even that would have been a not-very-remarkable trope of the time if he had). The Epistles that aren't universally agreed to be late fakes predate the Gospels, and those only have him appearing in visions after dying, not his body walking around. The earliest Gospel ends with only an implication that he might maybe have been resurrected but no follow-up confirmation, as if to leave it an open question precisely because the author knew some readers/listeners wouldn't buy that, and even that was written decades after the events it depicts, which is decades in which for the tale to have already gotten embellished in word-of-mouth relay. Later Gospels, as if in response to that cliffhanger, then tack on a bit of an "oh, ya, he totally did some other stuff too" addendum.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
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...

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.
A historical Jesus wouldn't even need to be the basis of each specific story that now has him in it. He'd just need to be somebody to whom those stories could be attached to.
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 Yesterday, 08:05 AM   #1482
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,914
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.


No, it actually is precisely the "argument from ignorance" - you are claiming that you cannot understand how the story of Jesus could have been a fictional invention without some real human person as the basis of the stories ... even though you know very well that there are hundreds of other religions and thousands of other deities where not a single one of them had any real person at the heart of the story.

Do you also decide that it's more than 50% likely that Zeus, Osiris, Apollo, all the Indian gods etc. had a real human figure at the heart of claims?

Also, how did you arrive at a probability of greater than 50% for Jesus?

You get past 50% even when you know very well that it's now been shown that everything that we can actually check about Jesus in the biblical stories, has turned out to be untrue fiction.

You appear to have arrived at your 50%-plus as a Faith Belief, because it's certainly not supported by what we have since discovered as the evidence surrounding all manner of untrue fanatical religious beliefs about Jesus.
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 Yesterday, 08:34 AM   #1483
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,914
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post

No. You depict the progression of versions of the story exactly backward. The later his story was rewritten, the more supernatural it got. The oldest stuff about him is the most mundane, the most like other wandering Jewish doomsday dudes.

The oldest form of his story just has him wander around preaching for a while & get killed. There's some stuff like blindness-curing along the way, but that's routine, included in the package; all those guys like him were (said to be) miracle-workers. He doesn't even seem to have originally been said to have gotten resurrected (and even that would have been a not-very-remarkable trope of the time if he had). The Epistles that aren't universally agreed to be late fakes predate the Gospels, and those only have him appearing in visions after dying, not his body walking around. The earliest Gospel ends with only an implication that he might maybe have been resurrected but no follow-up confirmation, as if to leave it an open question precisely because the author knew some readers/listeners wouldn't buy that, and even that was written decades after the events it depicts, which is decades in which for the tale to have already gotten embellished in word-of-mouth relay. Later Gospels, as if in response to that cliffhanger, then tack on a bit of an "oh, ya, he totally did some other stuff too" addendum.

A historical Jesus wouldn't even need to be the basis of each specific story that now has him in it. He'd just need to be somebody to whom those stories could be attached to.

Well the earliest description, or mention, of Jesus is supposed to be in Paul's letters. But there the only people that ever witnessed Jesus, claimed only to see him as the vision of a spirit in the heavens. Nobody there saw Jesus do anything at all on planet Earth!

Added to which, it's explicitly clear in Paul's letters that Paul repeatedly insists that he discovered the true messiah (the promised Lord Christ) from his understanding of ancient scripture ... he actually says that he had a blinding revelation from God, who he says was "pleased to reveal his Son in me", after which he says he then understood the true messianic prophesies of the Christ in what he called "Scripture" ... but he never really places that Christ on Earth ... the few things that he says about "the Christ" that might sound "Earthly", such as being executed by "the rulers of this age" , he insistently tells his readers that got that information from "scripture".

As for the gospels, we have no idea what was written about Jesus in earliest "original" gospels. Because we have no such original gospels! All that we have as gospels are copies-of-copies that almost certainly date to the 3rd and 4th century and later, in fact most of them are dated to the 6th century and later! For parts that are dated earlier than that, all we have are small fragments or else larger sections which are still however incomplete and often in poor condition. So we really do not know what was actually said in any gospel that might have been truly written in the 1st century AD ... for all we know an original version of any of those gospels might have included passages that made it clear they were writing about a mythical figure interpreted from OT scripture ... because as I explained here earlier, authors such as Randel Helms (see his book Gospel Fictions) have in fact identified numerous passages in g.Mark and g.Mathew that were clearly being copied from various parts of the OT ... and as just noted above, that is also exactly what "Paul" told his readers when kept very explicitly insisting that what he was telling them was all "according to scripture".
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 Yesterday, 10:25 AM   #1484
Senex
Philosopher
 
