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 3rd June 2020, 10:48 AM   #1601
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No matter how many times you assert that, it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how much of the NT is made up, it still doesn't prove that a historical Jesus didn't exist.

Just merely "asserting" it, does not "prove" Jesus did not exist. But there are two problems with what you say there ... (1) dejudge is not just asserting it, he's given a vast mass of checkable references to support his interpretation of the Jesus stories. But also others here have been pointing out for years that wherever we have been able to check to see if the biblical stories of Jesus are true, it has always turned out that they are not true! And that's the most that it's ever possible to do if something or someone does not exist; i.e. all you can ever do is to show that the claims of their existence are repeatedly and constantly false and with not even one claim/story ever supported in any credible way at all ... and that is exactly what has now been done.

And then (2) - it's absolutely impossible to literally prove anything in this universe, and especially not in ancient history. So when you say that dejudge does not "prove" his case, that is a worthless argument against him, because none of us can prove anything at all (we can't even prove Quantum theory or Relativity, or even Evolution if it comes to that).


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Before you can dismiss it entirely, you have to explain why the NT authors felt it necessary to invent a story about a man, and then retrofit godly powers onto him (as is clear from an unbiased reading of the NT). The obvious reason is that they didn't invent him, because the tradition already existed - IOW their predecessors also believed Jesus was the founder of Christianty. Why? Because he (or someone) almost certainly was.

It's by no means clear that the NT authors started out describing a "Man" (ie a human person). If anything, the entire opposite is true. E.g., Pauls letters are universally claimed by bible scholars and others to be the earliest mention of Jesus. And there the author "Paul" makes very clear that the Jesus figure which he knows, was obtained by him as a divine revelation from ancient "scripture" ... and where he also makes clear that neither he nor anyone else had ever known Jesus except as a figure of fanatical belief evidenced as a spiritual vision in the heavens.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I think your big mistake is in not understanding the culture of the times. If anyone today insisted their church was started by a god in human form, and wrote a book about him that was full of supernatural nonsense, we would rightly scoff. But back then, in that society, it was expected. That is why the NT authors (and those before them) would have gone to such lengths to make the real leader out to be more than he was.

The fact that anyone today would dismiss such a story, is ultra clear evidence that the Jesus stories were an invention. And the key point there is that in biblical times people did not realise that such stories were mythical inventions ... in the 1st century they actually all believed that miracles, gods, demons, angels etc. were very frequent occurrences upon the Earth.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If you want to convince us that the NT authors made up Jesus out of whole cloth, you need more than just a lack of evidence for his existence outside the NT. You need to show evidence that they did not base their writings on any earlier tradition, or you need to provide a reasonable explanation for why they had to make it up.

The term "out of whole cloth" is completely misleading everyone here. The suggestion from most HJ sceptics is NOT that some individual decided one day to completely invent a story of his own to claim a messiah. The explanation, which I have given here countless times already, is that everyone in that region was absolutely certain that a messiah would come to the people, because that was Gods own promise in divine OT scripture. So all that was needed was for someone like Paul to decide that he had suddenly been granted a revelation from God that told him the true meaning of the coded messiah prophecies in ancient "scripture" ... and that is exactly what Paul's letters repeatedly say, in fact he insists upon it! ...

... Paul's' letters are telling the reader that Gods promised saviour-Messiah (who was by then about 600 years overdue!), had indeed been sent to Earth at some unknown time in the past ... Paul did not know any such person, and he tells us that very explicitly ... he is also very explicit in saying he got that messiah understanding/belief "from no Man"; he got it entirely from his sudden new understanding of scripture. The only "new" thing that Paul or someone else (we do not know who) added that was very slightly new or different was the name "Jesus" ... but of course Paul would not have called the messiah "Jesus" at that date anyway ... if he was writing in ancient Hebrew then the Messiah would have been called Yehoshua or Joshua, or in the Greek writing of the time it would have been "Iesous" ...

... so you might ask why Paul chose the name "Yehosua/Iesous"? But there are two fairly obvious reasons which might explain that - (1) without looking it up again, in his book "On The Historicity of Jesus" Richard Carrier claims that Paul could actually find that same name attributed to the Messiah in some parts of ancient OT scripture (I don't know if Carrier is correct about that, but the book did pass Peer Review). See also the wiki link below regarding Theophoric Names, which also mentions numerous OT uses and Dead Sea scroll use of the name Joshua or it's variations for all sorts of supposedly holy leaders. But also (2) Yehosha is not a normal name. Instead its a what's called a "Theophoric" word that represents a vocal cry or appeal to the heavenly God, which is roughly interpreted to mean something like "he saves us".

OK, I've written much of that from memory, without specifically re-checking; so you need to check the above, but you will find that is at least a plausible genuine description/possibility both on what Carrier has in his book and what I've just said about theophoric names and the nature of the name or “word” “Yehoshua” (but actually, I did just check that before posting this … see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua )

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But if you just keep harping on about "the obvious lies in the NT prove that Jesus never existed" then you are going to look a fool if some evidence turns up. It wouldn't be the first time that a myth turned out to have some basis in fact.

Would it actually matter if someone is wrong on the internet??

It's really not possible to literally “prove” anything, let alone trying to “prove” such a massive negative as the non-existence of Jesus.

The best that anyone can ever hope to do is to produce strong clear evidence showing that the Jesus stories were invented. And that's been done in abundance ever since modern science slowly educated the world to understand that the miracles and superstitions of 2000 yeas ago (which everyone did believe in at the time), are really not credible any more. That's the most evidence that it would ever be possible to discover against the reality of Jesus – i.e., we have now found that the stories were invented religious myth-making. And we have also found that the gospel writers (particularly g.Mark and g.Mathew) were using OT scripture as a source for creating mythical stories of Jesus. And furthermore, in the letters attributed to “Paul”, the author repeatedly insists that the beliefs which he has obtained about Jesus “came from no Man. Nor was I taught it by anyone” but instead he repeatedly reminds his readers that it was all “according to scripture” … and he found that out because in a blinding revelation from God he said “God was pleased to reveal his Son in me”. So “Paul” was even directly telling everyone that he too was getting his beliefs from ancient “scripture”.

Last edited by IanS; 3rd June 2020 at 12:42 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 3rd June 2020, 12:08 PM   #1602
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by dejudge
There is no ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization of the Jesus story.
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Personal opinion of no interest to anyone but you.
NT authors admitted their Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost and God Creator from the beginning.

Your opinion is worthless.

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Your addition of "in the time of Herod the Great" is yours only. An addition you make in order to make your assertion true. What's more, there is no need for there to be a clear prophecy in Hebrew scripture about the Messiah for Jews (or any other religious person) to believe that there is. Even worse, numerous wannabe Messiahs have existed over the many centuries since JC and had no problems gaining followers among other Jews, showing that it is perfectly possible to claim a Messiah at any point in time.
Your opinion is worthless. It is stated in the NT that Jesus was born of a Ghost when Herod was King of the Jews.

There was no prophesied Messianic ruler of the Jews named Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pilate based on writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Jesus, the son of the Ghost was always fiction from the beginning.


Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post

Irrelevant. It obviously has no prophecy that there would be a person named Pilate. Nor does it have a prophecy that there would be a person named Vespasian. So what?
NT writers were still liars when they claimed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messianic ruler of the Jews based on prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius stated the Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE.

Jesus, the son of the Ghost, is a fabricated Messianic ruler of the Jews

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post

Josephus was eager to shoehorn Vespasian into the prophecies. Others were eager to shoehorn Jesus into them. Do you believe that Vespasian was the Messiah? If not, why not?
The mere fact that the Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE signifies that Jesus, the son of Ghost, was a fabricated Messianic ruler.

NT Jesus never ever existed.

Whether or not Vespasian was the prophesied Messianic ruler the Romans did claim he was their God and Saviour.



