The Historical Jesus III

Walter Ego said:

I didn't read it the first 50 times so that part was irrelevant.

(Btw, I have made no arguments. I've just stated my opinions.)

Click to expand...

You did not need to read it 50 times before. And I did not ask you to do any such thing.

I simply told you that we have already been over those same questions 50 times here already. And answered them very fully 50 times before!

Any suggestion that Jesus is supported by no less & no more evidence than other comparable figures in ancient history, and is therefore subject to a double standard whereby sceptics such as me question only Jesus whilst not questioning the existence of people like Pythagoras or Socrates, or Julius Caesar or any of the numerous others that have been compared here to Jesus by HJ posters, is simply wrong ...

... the case of Jesus is not comparable to any of those other figures (for numerous reasons that we have been over here more than 50 times before).

dejudge said:

If it is impossible that the God of the Jews existed with human flesh then it is impossible that Jesus of Nazareth existed in human flesh.

Jesus was God of God, a TRANSFIGURER and WATER Walker in the NT.
...
Your HJ argument is the very worst kind of argument.

Click to expand...

Craig B said:

No, it's not the worst ARGUMENT, dejudge. You have just written again the worst argument THAT I warned you about and you are not PAYING attention.

Click to expand...

Of course, your HJ argument is the very worst.

Your posts are recorded.

Your argue that gMark's Jesus [the TRANSFIGURING WATER WALKER] was human because the Son of God is a "Davidic title".

What absolute nonsense!!!

A TRANSFIGURING WATER WALKER is a MYTH/FICTION character with or without your "Davidic title".

Walter Ego said:

(Btw, I have made no arguments. I've just stated my opinions.)

Click to expand...

Fundamentalists are of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source.

Are you not of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for the HJ argument?

You have similar opinions like fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalists??

I am of the opinion that the Christian Bible is chronological and historical garbage and that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character just like the God of the Jews.

dejudge said:

Fundamentalists are of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source.

Are you not of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for the HJ argument?

You have similar opinions like fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalists??

I am of the opinion that the Christian Bible is chronological and historical garbage and that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character just like the God of the Jews.

Click to expand...

I predicted that Walter Ego would be accused of this

Craig B said:

You will be; and your heresy is uttering "arguments that are always trotted out by Christians".

Click to expand...

Of course you go much further than that, and accuse him of being a Bible-Thumping Fundie.

Walter Ego said:

I have made no such accusations. I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

Click to expand...

Put that way the odds are reasonably good but (and this is important part) was that teacher actually the founder of Christianity?

Resmburg who said he felt the evidence was just enough to show Jesus existed as a human being also said "But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written."

Classic Christ Mythers like Drews and John M. Robertson were not saying that a Jesus didn't exist but that connection between such a man and the Gospel version was on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur. You can postulate "historical" origins for them but at the end of the day they is nothing to connect them to a definitive version.

As Archibald Robertson said "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man or perhaps as a composite of actual people]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"

Carrier doesn't go quite that far only requiring:

1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death

2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his follower to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities

3) This is the same Jesus some of whose follower soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

"If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true."

Now "no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" doesn't mean that there wasn't a historical Jesus but that like Robin Hood or King Arthur what ever historical core did exist has been obliterated by legend and myth.

Carrier is giving a lot of leeway here:

"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade than Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite) ... My point at present is that even if we proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been Because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped."

Carrier goes with the Gospels and Acts as they are our most detailed accounts and [supposedly] closest to the "actual" events. If they fail then the search for a HJ is a trip to nowhere.

And fail they do in spectacular fashion.

HansMustermann had an excellent comment in the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread which goes over all the issues with Jesus.

maximara said:

Carrier doesn't go quite that far only requiring: <snip Carrier's requirements> ...
Carrier is giving a lot of leeway here:<snip Carrier's leeway> ...

Click to expand...

Thank Carrier for the modesty of his requirements and the generous extent of his leeway.

maximara said:

Carrier goes with the Gospels and Acts as they are our most detailed accounts and [supposedly] closest to the "actual" events. If they fail then the search for a HJ is a trip to nowhere.
And fail they do in spectacular fashion.

Click to expand...

The Gospels and Acts are our most detailed accounts of the myth/fiction character called Jesus, the Logos, from conception to ascension.

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

[I am] an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

Click to expand...

maximara said:

Put that way the odds are reasonably good but (and this is important part) was that teacher actually the founder of Christianity?