Senex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Connecticut School for Rumpology.
Posts: 5,928
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That shouldn't seem odd. The question of whether Jesus was a human being who "really walked the earth" is not a religious one, but is purely an issue of historical evidence. You say the evidence is not convincing but most other people believe it is quite plausible. Whether Jesus was a manifestation of God in human flesh is the religious issue, but nobody is making that assertion as far as I can see.
I believe these most other people have no plausible evidence. I believe they just don't wish to admit being hornswoggled in their youth.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Not that it matters much to this thread or is likely to be what your acquaintences had in mind, but just because I think it's fun: there actually are Egyptian records of something that looks Exodusy to me. They say they threw out a group of foreign conquerors called "Hyksos" who had taken over part of northeastern Egypt for a few centuries. The Hyksos spoke a Semitic language (I think even NW Semitic, which is Hebrew's branch) and had names to match, even including a king named "Jacob". And although the idea that they were conquerors and got thrown out might sound like it doesn't fit with the Bible's claim that they were slaves and escaped, it actually does. Early in Exodus, it says the Israelites were doing very well for themselves there and Egypt turned against them because they became too successful & powerful, and later, in the chapters leading up to the final departure, there are multiple references to needing to hurry because their neighbors wanted them to go and might attack if they didn't go fast enough, so the Bible gives us actually a combination of escaping and getting driven out. (It's even used as the explanation for why the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Feast of Unleavened Bread! The story goes that they left without any yeast because they were suddenly packing up in such a rush to get going.) So we have not just independent corroboration, but competitor/opponent corroboration, of several parts of the Bible story, but not other parts. And the Egyptian tale apparently even caps it off with some kind of calamity like a huge violent storm or such because it was just Egyptian storytelling tradition for big important human events to be marked by nature like that, so we even have agreement on a presumably supernatural aspect of it too.
Holey Moley! Armed with this information you must be able to offer the time period this occurred. We'll just line your facts up with other wisdom and... (hehehe...) Who needs corroborating facts anyway?
Senex 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 Yesterday, 10:41 AM   #1485
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,332
Originally Posted by dejudge
My sources are the writings of antiquity like those attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post

The last time I went through a list of sources like that, it turned out that not a single one of them other than Josephus (see below) would have been expected to talk about Jesus even if Jesus were real, so the fact that they didn't means nothing. It's like saying a certain principle in aircraft engineering must not be real because a certain group of marine biologists never mentioned it.
You seem to be confused, dishonest or cannot remember what you read.

Some of the authors I listed mentioned characters called Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post

If you have any this time for whom talking about Jesus would actually be expected, and not doing so would actually be conspicuous/strange, which are they?
The NT and apologetics claimed Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost and God Creator who was worshipped as a God by Jews and people of the Roman Empire.

In the NT and apologetics this Jesus is claimed to have chosen 12 disciples and was seen alive by Paul after he was already dead and buried for three days.

I expected the NT and apologetics to mention an HJ but they admitted their Jesus was the son of a Ghost without a human father.


I did not expect 1st century non-apologetic to corroborate one single thing about the NT fiction characters Jesus, the disciples and Paul and they did not.

Based on the evidence and the admittance that their Lord and Saviour was the son of a Ghost, Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all fiction characters and will never ever be found in any historical writings from the `1st century.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post

And Josephus (excluding the obviously fake Testimonium) only makes the "it's all nothing but fiction" case even worse anyway. He gives us a couple of wandering doomsday preachers in whom most aspects of a plausible real-world version of the Christian Jesus can be found. One whose name was unknown to Josephus became quite famous in that area in his time, gathered a large following, preached Jesusy-sounding stuff primarily at the Mount of Olives, and had his career ended in a Roman attack which killed or scattered his crowd (a battle which surprisingly fits the Bible scene involving a Roman cohort and Disciples with swords and an ear getting cut off), but is said to have escaped. Another a bit later on is named Jesus, was captured & beaten by Jewish authorites and then handed over to the Romans who beat him again, never offered any defense of himself in either case, and was personally interviewed by the governor, who found that he was innocent and not a threat and should be released, only to end up getting killed by Romans afterward anyway. Why do the "it was all simply made up just to create a new religion out of the lie" people never comment on those guys?
The writings attributed to Josephus is one of the prime evidence against an historical Jesus.

The NT authors appear to have used the works of Josephus to invent some of their NT stories of Jesus and Paul.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post

The Christian god is not argued against based only on absence of evidence. It comes with testable real-world predictions, and those have all failed.
Well, your HJ has not passed any test at all. Your HJ is a recent invention.

Your HJ is fiction derived from the fables of the NT.
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 Yesterday, 01:07 PM   #1486
HghrSymmetry
View clearer from above.
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,964
Even in other forums, with a slight name change...

...the beat goes on.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ch...219-42940.html
__________________
HygrSym brought up some fantastic points. He's so good, he doesn't have to use pseudo words like 'chillax'... -FSM
HghrSymmetry 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 Yesterday, 02:02 PM   #1487
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
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.
No, I did NOT say I "know" at all, I clearly said the exact opposite recently :
"I tend to the view that Jesus was as mythical as Adam and Eve".
Please don't falsely mis-represent me. You might consider how doing that affects your credibility.

In fact it is notable that the sceptics here tend to express UN-certainty, while the faithful believers are full of CERTAINTY. You seem very sure of your views.