Antiquities of the Jews 20.4.1
Quote:
But as soon as the news was come that he was hard by, and those that had met him at first related with what good humor he received every one that came to him, then it was that the whole multitude that had remained in the city, with their wives and children, came into the road, and waited for him there; and for those whom he passed by, they made all sorts of acclamations, on account of the joy they had to see him, and the pleasantness of his countenance, and styled him their Benefactor and Savior, and the only person who was worthy to be ruler of the city of Rome...
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Mhm. There was no prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler in the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries, either. None of which prevented a bunch of wannabe Messiahs from gaining followers in those centuries. The fact that they were all fake Messiahs isn't the point. The point is that it was, and still is, perfectly possible for someone to say "Oh, look! The Messiah has come!" That they were wrong didn't prevent them from making that claim. Just like some gospel writers made claims that a certain Jesus was the Messiah. They were wrong. But that they were wrong is beside the point.
Writing fiction is beside the point? Please, you are not making any sense.

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
You have no idea what religious people can make themself believe, do you? Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676) claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam. He still has followers who believe he was the Messiah today!

Well, NT writers admitted their Jesus was the son of a Ghost and up to today, even in the 21st century people want others to believe he was human without evidence.


Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Your private hypothesis, I gather?
I know you have no historical evidence for an HJ.
.
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 3rd June 2020, 02:40 PM   #1603
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
They had to make him a god so that he could compete with the other gods around. Jesus being just another prophet wasn't good enough. Even the Caesars claimed to be descended from gods, so Jesus had to descend from God, too. Hence the story of the conception from "a ghost", as dejudge calls it. So much of the NT has all the appearances of ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization. Did some other god raise someone from the dead? Well Jesus did that, too! In spades! Does the old prophecies say that the Messiah would come from Betlehem? Ah...umm... well, actually, the romans had this big census, you see... (we know the rest).

But here's my question: doesn't all that retrofitting sort of point to there being an underlying reality to it? Someone not a god made into a god, someone from Nazareth moved to Betlehem, someone dead resurrected, a not all that remarkable wannabe Messiah turned into the real deal.

Why are you calling it retro-fitting? That sounds like you have already decided that Jesus was real regardless of any evidence. I.e., as if you are saying he was a real person who could only do ordinary things, but later gospel writers decided that they had to write tales of the fantastic about an otherwise ordinary street preacher.

But you do not know, and none of us here or anywhere else, know if he was in fact just an ordinary but real street preacher ... that's the very question that we are trying to answer by looking at all the evidence. However, what is certainly not evidence of a real person is that the person was constantly described in supernatural terms ...

... for example - all the other gods, deity's, angels, demons etc. of antiquity were described in supernatural terms ; so does that mean they were most likely real people because "all the untrue stuff was retro-fitted on to them"?? Superman and Spiderman and the rest were described in supernatural terms, but they were not real people with retro-fitted myths.

It's true that real Roman Emperors and other famous rulers of the time were said by sycophantic courtiers that they (the rulers) had been made into gods with miraculous powers etc. But that was clearly because not saying such things about the ruler was likely to get you executed. But in any case all of those rulers of antiquity are known almost entirely for a vast mass of very human things that they did, and that's why they are famous ... they are barely known at all for any claims of becoming gods etc.

It's also true that all sorts of sensationalist stories have later become increasingly embellished by wild fictional claims that are, if you like, "retro-fitted". But a lot of those were only ever mythical in the first place. E.g., the story of the Roswell UFO landings unfolded that way with more-&-more untrue fiction being added by fanatical believers ... but that event was complete fiction anyway - there never was any such crash landed alien spaceship.

Last edited by IanS; 3rd June 2020 at 02:42 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 3rd June 2020, 04:27 PM   #1604
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post

-snip-

More useless drivel that has no bearing on what I asked.



I know you have no historical evidence for an HJ.

.
And I never claimed that I did. Why the **** are you acting as if I have made any such claim? What the hell is wrong with you?

,
Ulf Nereng 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 3rd June 2020, 04:31 PM   #1605
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,276
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
They had to make him a god so that he could compete with the other gods around. Jesus being just another prophet wasn't good enough. Even the Caesars claimed to be descended from gods, so Jesus had to descend from God, too. Hence the story of the conception from "a ghost", as dejudge calls it. So much of the NT has all the appearances of ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization. Did some other god raise someone from the dead? Well Jesus did that, too! In spades! Does the old prophecies say that the Messiah would come from Betlehem? Ah...umm... well, actually, the romans had this big census, you see... (we know the rest).

But here's my question: doesn't all that retrofitting sort of point to there being an underlying reality to it? Someone not a god made into a god, someone from Nazareth moved to Betlehem, someone dead resurrected, a not all that remarkable wannabe Messiah turned into the real deal.

Seems more likely that they had someone they could hang all this stuff on rather than just create an entity out of nothing. Perhaps there was more than one come to think of it. This would fit with the contradictory accounts about what he did and said. Mind you I don't care much (one way or the other), because the whole idea of scape goat Jesus dying (but not really dying), for my sins, makes zero sense to me.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 3rd June 2020, 05:06 PM   #1606
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Why are you calling it retro-fitting? That sounds like you have already decided that Jesus was real regardless of any evidence. I.e., as if you are saying he was a real person who could only do ordinary things, but later gospel writers decided that they had to write tales of the fantastic about an otherwise ordinary street preacher.

But you do not know, and none of us here or anywhere else, know if he was in fact just an ordinary but real street preacher ... that's the very question that we are trying to answer by looking at all the evidence. However, what is certainly not evidence of a real person is that the person was constantly described in supernatural terms ...

... for example - all the other gods, deity's, angels, demons etc. of antiquity were described in supernatural terms ; so does that mean they were most likely real people because "all the untrue stuff was retro-fitted on to them"?? Superman and Spiderman and the rest were described in supernatural terms, but they were not real people with retro-fitted myths.

It's true that real Roman Emperors and other famous rulers of the time were said by sycophantic courtiers that they (the rulers) had been made into gods with miraculous powers etc. But that was clearly because not saying such things about the ruler was likely to get you executed. But in any case all of those rulers of antiquity are known almost entirely for a vast mass of very human things that they did, and that's why they are famous ... they are barely known at all for any claims of becoming gods etc.

It's also true that all sorts of sensationalist stories have later become increasingly embellished by wild fictional claims that are, if you like, "retro-fitted". But a lot of those were only ever mythical in the first place. E.g., the story of the Roswell UFO landings unfolded that way with more-&-more untrue fiction being added by fanatical believers ... but that event was complete fiction anyway - there never was any such crash landed alien spaceship.
Thanks for responding to what I actually asked.

Why do I think it looks retro-fitted as opposed to just made up? To start with, the whole birth story is clearly fiction. There was no census, no wise men, no shepherds being visited by angels.

So that raises the question: What is the purpose of this story? Was it just entertainment? Or did whoever made it up have an agenda? If an agenda, what was it?

It looks to me as if the agenda is to place the birth of Jesus in Betlehem. (Does it look different to you?)

So that's what I mean by retro-fitted. It's fiction, made up for the purpose of placing a person (fictional or not) where he would otherwise not be placed. Without it Jesus would be Jesus from Nazareth only. The author of this fiction needed to change that.

Let's just see if you're with me so far!
Ulf Nereng 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 3rd June 2020, 05:21 PM   #1607
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Seems more likely that they had someone they could hang all this stuff on rather than just create an entity out of nothing. Perhaps there was more than one come to think of it. This would fit with the contradictory accounts about what he did and said. Mind you I don't care much (one way or the other), because the whole idea of scape goat Jesus dying (but not really dying), for my sins, makes zero sense to me.
It probably made sense to people at the time who were familiar with sacrificing to gain a god's favor. Sacrifice a chicken... better than nothing. Sacrifice a lamb... good enough. Sacrifice a human... noteworthy! Sacrifice your firstborn son... the god is sure to notice! Sacrifice a king... well now! Sacrifice the firstborn son of a god... fantastic! Miracles are sure to happen!

I agree that an amalgate of several persons is possible, perhaps some fictional and some real.
Ulf Nereng 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 3rd June 2020, 08:06 PM   #1608
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Thanks for responding to what I actually asked.

Why do I think it looks retro-fitted as opposed to just made up? To start with, the whole birth story is clearly fiction. There was no census, no wise men, no shepherds being visited by angels.