Click to expand...

No, Christianity was founded after his death by Paul and some of his other followers. We seem to talking about two people here, Jesus the human being and the divine Jesus apotheosized by his followers after his death. I find the former plausible and the latter implausible.

Walter Ego said:

No, Christianity was founded after his death by Paul and some of his other followers. We seem to talking about two people here, Jesus the human being and the divine Jesus apotheosized by his followers after his death. I find the former plausible and the latter implausible.

Click to expand...

Ah, but that would would qualify as Christ Myth theory per John Robertson (1900), Herbert George Wood (1934), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1982, 1995), and Bart Ehrman (2012). Though it would an ahistorical Jesus and NOT Christ Myth per Carrier's definitions.

And that is the problem.

The Christ myth is MORE then simply Jesus didn't exist as a historical person:

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth." - Remsburg 1909

"But the sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte leads colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." - Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history, MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.] : The University Press pg 40

"The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a human being]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" - Robertson, Archibald (1946) Jesus: Myth or History? regarding John Robertson's 1900 work


"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of [ie NOT the man himself] Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." - Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995


"[The Christ myth] is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." - Ehrman, Bart (2012) Did Jesus Exist Harper Collins, , p. 12)


As I have pointed out now, as back in the last year of the 19th century, there are difference definitions of Christ Myth theory which do NOT exclude a historical Jesus.

Craig B said:

Thank Carrier for the modesty of his requirements and the generous extent of his leeway.

Click to expand...

Resmburg was just as generous in 1909 as I have pointed out.

How about dropping the smartass ad hominid on Carrier and deal with the actual points raised?

As I said before much of what Carrier brings to the table is not new.

All Carrier really did was bring actual scholarship and system theory to the Christ myth allowing a hypothesis of how and why it could happen to be formed.

I suspect your smart aleckly dismissal of Carrier is because you have no idea on how system theory even works and have no actual counter arguments. Ironically the Greek with their myth of the fates weaving a tapestry of fate is a close analogy; history is a weave of interacting events (threads) which push events in certain directions.

As Carl Sagan stated in his Cosmos series there were various factors that made the [re]discovery of American around 1500 inevitable. From what we see something like Christianity was going to from given the social-political climate of the 1st century BCE to 2nd century CE.

dejudge said:

Fundamentalists are of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source.

Are you not of the opinion that the Christian Bible is historically credible, that Jesus of Nazareth [the Son of God] was REALLY real and actively use the NT Canon as an historical source for the HJ argument?

You have similar opinions like fundamentalists.

You are not a fundamentalists??

I am of the opinion that the Christian Bible is chronological and historical garbage and that Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character just like the God of the Jews.

Click to expand...

That is almost certainly correct - and as the bibble is supposed to be the word of god his daddy is a pretty lousy writer and editor and has a **** memory!!!

fuelair said:

That is almost certainly correct - and as the bibble is supposed to be the word of god his daddy is a pretty lousy writer and editor and has a **** memory!!!

Click to expand...

I am reminded of Yahtzee's comments about Sim Societies:

"It's a idea that many people seem to latch onto, that if we were created by some kind of god, then obviously he did it because he loves us so huggy-muggy-much. Never are the holes in this theory more obvious than while playing god games, because it seems that when you play as most people in the position of a god and give them responsibility over many tiny lesser beings, then their attitude towards them is usually less about beloved children and more about target practice."

Sounds like the OT, doesn't it?

"There isn't enough feedback to let you know you're doing your job properly."

This would go a long way to explaining why the world is one big mess.

Then you have the classic "walled-off bubble society run by an omnipotent cretin"

Didn't the Gnostics believe something along these lines regarding the creator of the world (ie the Demiurge)?

And in the review of Too Human we got this gem:

"The root problem with Christianity is that their God is supposed to be all-powerful and benevolent. It sounds like an easy sell, but when life turns completely to ***** you have to come up with all kinds of wacked-out reasons for why kindly old Jehovah saw fit to run over little Timmy with a combine harvester and leave him in a state of vegetative limbless agony for eighteen years."

maximara said:

How about dropping the smartass ad hominid on Carrier and deal with the actual points raised?

As I said before much of what Carrier brings to the table is not new.

All Carrier really did was bring actual scholarship and system theory to the Christ myth allowing a hypothesis of how and why it could happen to be formed.

I suspect your smart aleckly dismissal of Carrier is because you have no idea on how system theory even works and have no actual counter arguments.