Do you (falsely) ridicule certainty in others, while claiming it for yourself ?


Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
It means that you don’t have an argument,
So, if I cannot say why G.Mark was written, then I cannot say it is mythical ?

Your argument is still not clear, but it seems to go like this :

YOU CLAIM to know why G.Mark was written -
YOU CLAIM the reason was to record history.

YOU CLAIM to know why the other gospels and epistles were written -
YOU CLAIM the reason was to record history.

YOU CLAIM to know why all the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Bablyonian etc. myths and legnds and stories were written
YOU CLAIM the reason was NOT to record history, but just to tell stories, record legends, create myths.

Seriously ? Is that your argument ? If not, then WHY do you keep banging on about the reasons the books were written ?


Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Just because many aspects of the Jesus story are obviously highly embellished crap, doesn't mean that the whole shebang is totally fictional.
But that's not the argument here, and you know it. I didn't say that, nor did anyone else here AFAICR.

In fact several posters here have adduced numerous arguments against the gospels being history, but you generally ignore them.

They include :
  • that the burden of proof lies on the claimant,
  • that the gospels appeared long after and far away from the alleged events
  • that none of them were by eye-witnesses,
  • that there are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus,
  • that the gospels are supernatural stories, not historical ones,
  • that Jesus started as a supernatural being, it wasn't added later,
  • that the alleged authorship is false,
  • that Xenu doesn't exist, though you pointed out Scientologists do,
  • that the gospel stories express religious beliefs of the times,
  • that people then believed ANY supernatural story,
  • that there is a huge difference between adding supernatural stories to a historical person, and placing a supernatural myth in a time and place,

Will you be addressing those issues please ?

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 Yesterday, 02:04 PM   #1488
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
If you don't know then why make the unevidenced claim that the entire Jesus story is fiction without a single kernel of fact?
You aren't even TRYING to answer my posts any more

Sorry folks, I've given up on Tassman,
keep up the good work


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 Yesterday, 02:37 PM   #1489
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,006
From dejudge :

Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
The last time I went through a list of sources like that, it turned out that not a single one of them other than Josephus (see below) would have been expected to talk about Jesus even if Jesus were real, so the fact that they didn't means nothing. It's like saying a certain principle in aircraft engineering must not be real because a certain group of marine biologists never mentioned it.
Pardon?
Justin Martyr ? Aristides ? Theophilus ? Minucius Felix ? Sinaiticus ?
Would not mention Jesus ?

You didn't actually READ that list did you ? Hey, I don't blame you at all - after all it was dejudge's post

But I know the list you mean - that list of early writers who should have mentioned Jesus. Here is my analysis of writers contemporary with Jesus :

Writers Contemporary With The Alleged Jesus
5

Philo (20 BCE - 50 CE) = SClB

Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, and would surely have mentioned Jesus Christ or Christians had he known of them.
  • Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
  • he visited Jerusalem and had family there,
  • he developed the concept of the Logos and the Holy Spirit,
  • he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
  • he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues,
  • including critical commentary on Pilate.
Seneca The Younger (4 BCE - 65 CE) = sCB

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic and satirical books and letters in Rome. He wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings. He wrote a large work On Superstition between 40 and 62 CE that covered all the sects and cults of Rome. In fact, early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they forged letters between him and Paul. How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising void in Seneca's writings ?

Pliny The Elder (23 - 79) = SCB

Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.70CE following on from Bassus (from 31 CE) Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions hundreds of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.) It is quite likely for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events - if they had happened.

Petronius (c. 27 - 66) = CB

Gaius Petronius Arbiter or Titus Petronius wrote a large novel in Rome (a bawdy drama) the Satyricon c.60. Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :
  • a crucifixion !
  • a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
  • a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision,
  • gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
  • writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
  • books such as the Illiad,
  • Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
  • people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
  • female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
  • baths, shipwrecks, meals...
This large work, cover many topics, including topics related to the Jesus e.g. a crucifixion, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly.

Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (4 - c.70) = Cb

Columella wrote several works in Rome, some survives, e.g. his large book on agriculture Res Rustica.


Here is the key :
The writers here are rated according to characteristics which would increase the likelyhood of a mention of Jesus Christ :
  • the book has a relevant Subject (S or s)
  • the book is Contemporary (C or c)
  • the work is Local (L or l)
  • the book is Big with lots of names etc. (B or b)
  • the book is a Christian work (X)
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 Yesterday, 02:42 PM   #1490
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,006
Later first century :

Mid 1st C. (34 - 66)
10

Persius (34 - 62) = scb
Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.

Lucan (39 - 65) = cB
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century. In this large poem he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing. He :
  • mentions an event from 56 CE,
  • refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
  • referred to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world, refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.
Pomponius Mela (c.43) = c
He wrote a geography which includes the region.

Cornutus (c.60) = sc
Lucius Annaeus Cornutus wrote a variety of works in Rome - satires, philosophy, mythology. Some survive.

Hero of Alexandria (c.10 - c.70) = ClB
Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy in mid 1st C.