So that raises the question: What is the purpose of this story? Was it just entertainment? Or did whoever made it up have an agenda? If an agenda, what was it?

It looks to me as if the agenda is to place the birth of Jesus in Betlehem. (Does it look different to you?)

So that's what I mean by retro-fitted. It's fiction, made up for the purpose of placing a person (fictional or not) where he would otherwise not be placed. Without it Jesus would be Jesus from Nazareth only. The author of this fiction needed to change that.

Let's just see if you're with me so far!
You seem to be confused with your agenda. It is the other way. There was no city of Nazareth in the time of Tiberius.

The son of the Ghost is placed in a city where he could not have been.

The author of gMatthew who claimed the son of the Ghost was born in Bethlehem invented a so-called prophecy not found anywhere in Hebrew Scripture to place his Jesus in a non-existing unknown city of Nazareth.

Bethlehem is mentioned in Hebrew Scripture but never a city called Nazareth.

Bethlehem is mentioned in the writings of Josephus but never a city called Nazareth.

Remember Josephus lived or stayed in Galilee and travelled to the cities and villages in the region.

Matthew 2.23
Quote:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a .Nazarene.
The son of a Ghost came from a city which did not exist.

Jesus of nowhere is total fiction.

Last edited by dejudge; 3rd June 2020 at 08:08 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 3rd June 2020, 08:17 PM   #1609
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
It probably made sense to people at the time who were familiar with sacrificing to gain a god's favor. Sacrifice a chicken... better than nothing. Sacrifice a lamb... good enough. Sacrifice a human... noteworthy! Sacrifice your firstborn son... the god is sure to notice! Sacrifice a king... well now! Sacrifice the firstborn son of a god... fantastic! Miracles are sure to happen!
You are just making stuff up. Your imagination has gone wild.

What you imagine is worthless as historical evidence.

Jesus cult Christians did not sacrifice human beings to their God.

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
I agree that an amalgate of several persons is possible, perhaps some fictional and some real.
Once NT Jesus was an almagate of characters [real or not] then NT Jesus was not a figure of 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 3rd June 2020, 10:29 PM   #1610
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
1. All Scholars do not agree that Jesus was a figure of history.
Certainly. But the majority of reputable scholars are of the view that the man Jesus existed. This is the point I'm struggling to make here. Even mythicist Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the historical existence of Jesus in any form) agrees that his mythicist perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. “The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Jesus at the Vanishing Point” - by Robert M. Price
__________________
“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 3rd June 2020, 10:35 PM   #1611
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post

Jesus cult Christians did not sacrifice human beings to their God.
For what its worth Jesus was considered the one true sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb of god, by "Jesus cult Christians".
__________________
“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 3rd June 2020, 11:34 PM   #1612
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You seem to be confused with your agenda. It is the other way. There was no city of Nazareth in the time of Tiberius.

The son of the Ghost is placed in a city where he could not have been.

The author of gMatthew who claimed the son of the Ghost was born in Bethlehem invented a so-called prophecy not found anywhere in Hebrew Scripture to place his Jesus in a non-existing unknown city of Nazareth.

Bethlehem is mentioned in Hebrew Scripture but never a city called Nazareth.

Bethlehem is mentioned in the writings of Josephus but never a city called Nazareth.

Remember Josephus lived or stayed in Galilee and travelled to the cities and villages in the region.

Matthew 2.23

The son of a Ghost came from a city which did not exist.

Jesus of nowhere is total fiction.
Again with the pointless drivel. There did not need to be a city called Nazareth for someone to believe there was. The author of Luke, for example did. (Luke 1:26)

You're arguing as if I'm claiming that a city named Nazareth existed. Kindly stop pushing opinions on me that I don't hold!
Ulf Nereng 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 3rd June 2020, 11:46 PM   #1613
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You are just making stuff up. Your imagination has gone wild.

What you imagine is worthless as historical evidence.

Jesus cult Christians did not sacrifice human beings to their God.



Once NT Jesus was an almagate of characters [real or not] then NT Jesus was not a figure of history.
How the **** do you get from my "people at the time" to your "Jesus cult Christians"? Are you some kind of moron?

And I do not "imagine" that people at the time were familiar with sacrifices. Jews sacrificed animals. Their holy scripture has a story of their god telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. They were familiar with the idea.

Your lack of knowledge is worthless as historical evidence.
Ulf Nereng 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 3rd June 2020, 11:57 PM   #1614
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Thanks for responding to what I actually asked.

Why do I think it looks retro-fitted as opposed to just made up? To start with, the whole birth story is clearly fiction. There was no census, no wise men, no shepherds being visited by angels.

So that raises the question: What is the purpose of this story? Was it just entertainment? Or did whoever made it up have an agenda? If an agenda, what was it?

It looks to me as if the agenda is to place the birth of Jesus in Betlehem. (Does it look different to you?)

So that's what I mean by retro-fitted. It's fiction, made up for the purpose of placing a person (fictional or not) where he would otherwise not be placed. Without it Jesus would be Jesus from Nazareth only. The author of this fiction needed to change that.

Let's just see if you're with me so far!

Well, I'm not sure whether you are postulating a real Jesus or not, for example because of that highlighted bit above, from which it looks as if you are actually thinking that over time when earlier simpler looking stories become more-&-more embellished with the fantastic, that implies a real person at the core of the story ... is that what you are saying or thinking? Because I don't think that's true or a reasonable deduction at all ... and that's what I was explaining with examples in the previous post ...

... to sum that up - it's not true at all that increasingly embellished stories imply a real person as the basis of the stories.

In the case of Jesus it's really quite simple - either there is good evidence of him existing, or else there is not!

And the answer in this case is not merely that good evidence is lacking, but in fact that any kind of honest credible evidence is completely 100% absent! And furthermore, all of the material that for nearly 2000 years was claimed to be so convincing and unarguable for a real Jesus, and which was believed by almost everyone to be totally true and absolutely certain as real, has turned out be all, ALL OF IT, completely untrue and quite definitely all invented religious fanatical superstitions fiction.

And the idea, which has been floated countless times in these threads, that it's somehow not possible to explain how Christianity could possibly have begun unless there was a real Jesus at the heart of the religion, that idea, claim, or belief is clearly complete nonsense as some of us have pointed out and explained here countless times - it's supremely easy to create religious myths about supernatural deities without any real person at the heart of such fanatical beliefs ... and that is exactly what has happened with every other religion ever known! ... that's exactly what has happened with all the countless thousands of other claimed gods, angels, demons, monsters etc. claimed by every religion ... and I've already explained here in detail (several times) exactly how and why that was almost certain to happen in the case of the Christian "Christ belief" that we are talking about for Jesus.

Does that mean Jesus must have been a myth? No. No, because we cannot either prove that, or even make that claim very strongly from evidence. But that's partly because it would never be humanly possible to find direct evidence of the non-existence of someone! So I'm not arguing either that he did not exist, or that it's most likely that he did not exist. And for some reason I have to keep stressing that even though it's crystal clear for all the many thousands of posts that I've ever written on this subject. But what I am saying is that everything which has been claimed as evidence in favour of a HJ has turned out to be quite definitely NOT credible evidence of a HJ … and worse than that, we now have a vast amount of evidence to show that all the known stories of Jesus were invented as fictional devotional religious Messiah belief that had existed from hundreds of years before in the OT and/or in other “scripture” … and that is an extremely damaging finding against any reality of a HJ. So, in other words the current evidence is counting more against a HJ than for one.

But even so, even after all of the above, if you ask what my suspicions are in regard to a HJ, then I have to say that I think it's impossible (on current evidence), to have any strong view either way on whether he existed or not ... I could not put any figure on it for probablity, neither 100% or 0% or any other percentage in-between ... because there is simply no reliable or credible evidence of his existence ... that is obviously not a good position for belief in a HJ, but then I don't believe in any such HJ, but that does not mean that I feel confident in concluding he did not exist ... I don't have much confidence in actual evidence for either position ... but I think it's perfectly likely that he may not have existed.
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 4th June 2020, 12:21 AM   #1615
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
It probably made sense to people at the time who were familiar with sacrificing to gain a god's favor. Sacrifice a chicken... better than nothing. Sacrifice a lamb... good enough. Sacrifice a human... noteworthy! Sacrifice your firstborn son... the god is sure to notice! Sacrifice a king... well now! Sacrifice the firstborn son of a god... fantastic! Miracles are sure to happen!