Click to expand...

No, my dismissal results from my view that he is hopelessly mistaken. Moreover, expressions like "Carrier is requiring ... " and "Carrier gives leeway ... " strike me as absurdly grandiose.

For the second time, "hominid" is not the right word here. I do not accuse Carrier of being a chimpanzee. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

maximara said:

How about dropping the smartass ad hominid on Carrier and deal with the actual points raised?

As I said before much of what Carrier brings to the table is not new.

All Carrier really did was bring actual scholarship and system theory to the Christ myth

Click to expand...

How do we know he brought actual scholarship? Because he tells us so

And on that score I would ask that Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? be compared with my latest on the same subject, Proving History. Just compare the extent and content of our endnotes alone, much less the way we argue, the difference in our attention to method and its logical soundness, the diverse range of scholarship we cite. Even my book Not the Impossible Faith is superior on all these measures, and it was a deliberately colloquial book designed to be entertaining. Both undoubtedly have occasional errors (as all scholarly work does)–but I doubt anything even remotely like what I have documented above (in degree, quantity, and cruciality).

Click to expand...

Dear God! This is the bloated language of charlatanry.

Walter Ego said:

No, Christianity was founded after his death by Paul and some of his other followers.

Click to expand...

You present that as if it were a known fact, with no thought of any caution at all.

That seems to be a characteristic feature of most if not all HJ posters in threads like this - they state complete conjecture as if it were certain fact.

What we now call "Christianity" (what they called it in the first century I don't know), need not have been based on anyone called "Yehoshua" ("iesous" = Jesus). The term "Christ" only means an unnamed unspecified messiah, i.e. an anointed special leader (probably endorsed by Yahweh) ... but it would not necessarily signify anyone named "Jesus".

The point of me saying that, is - since at least 1000BC Jewish religion in that region had been certain of the coming of Yahweh's divinely ordained saviour messiah. And since at least the time when the Dead Sea scrolls were written, probably beginning 100-200 years or more before Paul, the writers of the scrolls had believed in a priestly-type preaching messiah sent by Yahweh to warn of imminent apocalypse and the day of judgement ... which is almost exactly what Paul was preaching a century or two later. All these people believed in a saviour Christ or Messiah.

So the only minor mystery in any of that is where Paul got the name "Iesous" (i.e. "Jesus" in middle English language). But we have discussed that before, and iirc it's also discussed in Carriers latest book - there are various passages in the OT from which Paul (or anyone else) might have decided that the prophesised messiah would actually be named "Iesous", i.e. "Yehoshua".

But as for anything else about Jesus, Paul knows nothing at all about him except for what he (Paul) says was discovered in the ancient scriptures and told to him by God as "revelation". Even the idea of death and crucifixion was known to Paul only "according to scripture" ... he says he learned these things "from no man", and "nor was I taught it by anyone", it came to him instead always because "it was revealed to me" where "God was pleased to reveal his son in me", and it was "according to scripture".

Walter Ego said:

We seem to talking about two people here, Jesus the human being and the divine Jesus apotheosized by his followers after his death. I find the former plausible and the latter implausible.

Click to expand...

In the biblical writing there is only one Jesus. And that is the supernatural divine son of Yahweh.

As I pointed out before - the so-called HJ, i.e. a normal human preacher of the 1st century, is apparently an idea created by bible scholars and Christians some time around c.1800, in an attempt to counter the growing realisation that the biblical Jesus could not be real ... before that date, almost everyone had believed that Jesus literally did exist as the miraculous supernatural Son of a heavenly God as stated in the bible. A so-called HJ was only proposed when it was finally realised that the biblical Jesus could not have existed.

Craig B said:

How do we know he brought actual scholarship? Because he tells us so

Click to expand...

No because he got it through the proper channels of peer review and an academic publisher.

Again stop using smartass ad hominid attacks and address the points raised.

Or is my assumption that your refusal to do so is because you don't understand system theory correct and you don't have clue one on how to deal with it?

Walter Ego said:

I am just an atheist and skeptic who thinks that there is a good probability that a Jewish teacher named Jesus lived and taught in rural Galilee during the first century CE.

If this counter to the prevailing dogma, you'll just to have me excommunicated as a heretic.

Click to expand...

Your belief is just a shortened mutilated version of the 4th century Nicene Creed.

Is this the HJers' Creed?