Quintus Curtus Rufus (mid 1st C.) = CB
Roman Rufus wrote a large history of Alexander, most still extant.

Scribonius Largus (mid 1st C.) = Cb
Wrote on medicine in Rome, much survives.

Rufus of Ephesus (mid 1st C.) = CLB
He wrote many works, mostly on medicine, much survives.

Cleopatra the Physician (mid 1st C.) = Cl
Some of her work survives.

Asconius Pedianus (mid 1st C.) = C
A Roman who wrote a variety of books, some survives.

Late 1st C. (67 - 99)
22

Plutarch (c. 46 CE - 120 CE) = ScB
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120.
  • Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
  • Plutarch wrote on oracles (prophesies),
  • Plutarch wrote on moral, spiritual and religious issues.
Justus of Tiberias (late 1st C.) = ScL
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Leaders in Galilee in late 1st century. Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

Juvenal (late 1st C. - early 2nd C.) = scb
Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century without mentioning Jesus or Christians, even though later Roman satirists like Lucian did ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century.

Pliny the Younger (61 - c.113) = sclB
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus was a prolific Roman author on many subjects.

Damis (mid 1st C. - early 2nd C.) = Sclb
Damis apparently wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana who was a philosopher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus, and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person. If Damis / Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor.

Martial (40 - c.103) = scB
Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century - a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
  • Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
  • virgin's blood,
  • Roman funerary practices,
  • the way accused men look in court,
  • Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
  • anointing the body with oil,
  • Molorchus the good shepherd,
  • Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
  • the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,
Quintilian (c.35 - c.100) = scb
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome in late 1st century. One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his public speeches - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds.

Josephus (c.75-99) = scLb
Josephus wrote a large work The Jewish War about the war with the Romans, and the Antiquities of the Jews about Jewish history.

Erotianus (1st C.) = c
A Greek grammarian and/or physician, some of his work survives.

Aristocles (1st C.) = sc
Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, late 1st century.

Musonius Rufus (1st C.) = sc
C. Musonius Rufus' views on Stoic philosophy in Rome were collected in mid 1st century, some survive.

Nicomachus of Gerasa (1st C.) = clb
He wrote several books, mostly mathematics, much survives.

Soranus of Ephesus (1st C.) = cl
Soranus was a physician, some of his work survives.

Pedanius Dioscorides (mid 1st C.) = clb
Wrote a large book on herbs and medicine in Turkey, still extant.

Nicarchus (1st C.) = cl
Nicarchus wrote poems in Alexandria, 1st C.

Gaius Valerius Flaccus (late 1st C.) = c
A poet in Rome c.90, some of his work remains.

Silius Italicus (1st C.) = cB
A Roman who wrote a large epic poem about the Punic Wars which survives.

Aretaeus of Cappadocia (1st C.) = cl
Aretaeus was a first century physician and author. Some of his work survives.

Statius the Younger (c.45 - c.96) = cB
Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid).

Sextus Julius Frontinus (late 1st C.) = c
Senator Frontinus wrote various books in Rome, a few survive.

Phaedrus (1st C.) = scb
Phaedrus wrote fables mid 1st century, and many survive.

Aelius Theon (1st C.) = sclb
Aelius Theon was an Alexandrian sophist and author of a collection of preliminary exercises (progymnasmata) for the training of orators.

Last edited by Kapyong; Yesterday at 02:48 PM.
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 Yesterday, 02:47 PM   #1491
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,006
Post

Finally, the second century :

Early 2nd C. (100 - 133)
13

Dio Chrysostom (c.40 - c.120) = cB
Dio Chrysostom (aka Cocceianus Dio, or Dion Prusa) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century to early 2nd century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Epictetus (55 - 135) = ScB
Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant. Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to the early Christians, or the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.

Philippus of Thessalonica (early 2nd C.) = b
He wrote a large number of Roman epigrams.

Aspasius (early 2nd C.) = sb
Aspasius wrote on philosophy. Some of his work survives.

Demonax (early 2nd C.) = B
A poet of Athens, much of his work survives.

Suetonius (69 - 140) = cB
Suetonius wrote about first century Romans, much survives. His reference to 'Chrestus' does not seem to mean Jesus Christ.

Marcus Antonius Polemon (early 2nd C.) = slb
He wrote on philosophy in Phrygia, some survives.

Arrian (c.86 - 160) = B
Arrian wrote a History of Alexander in Athens c.120.

Florus (1st C. - 2nd C.) = sB
Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.

Marcellus Sidetes (2nd C.) = lB
He wrote a large medical poem in Pamphylia, some survives.

Theon Smyrna (c.100) = slb
Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.

Menelaus of Alexandria (early 2nd C.) = l
Wrote on geography and maths, a little survives.

Ptolemy (early 2nd C.) = slB
Claudius Ptolemaeus wrote many works in Alexandria, and much survives.