I agree that an amalgate of several persons is possible, perhaps some fictional and some real.

I don't know what dejudge is saying to you, and you can discuss that with him, but just in respect of that highlight, which appears to be the entire whole of your position ... you are making a guess which does not help the situation at all ... you are guessing that Jesus might have been real ie based upon some real person or that that he might have been mythical (based on mythical persons) ... but that's exactly back to right we all started! Yes -- he might have been a real person, or maybe he was not!

What we are trying to deduce here, and what dejudge is telling you about his deductions from a whole load of what was written in countless early writing of the time, is whether or not there really was ever any genuine of evidence of anyone ever having met a real Jesus ...

... because if nobody can be shown as ever meeting a real HJ, then it means there is no genuine evidence there of an any HJ existing. And so far, which is a big problem for belief in a HJ, all of that written material which we can actually check as evidence of a HJ, has turned out to be either invented fiction, or simply wrong, or altered by much later copyists etc., ... everything which we can now actually check, all of which was in the past claimed as overwhelming evidence of certainty in Jesus, has turned out to be no sort of credible or genuine evidence of Jesus at all (in fact, all that we have so far is very clearly & unarguably evidence of religious myth-making).

Last edited by IanS; 4th June 2020 at 12:24 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 4th June 2020, 03:10 AM   #1616
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I don't know what dejudge is saying to you, and you can discuss that with him, but just in respect of that highlight, which appears to be the entire whole of your position ... you are making a guess which does not help the situation at all ... you are guessing that Jesus might have been real ie based upon some real person or that that he might have been mythical (based on mythical persons) ... but that's exactly back to right we all started! Yes -- he might have been a real person, or maybe he was not!

What we are trying to deduce here, and what dejudge is telling you about his deductions from a whole load of what was written in countless early writing of the time, is whether or not there really was ever any genuine of evidence of anyone ever having met a real Jesus ...

... because if nobody can be shown as ever meeting a real HJ, then it means there is no genuine evidence there of an any HJ existing. And so far, which is a big problem for belief in a HJ, all of that written material which we can actually check as evidence of a HJ, has turned out to be either invented fiction, or simply wrong, or altered by much later copyists etc., ... everything which we can now actually check, all of which was in the past claimed as overwhelming evidence of certainty in Jesus, has turned out to be no sort of credible or genuine evidence of Jesus at all (in fact, all that we have so far is very clearly & unarguably evidence of religious myth-making).
I'm certainly not coming here to promote some premeditated position I hold. My current opinion is more like this:

Probability Jesus stories are wholly made up myth: Unknown
Probablilty Jesus stories are myth added to real person: Unknown

So I'm interested in discussing things about either hypothesis that I'm not sure how they would fit. For example the genealogies you find in NT. To my mind that tells us that two different people wrote them, unaware of each other. How does that fit with the MJ hypothesis?
Ulf Nereng 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 4th June 2020, 03:49 AM   #1617
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well, I'm not sure whether you are postulating a real Jesus or not, for example because of that highlighted bit above, from which it looks as if you are actually thinking that over time when earlier simpler looking stories become more-&-more embellished with the fantastic, that implies a real person at the core of the story ... is that what you are saying or thinking? Because I don't think that's true or a reasonable deduction at all ... and that's what I was explaining with examples in the previous post ...

... to sum that up - it's not true at all that increasingly embellished stories imply a real person as the basis of the stories.

In the case of Jesus it's really quite simple - either there is good evidence of him existing, or else there is not!

And the answer in this case is not merely that good evidence is lacking, but in fact that any kind of honest credible evidence is completely 100% absent! And furthermore, all of the material that for nearly 2000 years was claimed to be so convincing and unarguable for a real Jesus, and which was believed by almost everyone to be totally true and absolutely certain as real, has turned out be all, ALL OF IT, completely untrue and quite definitely all invented religious fanatical superstitions fiction.

And the idea, which has been floated countless times in these threads, that it's somehow not possible to explain how Christianity could possibly have begun unless there was a real Jesus at the heart of the religion, that idea, claim, or belief is clearly complete nonsense as some of us have pointed out and explained here countless times - it's supremely easy to create religious myths about supernatural deities without any real person at the heart of such fanatical beliefs ... and that is exactly what has happened with every other religion ever known! ... that's exactly what has happened with all the countless thousands of other claimed gods, angels, demons, monsters etc. claimed by every religion ... and I've already explained here in detail (several times) exactly how and why that was almost certain to happen in the case of the Christian "Christ belief" that we are talking about for Jesus.

Does that mean Jesus must have been a myth? No. No, because we cannot either prove that, or even make that claim very strongly from evidence. But that's partly because it would never be humanly possible to find direct evidence of the non-existence of someone! So I'm not arguing either that he did not exist, or that it's most likely that he did not exist. And for some reason I have to keep stressing that even though it's crystal clear for all the many thousands of posts that I've ever written on this subject. But what I am saying is that everything which has been claimed as evidence in favour of a HJ has turned out to be quite definitely NOT credible evidence of a HJ … and worse than that, we now have a vast amount of evidence to show that all the known stories of Jesus were invented as fictional devotional religious Messiah belief that had existed from hundreds of years before in the OT and/or in other “scripture” … and that is an extremely damaging finding against any reality of a HJ. So, in other words the current evidence is counting more against a HJ than for one.

But even so, even after all of the above, if you ask what my suspicions are in regard to a HJ, then I have to say that I think it's impossible (on current evidence), to have any strong view either way on whether he existed or not ... I could not put any figure on it for probablity, neither 100% or 0% or any other percentage in-between ... because there is simply no reliable or credible evidence of his existence ... that is obviously not a good position for belief in a HJ, but then I don't believe in any such HJ, but that does not mean that I feel confident in concluding he did not exist ... I don't have much confidence in actual evidence for either position ... but I think it's perfectly likely that he may not have existed.
I agree with you that there is nothing anywhere in the NT that we can point to and say "this bit here must be true". At best we can find some bits that aren't impossible, such as when it goes "And Jesus said....".

Here's a conundrum for you: You're travelling in Greece and one day you encounter some old men who tell you that the Messiah has already come and gone. It happened over 400 years ago, they say, and they have numerous stories about the miracles he performed and the words he spoke. You of course, being a sceptic and a member of this Forum don't believe any if it, but you are left wondering: Did they (or perhaps someone 200 years ago) invent all of it from whole cloth, or was there originally some person about whom these myths have been spun? Could there be some clue as to the truth of the matter inside some of the stories they tell?

In this case you would eventually realize that they were talking about Sabbatai Zevi, who did indeed exist and did indeed claim to be the Messiah. Now that doesn't prove that another Messiah existed, too, but perhaps it shows that there can be a real person at the bottom of a fiction.
Ulf Nereng 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 4th June 2020, 04:35 AM   #1618
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
For what its worth Jesus was considered the one true sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb of god, by "Jesus cult Christians".
NT Jesus was God's only begotten Son, [God Creator]

In NT fables, it was God who gave his only son to be sacrificed.

John 3:16
Quote:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
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 4th June 2020, 05:09 AM   #1619
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
How the **** do you get from my "people at the time" to your "Jesus cult Christians"? Are you some kind of moron?

And I do not "imagine" that people at the time were familiar with sacrifices. Jews sacrificed animals. Their holy scripture has a story of their god telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. They were familiar with the idea.
.
You don't know what you are talking about. Jews were familiar with laws against the killing of human beings..

The Jews did not sacrifice human beings for their salvation. In the Jewish religion a Jew would probably be put to death for killing a person.

Deuteronomy 5:17
Quote:
Thou shalt not kill.
Leviticus 24:17
Quote:
And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death

It is just total nonsense that Jews may have started a religion by murdering a man as a sacrifice to their God.