"We believe, without historical evidence, that Jesus might have existed".

maximara said:

... smartass ad hominid attacks ...

Click to expand...

For the second third time, "hominid" is not the right word here. I do not accuse Carrier of being a chimpanzee. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

IanS said:

...As I pointed out before - the so-called HJ, i.e. a normal human preacher of the 1st century, is apparently an idea created by bible scholars and Christians some time around c.1800, in an attempt to counter the growing realisation that the biblical Jesus could not be real ... before that date, almost everyone had believed that Jesus literally did exist as the miraculous supernatural Son of a heavenly God as stated in the bible. A so-called HJ was only proposed when it was finally realised that the biblical Jesus could not have existed.

Click to expand...

Your statement is in error.

There were Christians of antiquity who argued that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary and that the Christ [a Spiritual being] ENTERED into Jesus when he baptised by John.

See "Against Heresies" 1 attributed to Irenaeus.

See "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

The claim that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary was a known lie based on writings of antiquity.

Celsus in "True Discourse" claimed Jesus was the son of Pathera and Mary according to Origen in "Against Celsus".

Origen also admitted Jesus was really BORN of a Ghost--NOT Joseph or Panthera.

It is evident that there was no known historical data for Jesus in the NT since Christian themselves argued for HUNDREDS of years that Jesus came down from heaven WITHOUT birth or was a PHANTOM.

The situation has NOT changed for at least 1800 years.

People today STILL BELIEVE Jesus existed WITHOUT any actual historical data just like Aristidies, Cerinthus, Irenaeus, Marcion, Justin, Ignatius, Clement, Celsus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo and other writers of antiquity.

The Roman Government did concede that Jesus was TRULY God of God, born of a Ghost and a Virgin and was God from the beginning.

The fact that the Roman Government conceded that Jesus was God of God suggest there was no historical evidence at all in antiquity up to the 4th century that Jesus was a mere man or that there was no historical data to contradict the stories of Jesus.

If the Roman Government had documented evidence that Jesus was really a mere man who did NOTHING as described in the NT then it would be expected that they would have exterminated the Christian cult.

I would like to comment on this, cited by maximara

"The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a human being]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" - Robertson, Archibald (1946) Jesus: Myth or History? regarding John Robertson's 1900 work

Click to expand...

That's quite right, it seems to me, and I have made the point before in the earlier thread. If there existed a

Person named Jesus
Who was an in contact with John the Baptist
Preached and performed exorcisms and healing practices
Was arrested and executed during the governorship of Pilate
And whose followers were those identified by Paul

Then there was a historical Jesus; and if not, there was not.

dejudge said:

Your belief is just a shortened mutilated version of the 4th century Nicene Creed.

Is this the HJers' Creed?

"We believe, without historical evidence, that Jesus might have existed".

Click to expand...

To Walter Ego. This will go on and on, and it will never stop.

I find myself in agreement with this comment

I have been a bit baffled about why this matter evokes such strong feelings, especially among atheists. Since we all admit that there’s no evidence that Jesus was the son of God, did miracles, was resurrected or born of a virgin, and died for our sins, does it really matter so much if he’s based on a historical person? Why does this evoke such strong feelings, and such acrimonious arguments, from atheists?
Perhaps some of our concern comes from this: if we can show that there’s no historical Jesus, then the myth of Christianity tumbles down. That is, it’s no so much about convincing ourselves about the non-historicity of Jesus as convincing Christians.

Click to expand...

As a corollary, it appears to such reasoners, who include dejudge and other posters here, that to assert the existence of an historical Jesus is to preach Christianity.

This is bluntly, crudely, and vehemently stated, even though it is manifestly absurd. But there seems to be no way of stemming this torrent of misapprehension (if such it be) so we must simply let it rip, and continue to argue the case of rationality.

Craig B said:

No, my dismissal results from my view that he is hopelessly mistaken. Moreover, expressions like "Carrier is requiring ... " and "Carrier gives leeway ... " strike me as absurdly grandiose.

For the second time, "hominid" is not the right word here. I do not accuse Carrier of being a chimpanzee. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Click to expand...

You have called Carrier a "guru" which given its bad connotations is worse then calling him a chimp.

And you are still avoiding the actual points raised.

maximara said:

You have called Carrier a "guru" which given its bad connotations is worse then calling him a chimp.

And you are still avoiding the actual points raised.

Click to expand...