Mid 2nd C. (134 - 166)
15

Mathetes c.140 = SbX
Mathetes, a Christian author, wrote a book To Diognetus which has plenty to say about the Word, the Son of God, but no mention they had anything to do with a Jesus Christ, who is never even mentioned.

Minucius Felix c.150 = SBX
Minucius Felix wrote a book Octavius which defends Christian beliefs, but does not mention Jesus even once.

Tatian c.160 = SBX
Just before his mentor Justin Martyr died in c.163, Tatian wrote an Address to the Greeks which describes Christian beliefs in terms of the Logos, the first-born Son of God - without any mention of Jesus.

Athenagoras c.170 = SBX
Athenagoras wrote a Plea For the Christians, which says much about the Logos, the Son of God, but nothing of Jesus Christ. Athenagoras even wrote a lengthy work On the Resurrection in which he discusses Christian beliefs about resurrection - without ever once mentioning Jesus Christ or his resurrection.

Pausanias (mid 2nd C.) = B
Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century. Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of thousand names are mentioned - a large number of minor figures from within and without Greece. He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown : "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5] Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.

Fronto (c.100 - 170) = s
Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century. According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Aelius Aristides (117 - 181) = sB
Aelius Aristides (not the Christian Aristides of Athens) the mid 2nd century Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)

Hierocles (2nd C.) = sl
Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in 2nd century.

Appian (c.95 - c.165) = B
Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century.

Albinus (c.150) = sl
Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in mid 2nd century at Smyrna, a little survives.

Apollodorus (mid 2nd C.) = lB
(Pseudo) Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century, he died in Pergamon

Hephaestion (2nd C.) = lb
Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote several surviving works on poetry in mid 2nd century.

Maximus of Tyre (2nd C.) = sLB
Massius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Lucius Apuleius (c.125 - c.180) = B
Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses in mid-late 2nd C. (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.

Aulus Gellius (c.125 - c.180) = B
Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens) in mid-late 2nd C., a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people.

Late 2nd C. (167 - 199)
2

Marcus Aurelius (c.112 - 180) = sB
Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations c.167 - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3 -
" What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show. "

Sextus Empiricus (c.160 - 210) = b
Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in late 2nd century.

The writers above are rated according to characteristics which would increase the likelyhood of a mention of Jesus Christ :
  • the book has a relevant Subject (S or s)
  • the book is Contemporary (C or c)
  • the work is Local (L or l)
  • the book is Big with lots of names etc. (B or b)
  • the book is a Christian work (X)

That's nearly a hundred writers who coulda, woulda, shoulda mentioned Jesus (apologies to Judge Judy )

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 Yesterday, 11:47 PM   #1492
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,914
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.

The so-called Miracle of Fatima is not evidence of a HJ though. What happened in the MoF is that thousands of people who were expecting to see a miracle in sky, all claimed to see the Sun moving around in a dramatic miraculous way. But the point is that the Sun was certainly not moving around like that ... if you are making an analogy there to the story of Jesus, then your own analogy is denying the existence of Jesus, because the claimed event never happened at all - the Sun did not move like that, that belief was entirely 100% false, imaginary invention ... as an analogy with the Jesus stories you would be saying yourself that the stories of Jesus were 100% imaginary invention.


Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
If you don't know then why make the unevidenced claim that the entire Jesus story is fiction without a single kernel of fact?

But we do know why people invent completely untrue stories of witnessing religious deities. As I pointed out above - we actually have hundreds of different religions with thousands of such miraculous deities, and not a single one of them was ever based on a real person in the way that you think Jesus was ... and yet you want to conclude that Jesus was the one-&-only exception ... and you want to make that claim with zero evidence of a living Jesus ever being known to anyone at all at the time ... at the time he was described in the gospels and letters as a miraculous messiah of the past, ie a past unknown to those anonymous biblical writers.

So just to summarise that -

1 you give an analogy which would actually deny any existence of Jesus

2 you have thousands of examples of other religious deities, where not a single one was based on a real person … so you know very well that in every example we have, the deity was entirely fictional

2 and yet you believe in Jesus with zero evidence of him as a real person ever known to anyone
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 Today, 02:22 AM   #1493
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by IanS View Post


The so-called Miracle of Fatima is not evidence of a HJ though.
Sigh! I didn't say it was evidence of an HJ. Its evidence of the very real phenomenon of mass hysteria and was in the context of dejudge's claim that it would be impossible for 500 people to see Jesus at the same time. I'm also NOT arguing that 500 people DID see Jesus, just that mass hysteria exists.
__________________
“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 Today, 02:31 AM   #1494
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
What is your evidence that this holy man, rabbi, wandering prophet actually existed?
It’s only a guess, I said as much. I find it difficult to accept that the Jesus story began without a core figure from which to hang the wondrous events that supposedly surrounded him. And the fact that a Jesus movement began at all is evidence of sorts.

Quote:
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.
It is generally accepted by mainstream scholars such as Ehrman that the gospels are based upon oral tradition and anecdotes which were embellished and grew mightily in the telling. I think it implausible that such a tradition grew merely from scripture and revelation alone. Why would they suddenly appear apropos of nothing in particular.