The NT Jesus story is just total fiction - complete non-historical idiocy.

Last edited by dejudge; 4th June 2020 at 05:11 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 4th June 2020, 05:26 AM   #1620
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Again with the pointless drivel. There did not need to be a city called Nazareth for someone to believe there was. The author of Luke, for example did. (Luke 1:26)

You're arguing as if I'm claiming that a city named Nazareth existed. Kindly stop pushing opinions on me that I don't hold!
You have no idea what you yourself are arguing about. You don't really know what the author of gLuke believed, We only know what is written in the existing manuscripts.

Existing manuscripts of gLuke state Jesus was born of a Ghost in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

gLuke is a about the son of the Ghost so where the ghost lived is really irrelevant.

Last edited by dejudge; 4th June 2020 at 05:28 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 4th June 2020, 07:13 AM   #1621
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
I'm certainly not coming here to promote some premeditated position I hold. My current opinion is more like this:

Probability Jesus stories are wholly made up myth: Unknown
Probablilty Jesus stories are myth added to real person: Unknown

So I'm interested in discussing things about either hypothesis that I'm not sure how they would fit. For example the genealogies you find in NT. To my mind that tells us that two different people wrote them, unaware of each other. How does that fit with the MJ hypothesis?

I would not put any historical value on genealogies written in the NT either for Jesus or anyone else.

Afaik, the OT has genealogies for, or leading from, people like King David, Abraham, Moses etc. But apparently even biblical scholars now think the probability is that none of those figures actually existed! Ie they were all invented as religious fiction.


Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
I agree with you that there is nothing anywhere in the NT that we can point to and say "this bit here must be true". At best we can find some bits that aren't impossible, such as when it goes "And Jesus said....".

It gets far worse than that from the HJ side in these threads over the last 12 years or more. They even claim evidence of Jesus, along with claiming real true facts in the gospels, by saying that the writing mentions real places such as Jerusalem!! IOW; they are claiming the biblical writing is truthful and reliable at least in parts because it mentions real places like Jerusalem, and hence they say that means the biblical writing does contain real facts or potential real facts about Jesus !!! … I mean, just how absurd can people get in threads like this when trying defend a HJ … iirc, it even happened again in this very thread when someone here claimed that only a minority of what the gospels said about Jesus was impossible miraculous stuff, so that the majority of what was written described him as a perfectly ordinary human preacher!!


Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Here's a conundrum for you: You're travelling in Greece and one day you encounter some old men who tell you that the Messiah has already come and gone. It happened over 400 years ago, they say, and they have numerous stories about the miracles he performed and the words he spoke. You of course, being a sceptic and a member of this Forum don't believe any if it, but you are left wondering: Did they (or perhaps someone 200 years ago) invent all of it from whole cloth, or was there originally some person about whom these myths have been spun? Could there be some clue as to the truth of the matter inside some of the stories they tell?

In this case you would eventually realize that they were talking about Sabbatai Zevi, who did indeed exist and did indeed claim to be the Messiah. Now that doesn't prove that another Messiah existed, too, but perhaps it shows that there can be a real person at the bottom of a fiction.

Well I don't think its' anything of a conundrum. We all agree (well, almost all of us) that it's possible that a real HJ did exist. And I've said that already in numerous posts here. It's not possible to entirely rule that out or to actually disprove such existence. But that's mainly because as I said directly above (and many times before), it's almost impossible ever to directly produce evidence of someone who never existed.

So we all know that a HJ of some sort might have existed. It's not a proven impossibility. But as I have already explained many times here in this thread, the problem for believing that a HJ most probably existed (i.e. a belief of 50% likelihood or greater), is that wherever it's been humanly possible to check it, all of the written material that we have about Jesus has now turned out to be clearly untrue fiction. There's really nothing of any actual substance that can be shown as actually true or likely to be true at all. IOW – all the evidence that we do actually have, is evidence of wholesale religious myth making.
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 4th June 2020, 07:48 AM   #1622
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

Well I don't think its' anything of a conundrum. We all agree (well, almost all of us) that it's possible that a real HJ did exist. And I've said that already in numerous posts here. It's not possible to entirely rule that out or to actually disprove such existence. But that's mainly because as I said directly above (and many times before), it's almost impossible ever to directly produce evidence of someone who never existed.
Well, "we all agree (well, almost all of us) that it's possible" that there was no HJ. It is not possible to disprove his non-existence.

An argument that Jesus did not exist does not require historical evidence.

We have writings of antiquity which made mention of fundamental characters in the NT except Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

We have writings of antiquity about prophecies about Jewish Messianic rulers and none of them mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.

Virtually all the stories of Jesus are either fiction or implausible.

In addition, multiple writings of antiquity have been manipulated to make it appear that Jesus was a figure of his history.

And even more disturbing, the very authors of the NT were fabricated to make it seem that they were writing before c 70 CE.


All the existing evidence support the argument that there was no HJ.

There is no conundrum at all. The evidence from antiquity have been examined and HJ cannot be found.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
So we all know that a HJ of some sort might have existed. It's not a proven impossibility. But as I have already explained many times here in this thread, the problem for believing that a HJ most probably existed (i.e. a belief of 50% likelihood or greater), is that wherever it's been humanly possible to check it, all of the written material that we have about Jesus has now turned out to be clearly untrue fiction. There's really nothing of any actual substance that can be shown as actually true or likely to be true at all. IOW – all the evidence that we do actually have, is evidence of wholesale religious myth making.
But, surely we all know that an HJ might not have existed. "It is not a proven impossibility".

It is completely reasonable to argue against an historical Jesus based on the existing evidence ["wholesale religious myth making"]
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 4th June 2020, 08:22 AM   #1623
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I would not put any historical value on genealogies written in the NT either for Jesus or anyone else.

Afaik, the OT has genealogies for, or leading from, people like King David, Abraham, Moses etc. But apparently even biblical scholars now think the probability is that none of those figures actually existed! Ie they were all invented as religious fiction.
I don't put any value of them as historical documents. To me the interesting part is that there are two of them, and that they are very different from each other. (I've occasionally had some fun asking christians what the name of Jesus' grandfather is, according to NT.) This shows that there were two different authors, which raises a question: Why didn't someone attempt to "harmonize" them, or quietly remove one of the offending contradictory tales later?

Quote:
It gets far worse than that from the HJ side in these threads over the last 12 years or more. They even claim evidence of Jesus, along with claiming real true facts in the gospels, by saying that the writing mentions real places such as Jerusalem!! IOW; they are claiming the biblical writing is truthful and reliable at least in parts because it mentions real places like Jerusalem, and hence they say that means the biblical writing does contain real facts or potential real facts about Jesus !!! … I mean, just how absurd can people get in threads like this when trying defend a HJ … iirc, it even happened again in this very thread when someone here claimed that only a minority of what the gospels said about Jesus was impossible miraculous stuff, so that the majority of what was written described him as a perfectly ordinary human preacher!!
I agree with you. Tolstoy's War and Peace mentions real places and real people, but the main characters are fictional, of course. The same can be said of many works of fiction, such as Arthur Conan Doyle's stories about Sherlock Holmes.

Quote:
Well I don't think its' anything of a conundrum. We all agree (well, almost all of us) that it's possible that a real HJ did exist. And I've said that already in numerous posts here. It's not possible to entirely rule that out or to actually disprove such existence. But that's mainly because as I said directly above (and many times before), it's almost impossible ever to directly produce evidence of someone who never existed.

So we all know that a HJ of some sort might have existed. It's not a proven impossibility. But as I have already explained many times here in this thread, the problem for believing that a HJ most probably existed (i.e. a belief of 50% likelihood or greater), is that wherever it's been humanly possible to check it, all of the written material that we have about Jesus has now turned out to be clearly untrue fiction. There's really nothing of any actual substance that can be shown as actually true or likely to be true at all. IOW – all the evidence that we do actually have, is evidence of wholesale religious myth making.
Yes, evidence in some form would solve the problem. Perhaps a report from Pilate about how he had executed a person that would fit reasonable well with the Jesus character. But what about the MJ theory? What would evidence that proved that theory look like?
Ulf Nereng 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 4th June 2020, 08:26 AM   #1624
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,880
What we do have is stuff like that apologia, talking smack about false Christian prophets. It seems to me this letter shows that Jesus-following Christians were around and cranky about being tarred by association with those other nasty Christians, some time after Hadrian passed Ceaser-ship to Antoninius Pious; more than a century after the proposed HJ’s death. And it identifies some of these popular false prophets as people who were still familiar to the public, who got statues and everything during Claudius’ reign, just a few years after HJ’s death.