My #20 actually cites one of your sources. Whether a guru is worse than a chimp I don't know, but "hominid" suggests the latter.

Craig B said:

I would like to comment on this, cited by maximara That's quite right, it seems to me, and I have made the point before in the earlier thread. If there existed a

Person named Jesus.

Click to expand...

Very common name so a useless requirement.

Craig B said:

Who was an in contact with John the Baptist.

Click to expand...

Like Philo was supposedly in contact with Peter and "not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day"? That is what Eusebius claims in his The History of the Church

This comes of as a 'see our teacher knew this important person' stunt and useless.

Craig B said:

Preached and performed exorcisms and healing practices.

Click to expand...

IIRC Paul's Jesus doesn't do the last two. Few if any of Josephus would be messiahs did the last two either IIRC.

Craig B said:

Was arrested and executed during the governorship of Pilate.

Click to expand...

Again may have not happened any more then Robin Hood doing his thing under King Richard...or was that Edward and which Edward?

Craig B said:

And whose followers were those identified by Paul.

Click to expand...

Given Paul himself give warnings about "another Jesus" this is useless.


No compare this very restricted criteria with Carrier in his PEER REVIEWED SCHOLLARLY PUBLISHED book:

we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade than Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite)[25] ... My point at present is that even if we proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been Because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped."

Craig B said:

Then there was a historical Jesus; and if not, there was not.

Click to expand...

Rudolf Bultmann and Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall used criteria that would allow Mead's c100 BCE Jesus to be historical. I guess in your little world they are gurus as well.

Ian said:

So the only minor mystery in any of that is where Paul got the name "Iesous"

Click to expand...

NOPE.

Where did Mark obtain the name, because Mark wrote first, as we know from reading Justin Martyr, who cites, without reference, several passages that correspond most closely to Matthew, the writer who in turn, used Mark as a source.

"Paul" doesn't appear on the scene until the late second century, when his epistles are referenced by the Bishop of Lugdunum, who conveniently had traveled to Rome, on that very day, when the Roman army captured Irenaeus' predecessor, Pothinus, and executed him, for having committed the crime of practicing Christianity. Was Irenaeus not guilty of the same practices as Pothinus?

The Roman army was so disorganized, that they failed to capture Irenaeus, so he succeeded in writing lots of books about various heresies,
none of which survive today, in their original Greek. I always wondered, why the Roman army did not capture Ireneaus, after he had traveled to Rome, to meet the Pope. In fact, why had not the pope himself been captured and executed?

I confess to having suspected that maybe Irenaeus had, in conjecture, never been in Lugdunum at all. Is it not very odd that a Syriac speaking cleric, educated in Greek, would be appointed head of the new Christian church in the ancient, Celtic speaking city of Lugdunum?
Were there then, no suitable candidates from among the local, Latin based intelligentsia, to recruit? Irenaeus must have been a true polyglot.

maximara said:

Rudolf Bultmann and Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall used criteria that would allow Mead's c100 BCE Jesus to be historical. I guess in your little world they are gurus as well.

Click to expand...

They are if they wrote PEER REVIEWED SCHOLLARLY PUBLISHED books.

waters said:

NOPE.

Where did Mark obtain the name, because Mark wrote first, as we know from reading Justin Martyr, who cites, without reference, several passages that correspond most closely to Matthew, the writer who in turn, used Mark as a source.

"Paul" doesn't appear on the scene until the late second century, when his epistles are referenced by the Bishop of Lugdunum, who conveniently had traveled to Rome, on that very day, when the Roman army captured Irenaeus' predecessor, Pothinus, and executed him, for having committed the crime of practicing Christianity. Was Irenaeus not guilty of the same practices as Pothinus?

The Roman army was so disorganized, that they failed to capture Irenaeus, so he succeeded in writing lots of books about various heresies,
none of which survive today, in their original Greek. I always wondered, why the Roman army did not capture Ireneaus, after he had traveled to Rome, to meet the Pope. In fact, why had not the pope himself been captured and executed?

I confess to having suspected that maybe Irenaeus had, in conjecture, never been in Lugdunum at all. Is it not very odd that a Syriac speaking cleric, educated in Greek, would be appointed head of the new Christian church in the ancient, Celtic speaking city of Lugdunum?
Were there then, no suitable candidates from among the local, Latin based intelligentsia, to recruit? Irenaeus must have been a true polyglot.

Click to expand...

Eh?