And why - I think this is one of Ehrman’s arguments although it been a while since I read the book - if you were going to invent a messiah would you create such a spectacular failure of a messiah? Jesus was NOTHING like the messiah was supposed to be and he got himself executed on top of everything else.
__________________
“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 Today, 03:22 AM   #1495
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,271
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”
Many possible answers.
  • For fun (think Harry Potter)
  • For hoaxing (think internet trolls)
  • Because it's what humans do, make up gods by the hundreds (all religions except yours, apparently)
Sherman Bay 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 Today, 04:00 AM   #1496
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post







It is generally accepted by mainstream scholars such as Ehrman that the gospels are based upon oral tradition and anecdotes which were embellished and grew mightily in the telling.
Except gMark is a planned literary work by a person literate in Greek. No Aramaic oral traditions are needed to explain its composition.

And the intent of the gospel may have been allegorical. Mark knew nothing of the life of HJ. As Ians has already pointed out, Mark was searching "scripture" to learn of, and write about, Jesus life moments. When the entire passion narrative is a rewrite of scripture that is a huge neon sign telling us Mark had no knowledge of an HJ.

How do you feel about a scholar who asserts that imaginary documents are evidence of Jesus? Ehrman asserts that Q, M, and L are evidence of HJ. Is that scholarship?


Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy is online now   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 Today, 04:08 AM   #1497
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,914
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Sigh! I didn't say it was evidence of an HJ. Its evidence of the very real phenomenon of mass hysteria and was in the context of dejudge's claim that it would be impossible for 500 people to see Jesus at the same time. I'm also NOT arguing that 500 people DID see Jesus, just that mass hysteria exists.


Well, certainly mass hysteria exists (or more precisely perhaps, “mass delusion”), and especially amongst religious witnesses who claim to have all experienced the same supernatural religious manifestations ... it happens all the time in those charismatic churches of the USA. But that is really an argument against a historical Jesus (not an argument in favour of a HJ), because what examples like that show is that vast numbers of people can convince themselves that some amazing religious event happened, when actually that belief, however strongly believed, was complete fiction ...

... so just to be really clear on that - on that point of mass delusion, the biblical writers could quite easily have been suffering from mass delusion or reporting on other peoples mass delusions ... which is precisely the sort of delusion that we have seen all throughout the history of every religion where the followers are so committed to a fanatical faith that the slightest little incidental and quite irrelevant thing will cause them to claim that they witnessed all manner of fantastic florid elaborate displays confirming their faith beliefs.
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 Today, 05:34 AM   #1498
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,531
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The NT and apologetics claimed Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost and God Creator who was worshipped as a God by Jews and people of the Roman Empire.
What's behind your obsession with repeating that over & over again? You know that's not in dispute. Bringing it up at all, especially so much (it's literally every single post isn't it?) equals acting as if anybody were disputing it, but you know that nobody is. Some of us are just disputing other things around that.

It's like the subject of the conversation is what kinds of cars or trucks are best in what ways and you're just going on & on & on with "But they have four wheels! But they have four wheels! But they have four wheels! But they have four wheels!". It's a true statement, but saying it still makes no sense in context.

If you mean for it to be step 1 of a syllogism, it does no good without ever mentioning steps 2 & 3. (And if your step 2 would be that a person to whom supernatural traits have been ascribed can not have existed, then your syllogism would fail at step 2, not step 1.)

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The writings attributed to Josephus is one of the prime evidence against an historical Jesus.
Then it's a good thing that nobody tried to use him in support of one. But what about the idea that actually has been suggested here based on Josephus? Can you even break your mind away from your straw mantras long enough to identify what that actually even was?

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Well, your HJ... Your HJ... Your HJ...
Now would be a good time to produce the quote(s) showing me ever arguing/claiming that there was one. Failure to do so will equal admission that you're lying.
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 Today, 06:21 AM   #1499
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,914
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
What's behind your obsession with repeating that over & over again? You know that's not in dispute. Bringing it up at all, especially so much (it's literally every single post isn't it?) equals acting as if anybody were disputing it, but you know that nobody is. Some of us are just disputing other things around that.

It's like the subject of the conversation is what kinds of cars or trucks are best in what ways and you're just going on & on & on with "But they have four wheels! But they have four wheels! But they have four wheels! But they have four wheels!". It's a true statement, but saying it still makes no sense in context.

If you mean for it to be step 1 of a syllogism, it does no good without ever mentioning steps 2 & 3. (And if your step 2 would be that a person to whom supernatural traits have been ascribed can not have existed, then your syllogism would fail at step 2, not step 1.)

Then it's a good thing that nobody tried to use him in support of one. But what about the idea that actually has been suggested here based on Josephus? Can you even break your mind away from your straw mantras long enough to identify what that actually even was?

Now would be a good time to produce the quote(s) showing me ever arguing/claiming that there was one. Failure to do so will equal admission that you're lying.

Do you think Jesus was a real person? What likelihood would you put on that? 50-50, or more than 50%? ... or less than 50%?