The guy is complaining that people who follow those other popular prophets are/were also called Christians and that they give real Christians a bad name. To me this seems consistent with the idea that lots of ‘real people’ prophets were popping up to fill overdue OT prophetic gaps, and that at some point “Paul,” finding them all lacking, just up and started writing about the real one that he straight up said he learned about from divine revelation.

That is, more or less hooking his philosophical cart up to the pre-existing, looking-for-a-good-prophet movement of Christianity.

Last edited by Lithrael; 4th June 2020 at 08:38 AM.
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 4th June 2020, 11:16 AM   #1625
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
I don't put any value of them as historical documents. To me the interesting part is that there are two of them, and that they are very different from each other. (I've occasionally had some fun asking christians what the name of Jesus' grandfather is, according to NT.) This shows that there were two different authors, which raises a question: Why didn't someone attempt to "harmonize" them, or quietly remove one of the offending contradictory tales later?


I agree with you. Tolstoy's War and Peace mentions real places and real people, but the main characters are fictional, of course. The same can be said of many works of fiction, such as Arthur Conan Doyle's stories about Sherlock Holmes.



Yes, evidence in some form would solve the problem. Perhaps a report from Pilate about how he had executed a person that would fit reasonable well with the Jesus character. But what about the MJ theory? What would evidence that proved that theory look like?

As I have tried to explain here just a page or two ago - what we have learned from modern science is that we cannot actually "prove" anything. Not in the sense of showing absolute certainty. So we should not be using the word "proof" in any of these discussions on this forum, either about Jesus or about anything else.

What we can talk about is data, information, material, calculations etc. offered as "evidence" to show the likelihood of things.

So for anyone postulating an entirely mythical Jesus (as opposed to "mythical" in the sense of only saying that he was not the figure described in the biblical writing, and hence not the figure believed by Christians today), all they would have to show is evidence that implies the Jesus stories were mythical inventions ... and of course we already have exactly that, and we have it in extreme abundance - almost every significant description of Jesus in the biblical stories can be shown to be almost certainly untrue.

What you could also find as evidence of myth making about Jesus, is a source written hundreds of years before, but which was being used by the later gospel writers such as g.Mark and g.Mathew to create stories of Jesus ... and again we do apparently have that, as described in detail in books such as the one I mentioned here several times already (Randel Helms; Gospel Fictions). In any other subject, that would be considered pretty strong evidence against a real Jesus.

Other sorts evidence that you might find against a HJ, are things like finding that the gospels and letters that actually exist, are not as universally presented by bible scholars and Christian leaders, but instead it turns out that they were probably written 2 or 3 centuries or more after the 1st century date which those biblical scholars and Christians almost always quote. That too is clearly evidence against the veracity of what those HJ believers so often quote as reliable evidence of Jesus.

And then we have the letters of Paul. Or rather, what we have are said to be copies (perhaps they are the originals!?) written around 200AD. But according to all HJ believers, those letters are claimed to pre-date the gospels. However in those letters Jesus is only ever "known" as a religious vision, which the writer says is known to him "according to scripture", and he says he came to that understanding due to a sudden blinding revelation from God, who he says was at that moment "pleased to reveal his Son in me" ... and just so that there can be no confusion about what the writer meant by those words, he further insists that what he had then learned about Jesus "came from no Man. Nor was I taught it by anyone" ...

... the point about all of that (i.e. the contents of those letters) is that the descriptions are evidence to show that the writer was describing belief in a religious vision, and not belief in a Jesus that was ever known to him or ever known to anyone else as far as that writer "Paul" was able to tell his readers.

And last but not least - various Christian investigators in this subect have claimed to find actual artefacts that prove Jesus was real. E.g., the Shoud of Turin, or the Bone Box of James, innumerable "genuine" nails from the cucifixction cross, and the actual tomb where Jesus was buried etc. etc. But even the slightest objective testing of those claims has shown that they are all actually fakes. And that is a finding that acts as pretty convincing "evidence" to show that people who believe in a HJ have been planting fake evidence & making things up for a very long time.

So all of the above, and a lot more like that, is the sort of material that any of us could offer as evidence to show that claims of Jesus being real, or claims that he was most probably real, really do not fit against the sort of “evidence” that we now have as outlined above. IOW – on the basis of the above as evidence (which actually is the evidence that we have now), you'd have to conclude in all honesty that Jesus was more likely to be fictional rather than real.

Last edited by IanS; 4th June 2020 at 11:22 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 4th June 2020, 12:09 PM   #1626
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post

Yes, evidence in some form would solve the problem. Perhaps a report from Pilate about how he had executed a person that would fit reasonable well with the Jesus character. But what about the MJ theory? What would evidence that proved that theory look like?

Without looking back at a whole mass of stuff that was posted by all sorts of people years ago regarding the evidence about Pontius Pilate, my recollection is that I was never remotely convinced by anything about Pilate as evidence of Jesus.

I'll explain that - in the supposedly "genuine" letters of Paul, the author does not mention Pilate at all. He only talks of "the rulers of this age" as the ones who killed Jesus. That might sound like it meant the Roman rulers around the believed time of Jesus's death circa 33AD, but according to the book by Richard Carrier (On The Historicity Of Jesus), it probably meant the gods, devils and demons who were universally thought to control all events in the various levels of the heavens ... that may sound fanciful, but you can check what Carrier gives as the explanation for that conclusion (and that book, is just about the only one on the historicity of Jesus that has passed academic peer review).

However, apart from that - Pilate is mentioned in the gospels as the person who made the decision to have Jesus crucified. But if those gospels are, as all biblical scholars insist, several decades after Paul's letters, then those gospel writers could presumably have got the idea from Paul's letters that the date of Jesus' execution would have been around 33AD, and from that they could put 2 + 2 together to decide that Pilate would have been the local ruler at that time.

But as far as I know, little was known about Pilate until someone apparently found an inscribed stone tablet with his name given as the prefect of Judea. However, if you look at pictures of that stone tablet (e.g. see the Wiki link below) it looks suspiciously modern and as if the inscription is brand new. And in fact even the description of how it was found is also highly suspicious in my opinion. Apparently someone dated that tablet to 26 to 36AD, however that also looks to me less than satisfactory, at least from that Wiki link where both of the references which they give for that date are from papers with titles about the Historicity of Jesus, i.e. dating apparently done by people interested in the life of Jesus. So without any further or better supporting evidence (which may exist, though I have not seen it) on that basis, I am far from convinced that the Pilate Stone is actually genuine.

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

Last edited by IanS; 4th June 2020 at 12:14 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 4th June 2020, 01:52 PM   #1627
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
Yes, evidence in some form would solve the problem. Perhaps a report from Pilate about how he had executed a person that would fit reasonable well with the Jesus character. But what about the MJ theory? What would evidence that proved that theory look like?
Well, there are multiple "reports" from Pilate. They are considered forgeries

https://www.bibleblender.com/2017/bi...ncerning-jesus

The NT Jesus stories are not only fiction but there were massive efforts to introduce forgeries and manipulation in an attempt to historicise the Jesus character.

What other evidence do you need to show that NT Jesus never ever had any history but was a product of fiction, forgeries and false attribution?

There is a" letter"from Jesus!!! You want to see it??
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 4th June 2020, 04:27 PM   #1628
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,999
Two things: One, If Occam's Razor is valid, which explanation is the simplest? That a man existed or didn't exist? I could argue it either way.

Two, was there any tradition at the time of making up people to pin stories on, or would it be more typical to build on a legend based on some nominally factual basis?