What do you think we have as actual genuine evidence that supports the belief that Jesus was real, or most probably real? Because the evidence showing that the stories were impossible invention is enormous.
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 Today, 06:37 AM   #1500
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,332
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Sigh! I didn't say it was evidence of an HJ. Its evidence of the very real phenomenon of mass hysteria and was in the context of dejudge's claim that it would be impossible for 500 people to see Jesus at the same time. I'm also NOT arguing that 500 people DID see Jesus, just that mass hysteria exists.
Again, you spout the same contradictory nonsense. Mass hysteria is not historical evidence.

You have not and cannot ever contradict my argument that the story in the Epistles that over 500 persons at once saw the resurrected Jesus is total fiction.
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 Today, 06:54 AM   #1501
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,531
Originally Posted by Senex View Post
Armed with this information you must be able to offer the time period this occurred.
Reopening my notes, I see that I left a detail out, although it's one that might not sound significant to the average Jew, Christian, or Muslim: the Egyptians wrote that the primary god of the Hyksos was not the sun god but the storm god. That makes the Hyksos sound more Canaanite/Hebrew because Canaanites/Hebrews always treated storms, not sunlight, as the main demonstration of a god's greatness.

Anyway, here's the timeline, in years BCE:
  • 1800/1720: immigration of people from the Canaan area (which was under Egyptian rule at the time) to what we now call eastern Egypt
  • 1700s-1100s: Egypt's Canaanite vassal states complain to Egypt about ʕabiru, which meant something like "raiders" or "outlaws" and included people with both Semitic and Khorian names.
  • 1700-1650: Hyksos, presumably from within that general immigrant population, conquer part of Egypt; their rule is the 15th Dynasty, simultaneous with the 16th Dynasty in parts of Egypt that they didn't conquer.
  • 1600s: Thera/Santorini: ecological effects inspiring 10 plagues story?
  • 1500s: Hyksos rulers (possibly just a few once-powerful families, not a whole vast population) are expelled. (There are probably still Semitic people left behind, although not as rulers or as slaves.)
  • 1500s-1400s: Pharoahs have a bunch of Canaanite cities destroyed.
  • 1420: Pharoah Amenhotep III records the capture of 3600 ʕabiru prisoners of war.
  • 1300s: Nomads southeast of Israel (east of the Aravah; Edom?) are called the "nomads of Yahweh" in Egypt. (It's not marked as a name of a god; Is it a place? Is it a tribal king?)
  • 1300s-1200s: Ugaritic texts (in which ʔelohim is clearly the plural referring to all gods, not an alternative name for ʔel the king of the gods, and ʔel and Yahweh are clearly two separate characters, with ʔel and living in a mansion on a mountain to the north and Yahweh living in a tent to the south; ʔel divides the world and its tribes up among 70 other gods and assigns each one of them as the god of a certain place or people, and Yahweh's assignment is the southern nomads)
  • 1300s: Akhenaten forbids worshipping, or making idols of, any other god than sunlight (Aten)
  • 1200s: earliest potential composition of Exodus 15: "Song Of The Sea" (about the Red Sea Crossing)
  • 1200s: Rameses II has cities/forts named Pithom & Rameses built; Exodus says Israelites built them. (not pyramids!)
  • 1200s-1100s: Booming population in highlands of Canaan ("Proto-Israelites")
  • 1203: Merneptah says he wiped out an ethnic group (still not a country) called "Israel".
  • 1100s: Bronze Age Collapse; Egyptians withdraw from Canaan but say they thwart invasions by "Sea Peoples", driving out the survivors, including the "PLST" who Egypt says resettle in coastal Canaan
  • 1100s: Phillistines show up in Canaan.
  • 1000s: Latest signs that there are still Semitic people in Egypt (but not as rulers or as slaves)
  • 1000s: lowland cities of Canaan start recovering from, or being reoccupied after, the Bronze Age Collapse, but with signs that highland culture, which hadn't been hit as hard by the collapse, has come down to occupy them
  • 1000s: The name "David" appears in inscriptions.
  • 800s: "Israel" shows up in Egyptian inscriptions again for the first time since 1203.
General overall conclusion; the nation of Israel, or nations of Israel and Judea, which had not existed during the Bronze Age, emerged from the Bronze Age Collapse. This looks like a combination of the spread of previously confined Canaanite highlanders into the valleys, and immigration & settlement by previously nomadic southern tribes from outside that area (who were still closely related and spoke nearly the same language), the latter of which seems as if it had already incorporated descendants of the Hyksos rulers by then.

The former Hyksos brought with them memories of life in Egypt followed by suffering in the wilderness. The nomads brought with them the worship of Yahweh the tent-dwelling nomad-god and the idea of meeting god(s) or having other religious experiences out in the wilderness (plus maybe a dislike of pigs, since herders don't usually herd pigs?). The Canaanite highlanders kept the original local worship of ʔel as the civilized, mansion-occupying, throne-sitting king of the gods, and a dislike of the lowlanders they were replacing and a compulsion to emphasize whatever cultural distinctions they could find from them. ("We're not like those seafood-eaters & linen-wearers down there; we're good people who eat land-meat and wear wool!") The fact that this happened during & immediately after the Bronze Age Collapse explains why most of the Old Testament after the first few books is war stories.

Henotheism and then monotheism would gradually develop over the next few centuries, with southern henotheists/monotheists saying the best or one true god was Yahweh and their northern counterparts saying it was ʔel (and the plural ʔelohim really meant just him), until they finally ended up agreeing that if there's only one then those must be two separate names for him. (I don't buy the Akhenaten connection that some propose, despite the conspicuously coincidental similarity of a ban on idols appearing along with monotheism in both cases. Akhenaten came along centuries after the Hyksos left and was forgotten & left behind more centuries before anybody speaking a Semitic language got anywhere near monotheist.)

Last edited by Delvo; Today at 07:20 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 Today, 07:38 AM   #1502
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,332
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
What's behind your obsession with repeating that over & over again? You know that's not in dispute. Bringing it up at all, especially so much (it's literally every single post isn't it?) equals acting as if anybody were disputing it, but you know that nobody is. Some of us are just disputing other things around that.
You seem to suffer from amnesia or is being dishonest.

I must make my position clear repeatedly so that you do not mis-represent my argument and sources

For example, you previously claimed after you went through my sources none of them , except Josephus were expected to mention Jesus which was totally false

Originally Posted by dejudge

My sources are the writings of antiquity like those attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Plutarch, Lucian, Tertullian, Julian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen, Hippolytus, the Sinaiticus Codex and others.
Originally Posted by Delvo

The last time I went through a list of sources like that, it turned out that not a single one of them other than Josephus (see below) would have been expected to talk about Jesus even if Jesus were real, so the fact that they didn't means nothing. It's like saying a certain principle in aircraft engineering must not be real because a certain group of marine biologists never mentioned it.

If you have any this time for whom talking about Jesus would actually be expected, and not doing so would actually be conspicuous/strange, which are they?
This is the blatant level of amnesia or dishonesty that I have to deal with on a constant basis.
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 Today, 09:06 AM   #1503
Senex
Philosopher
 
Senex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Connecticut School for Rumpology.
Posts: 5,928
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Reopening my notes, ....
That explains all the archaeological evidence.

One problem with using a timeline is it will certainly put you at odds with many biblical scholars because none of them agree.
Senex 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 Today, 12:57 PM   #1504
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,006
Post

Whoops, I forgot the last section, which brings the total to 94 :

Lost Works Which Apparently Did Not Mention Jesus
27

Emperor Claudius (10BCE - 54CE) Wrote several history books, little survives.

Atilicinus (1st C.) A Roman jurist.

Statius the Elder ( - c.83) Publius Papirius Statius wrote several works.

Menodotus of Nicomedia (early 2nd C.) A writer mentioned by Galen.

Favorinus (early 2nd C.) Favorinus wrote many works, only fragments survive.

Pompeius Saturninus (early 2nd C.) A historian and a poet.

Archigenes (1st - 2nd C.) A physician who wrote influential works, e.g. on the pulse.

Criton of Heraclea (early 2nd C.) Wrote several books but nothing survives.

Titus Aristo (early 2nd C.) A writer mentioned by Pliny, his works are lost.

Onasandros (1st C.) A philosopher, little of his work survives.

Moderatus of Gades (1st C.) Wrote about Pythagoras, little survives.

Aelius Cornelius Celsus (1st C.) He wrote many works in Rome.

Sulpicia (late 1st C.) Wrote love poems, almost all lost.

Damocrates (1st C.) Servilius Damocrates wrote several books.

Alexander of Aegae (1st C.) Alexander was a philosopher in Rome during the 1st C.

Verginius Flavus (mid 1st C.) A Roman writer, nothing survives.

Ammonius of Athens (1st C.) The mentor of Plutarch, who said he wrote about religion and sacred rites.

Gnaeus Domitius Afer (mid 1st C.) Afer wrote in the 1st century - little survives.

Pamphila (c.60) Pamphila of Epidaurus write a 33 volume Historical Notes up to her time of c.60.

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus (early 1st C.) He wrote poems, little survives.

Pomponius Secundus (1st C.) He wrote many tragedies, very little survives.

Chaeremon of Alexandria (mid 1st C.) He wrote several works, little survives.

Saleius Bassus (late 1st C.) Bassus was a poet.

Bassus ( - c.60) Aufidius Bassus wrote a history up to at least the year 31.

Julia Agrippina (c.59) Julia Agrippina wrote her memoirs, which does not survive.

Cluvius Rufus (mid 1st C.) Cluvius Rufus wrote a detailed history from the year 37 until 69.

Nonianus (2 BCE - 59 CE) Marcus Servilius Nonianus wrote a history of the 1st century up to at least the year 41.

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
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 04:27 PM.
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.