Other people have asked these questions with far more scholarship than I can demonstrate. I think there probably really was a guy, and oral traditions and mystical experiences burnished him into a kind of superhero status.

One other thing, he sounds to me like a strange person to make up, at the time. Sure, I'm no expert on first-century Palestinian itinerant preachers, but the message seems like an odd thing to amplify in the culture that I imagine existed then. The Old Testament, for example, is not big on "love your enemy." More like, "Smite my enemies, plague them with boils, kill their cattle." But I don't have any scholarship to back that up.
Minoosh 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 4th June 2020, 08:17 PM   #1629
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

But as far as I know, little was known about Pilate until someone apparently found an inscribed stone tablet with his name given as the prefect of Judea. However, if you look at pictures of that stone tablet (e.g. see the Wiki link below) it looks suspiciously modern and as if the inscription is brand new. And in fact even the description of how it was found is also highly suspicious in my opinion. Apparently someone dated that tablet to 26 to 36AD, however that also looks to me less than satisfactory, at least from that Wiki link where both of the references which they give for that date are from papers with titles about the Historicity of Jesus, i.e. dating apparently done by people interested in the life of Jesus. So without any further or better supporting evidence (which may exist, though I have not seen it) on that basis, I am far from convinced that the Pilate Stone is actually genuine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone
It is not only the NT which mentions Pilate.

Philo a Jewish writer, a contemporary of Pilate, mentioned him in "On Embassy to Gaius"

In On Embassy to Gaius" it is claimed Pilate was governor of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book40.html

On Embassy to Gaius
Quote:
....Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city.......

Josepus a 1st century Jewish writer also mentioned Pilate a procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1
Quote:
BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city;...

Last edited by dejudge; 4th June 2020 at 08:19 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 4th June 2020, 08:44 PM   #1630
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
.....I think there probably really was a guy, and oral traditions and mystical experiences burnished him into a kind of superhero status.
Jesus did not exist based on the existing evidence. How could you think Jesus was probably real without having any existing evidence?

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
One other thing, he sounds to me like a strange person to make up, at the time. Sure, I'm no expert on first-century Palestinian itinerant preachers, but the message seems like an odd thing to amplify in the culture that I imagine existed then. The Old Testament, for example, is not big on "love your enemy." More like, "Smite my enemies, plague them with boils, kill their cattle." But I don't have any scholarship to back that up.
It is not scholarship that you don't have but no evidence at all.

Didn't NT authors make up a character who was born of a Ghost, resurrected and ascended in a cloud in the presence of his disciples?

The Jesus stories were made up from conception to ascension.

The Jesus stories are the very evidence of the fiction character.
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 5th June 2020, 12:42 AM   #1631
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Two things: One, If Occam's Razor is valid, which explanation is the simplest? That a man existed or didn't exist? I could argue it either way.

Two, was there any tradition at the time of making up people to pin stories on, or would it be more typical to build on a legend based on some nominally factual basis?

Other people have asked these questions with far more scholarship than I can demonstrate. I think there probably really was a guy, and oral traditions and mystical experiences burnished him into a kind of superhero status.

One other thing, he sounds to me like a strange person to make up, at the time. Sure, I'm no expert on first-century Palestinian itinerant preachers, but the message seems like an odd thing to amplify in the culture that I imagine existed then. The Old Testament, for example, is not big on "love your enemy." More like, "Smite my enemies, plague them with boils, kill their cattle." But I don't have any scholarship to back that up.
I agree that he is an anomalous character in many ways, but a message of "peace and love" wouldn't be out of place after the first jewish war. The Romans had crushed their armies, taken their holy city and trampled their holy places. Some would undoubtedly conclude that surrender was the best course of action. Others would of course advocate the opposite. "Fight on! God is with us!" But they had already fought and God didn't help them, nor did the Messiah arrive. Maybe it was a good time to rethink their religion, just a little bit?
Ulf Nereng 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 5th June 2020, 12:43 AM   #1632
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
NT Jesus was God's only begotten Son, [God Creator]
Well, Trinitarian doctrine argues that god-the-father and god-the-son and god-the-holy spirit are all one god. As well the Hypostatic Union argues that Jesus was fully god and fully man simultaneously. And yes, of course its nonsense – its religion! Christianity, which was a Judaic monotheistic religion, made endless problems for itself when it decided that Jesus was god too.

Quote:
In NT fables, it was God who gave his only son to be sacrificed.
Which means given the convoluted theology of Christianity, that god-the-father offered himself, (i.e. god-the-son), to himself (i.e. god-the-father) as a blood sacrifice to appease himself (i.e. god-the father) over Adam and Eve's apple in the garden affair. Apparently, the triune god had to have a blood sacrifice to make himself happy again - even though it was a sacrifice of himself to himself..

Quote:
John 3:16
__________________
“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 5th June 2020, 03:29 AM   #1633
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Two things: One, If Occam's Razor is valid, which explanation is the simplest? That a man existed or didn't exist? I could argue it either way.

Occam's Razor is not really valid for anything. What we should do is gather as much data, information, material and calculations etc. as possible, and treat that as the evidence which leads to the most likely conclusion.

In this case we have to ask how much of the data, information, material, and calculation is consistent with a real person ever known to anyone vs. how much of it is consistent with untrue myth making ...

... and the answer to that is that it's all very consistent indeed with myth making ...

... and really none of it is consistent with a real Jesus ever known to anyone.


Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Two, was there any tradition at the time of making up people to pin stories on, or would it be more typical to build on a legend based on some nominally factual basis?

We are talking here entirely about a religious figure who was described as a god. In fact he was described as a part of the God himself, and described as multiply and constantly supernatural. And that's the figure you are asking about when you ask "was there any tradition at the time of making up people to pin stories on" ... and the answer to that is inescapably obvious - all of the countless thousands of deities ever claimed in all of the hundreds and thousands of ancient religions, all of them believed as absolutely certainly real at the time, every single one of them is now known to be completely fictional ... all of them were invented form the ancient ignorance of religiously fanatical superstitions.

So the answer is that, where a religion claims witnesses (none of whom ever came forward) to a supernatural deity, that is always mythical and without any real foundation.

Jesus would have to be the one-&-only exception amongst thousands of examples in every religion ever known.


Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Other people have asked these questions with far more scholarship than I can demonstrate. I think there probably really was a guy, and oral traditions and mystical experiences burnished him into a kind of superhero status.

Why do you think he was probably real? "Probably" means a confidence level of greater than 50%. Where do get reliable evidence amounting to 50% probability? All the evidence points very strongly to a mythical invention drawn from OT prophecy, as I have explained in considerable detail here ... are you dismissing or ignoring all the actual evidence?


Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
One other thing, he sounds to me like a strange person to make up, at the time. Sure, I'm no expert on first-century Palestinian itinerant preachers, but the message seems like an odd thing to amplify in the culture that I imagine existed then. The Old Testament, for example, is not big on "love your enemy." More like, "Smite my enemies, plague them with boils, kill their cattle." But I don't have any scholarship to back that up.

You can find what may be the actual roots of the Jesus story, not just in the OT (which we know was being used as a source by g.Mark and g.Mathew to create Jesus stories), but also in the Dead Sea scrolls most of which which probably pre-date the NT gospels & letters by as much as 200 years or more.

In the short book by Stephen Hodge on the Scrolls (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, their Meaning ...” - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Sea-Sc.../dp/0749922605), which does not really mention Jesus or any ideas of Jesus Myth at all, Hodge says that by the time when the scrolls were being written (roughly estimated as from about 250BC all the way through to about 70AD), Jews in that region of Judea (we are talking about the exact same region where Jesus was claimed to be preaching) had slowly come to have a diverse range of beliefs about the meaning of OT messiah prophecy, ie diverging from what everyone had been taught since at least 600BC (or even much earlier).

By the time of the scrolls, when century after century had passed without any of the Messiah prophecies ever coming true, Jews in that region (inc. those who wrote the Scrolls) had deviated from the traditional OT teaching of messianic prophecy, and were now preaching on the streets with a wider range of beliefs about how the messiah would appear and what he would do etc. Some of that preaching included belief that the messiah would be God's priestly messenger warning the faithful to gather in readiness of the apocalypse that was soon to come … and that was very similar to what Paul was preaching 100 to 200 years later.

If you think that Paul was preaching as you call it a “love your enemies” sort of messiah, then it's possible that was the impression that Paul had got from earlier preachers who had been preaching the sort of messianic beliefs that were recorded in the Scrolls. I'm not sure that the Scrolls do contain any clear preaching like that, but then again the scrolls are written in coded messages which are not easily understood by us now. However, the point is that Paul's view of a messiah who he had never known, and who he thought had died at some unknown time in the past, does seem to be similar to what was had already been believed & preached for centuries by the writers of the Scrolls, and if Hodge is correct then various versions of that preaching were common by the that time (ie from at least 100BC through to 70 or 100 AD).

At any rate, I think it's worth looking in much more detail at various parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls to see what parts might actually be quite similar to the later preaching in Paul's letters. And for example, it might be the case that when Paul talks about a Church of God that had gone before him, the believers there may have been either descendants from that earlier Scroll writing community (said to be the "Essenes"), or one of what Hodge describes as many groups preaching variations of those sort of departures from the more ancient strict interpretations of the OT.
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 5th June 2020, 04:52 AM   #1634
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

In the short book by Stephen Hodge on the Scrolls (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, their Meaning ...” - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Sea-Sc.../dp/0749922605), which does not really mention Jesus or any ideas of Jesus Myth at all, Hodge says that by the time when the scrolls were being written (roughly estimated as from about 250BC all the way through to about 70AD), Jews in that region of Judea (we are talking about the exact same region where Jesus was claimed to be preaching) had slowly come to have a diverse range of beliefs about the meaning of OT messiah prophecy, ie diverging from what everyone had been taught since at least 600BC (or even much earlier).
The dead sea scrolls do not contain any teaching similar to the NT Jesus stories.

The teachings in the so-called Pauline Epistles about his resurrected Jesus were lifted from the Gospels or similar sources.

Alll the NT Jesus stories were compiled sometime in the 2nd century.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post

By the time of the scrolls, when century after century had passed without any of the Messiah prophecies ever coming true, Jews in that region (inc. those who wrote the Scrolls) had deviated from the traditional OT teaching of messianic prophecy, and were now preaching on the streets with a wider range of beliefs about how the messiah would appear and what he would do etc. Some of that preaching included belief that the messiah would be God's priestly messenger warning the faithful to gather in readiness of the apocalypse that was soon to come … and that was very similar to what Paul was preaching 100 to 200 years later.



At any rate, I think it's worth looking in much more detail at various parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls to see what parts might actually be quite similar to the later preaching in Paul's letters. And for example, it might be the case that when Paul talks about a Church of God that had gone before him, the believers there may have been either descendants from that earlier Scroll writing community (said to be the "Essenes"), or one of what Hodge describes as many groups preaching variations of those sort of departures from the more ancient strict interpretations of the OT.
There is no historical evidence at all of any Pauline followers or church in Judea or anywhere in the 1st century- none whatsoever.

It is already known that the story of Saul/Paul is a work of fiction in Acts of the Apostles where Saul/Paul's conversion was fabricated.

It cannot be forgotten that every NT writing is really anonymous and falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude and James.

All the NT writings were attributed to fictitious characters.

Last edited by dejudge; 5th June 2020 at 05:08 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 5th June 2020, 06:22 AM   #1635
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,026
Post

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Two things: One, If Occam's Razor is valid, which explanation is the simplest? That a man existed or didn't exist? I could argue it either way.

Occam's Razor is frequently mis-represented to mean something like :
"the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one".

Note that Wiki says that - ' The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". '

It's inaccurate because Occam's Razor is not a chooser - it's a CUTTER, a razor. It does NOT say anything about alternatives, it does NOT say anything about choosing alternatives.

In fact what Occam's Razor actually says is this :
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

Which rendered into literal English is :
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

Which means :
"Cut off everything that is not necessary."

In this case of the Gospels, the unnecessary entities which can be cut off are :
  • the historical Jesus,
  • the disciples,
  • Satan,
  • Jahweh.

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 5th June 2020, 06:24 AM   #1636
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,941
I can't read the title of this thread without

Your own
Historical
Jesus.

He won't ever hear your prayer, he was just there


Running around my head.


Sorry. Carry on.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 5th June 2020, 06:52 AM   #1637
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
I agree that he is an anomalous character in many ways, but a message of "peace and love" wouldn't be out of place after the first jewish war. The Romans had crushed their armies, taken their holy city and trampled their holy places. Some would undoubtedly conclude that surrender was the best course of action. Others would of course advocate the opposite. "Fight on! God is with us!" But they had already fought and God didn't help them, nor did the Messiah arrive. Maybe it was a good time to rethink their religion, just a little bit?
We have writings attributed to Josephus. There was no re-thinking of the Jewish religion.

The Jews still expected their Messianic ruler and did revolt against the Romans c 130-135CE under Simon bar Cocheba.

Even after the failed attempt by Simon Bar Cocheba the Jews still believed their Messianic ruler would emerge at some time.

Examine Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:
And when I had finished these words, I continued: "Now I am aware that your teachers, sirs, admit the whole of the words of this passage to refer to Christ; and I am likewise aware that they maintain He has not yet come; or if they say that He has come, they assert that it is not known who He is; but when He shall become manifest and glorious, then it shall be known who He is
I challenge anyone to produce the name of a known Jewish figure of history outside the NT fables who was a Jesus cult Christian between c27 CE to 325 CE.

There is none.

The NT is complete fiction with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.
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 5th June 2020, 07:03 AM   #1638
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Just on that issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the possibility that groups such as the Essene's (as the claimed writers of the Scrolls) became a significant influence for what was latter created as the writing of gospels and letters that formed Christianity (or at least, the Christianity that centred around belief in Jesus) – here is a link that I just found this afternoon whilst making a brief check to see what, if anything, anyone else had said about the possibility of the Jewish Scroll communities being the basis of what later evolved into the Christianity of Jesus belief -


https://www.post-gazette.com/ae/book...s/201910200011


That short article does not seem very rigorous at all to me, e.g. no proper references for things presented as if they were fact. However, it does discuss exactly what I was saying above about known similarities between what is found in parts of the Scrolls and in Paul's letters as well as the earliest gospels.

Anyway – I really wrote the previous post about the Scrolls as information, not just in reply to Minoosh, but mainly for TheHeno to think about, since he was saying that he wanted to learn more about this whole subject of why Jesus might have been only a mythical figure. Anyway – TheHeno or Ulf Nereng, if you are reading here, then do take a quick look at what's said in that link
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 5th June 2020, 08:18 AM   #1639
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Just on that issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the possibility that groups such as the Essene's (as the claimed writers of the Scrolls) became a significant influence for what was latter created as the writing of gospels and letters that formed Christianity (or at least, the Christianity that centred around belief in Jesus) – here is a link that I just found this afternoon whilst making a brief check to see what, if anything, anyone else had said about the possibility of the Jewish Scroll communities being the basis of what later evolved into the Christianity of Jesus belief -


https://www.post-gazette.com/ae/book...s/201910200011


That short article does not seem very rigorous at all to me, e.g. no proper references for things presented as if they were fact. However, it does discuss exactly what I was saying above about known similarities between what is found in parts of the Scrolls and in Paul's letters as well as the earliest gospels.

Anyway – I really wrote the previous post about the Scrolls as information, not just in reply to Minoosh, but mainly for TheHeno to think about, since he was saying that he wanted to learn more about this whole subject of why Jesus might have been only a mythical figure. Anyway – TheHeno or Ulf Nereng, if you are reading here, then do take a quick look at what's said in that link
That book was written by a theologian of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was born a virgin, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

The Dead Sea Scroll does not contain any teaching similar to the NT stories of Jesus.

https://www.johnbergsma.com/

Last edited by dejudge; 5th June 2020 at 08:19 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 5th June 2020, 10:07 AM   #1640
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Here is another interesting, and more detailed article that discusses the the connection between Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls -

https://conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrec...igious-belief/
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
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 04:37 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.