Walter Ego said:

No, Christianity was founded after his death by Paul and some of his other followers.

Click to expand...

Hi Walter,

To die, a person must first be born.

Such a human individual must possess paternal DNA.

Can you furnish the name of the entity who had donated his DNA to the person who you can name as Jesus' mother?

YES, you can do that. Sure, no problem. Everyone can.

But then, Walter, that's the problem, because supernatural beings, in this case "pneuma", aka "spirit" in English, don't convey DNA to fertilize the female gamete.

So, try again Walter.

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE that Jesus ever lived in ANY form, whether as "miracle worker" or "magician", or "itinerant rabbi", or any of the rest of it.

nada.

Show me the beef, Walter, then you can write about his "followers", and the role played by "paul".

I claim, that there is no more evidence supporting the human existence of Jesus, than we have for the existence of ANY OTHER fictional character. Jesus was a fictional character in a Greek myth tale, from start to finish, exactly like Odysseus, Achilles, or Herakles, or any number of other famous Greek mythological heroes.

All you have to do, to persuade me, that I am in error, is to explain who furnished the paternal DNA, if the gospels err, and that DNA had not been furnished by pneuma.

Craig B said:

As a corollary, it appears to such reasoners, who include dejudge and other posters here, that to assert the existence of an historical Jesus is to preach Christianity.
This is bluntly, crudely, and vehemently stated, even though it is manifestly absurd. But there seems to be no way of stemming this torrent of misapprehension (if such it be) so we must simply let it rip, and continue to argue the case of rationality.

Click to expand...

"Other posters here" apart from dejudge have called you a closet Christian "preaching Christianity"? Who are they? Can you quote where anyone has seriously tried to maintain that you are lying when you say you are an atheist and that you are in fact an undisclosed Christian theist?

I don't even recall dejudge actually saying that about you or other HJ posters here. What I recall from dejudge's posts is that eventually, after years of argument in this thread, he sometimes replies saying your posts often sound to him as if you are a Christian evangelist who accepts the bible as factual evidence of Jesus.

But I don't think even dejudge has said any more than that, has he? And in saying that he is only saying that if you keep claiming the bible as a factual source on Jesus, and if you keep trotting out the same biblical arguments as Christians, Theologians, and Christian bible scholars (as the vast majority are), then what you claim as your Jesus belief does start to sound indistinguishable from the arguments proclaimed by all those devout Christian theists.

I don't think that I have ever seriously tried to say that you must be a closet Christian, have I? I think you are too easily buying the Christian theist line of believing that some things said about Jesus in the bible are more than likely to be true, but I don't recall saying more than that in the sense of ever saying that you, or Belz, or Brainache, or Walter, or any HJ posters here are hiding their true nature as a Christian theists evangelising about Jesus and the bible etc.

waters said:

... Show me the beef, Walter, then you can write about his "followers", and the role played by "paul".

I claim, that there is no more evidence supporting the human existence of Jesus, than we have for the existence of ANY OTHER fictional character. Jesus was a fictional character in a Greek myth tale, from start to finish, exactly like Odysseus, Achilles, or Herakles, or any number of other famous Greek mythological heroes.

All you have to do, to persuade me, that I am in error, is to explain who furnished the paternal DNA, if the gospels err, and that DNA had not been furnished by pneuma.

Click to expand...

Eh??

Craig B said:

Eh??

Click to expand...

I think it's just a bunch of hot air furnished by Central Pneumatic.

maximara said:

No because he got it through the proper channels of peer review and an academic publisher.

Again stop using smartass ad hominid attacks and address the points raised.

Or is my assumption that your refusal to do so is because you don't understand system theory correct and you don't have clue one on how to deal with it?

Click to expand...

IT WAS SUGGESTED EARLIER AND YOU SEEMED TO MISS IT - HOMINID IS A HUMAN LIKE CREATURE. tHE PHRASE YOU ARE WRITING INCORRECTLY SHOULD BE: Ad Hominem.........

waters said:

NOPE. Where did Mark obtain the name, because Mark wrote first, as we know from reading Justin Martyr, who cites, without reference, several passages that correspond most closely to Matthew, the writer who in turn, used Mark as a source.

"Paul" doesn't appear on the scene until the late second century, when his epistles are referenced by the Bishop of Lugdunum, who conveniently had traveled to Rome, on that very day, when the Roman army captured Irenaeus' predecessor, Pothinus, and executed him, for having committed the crime of practicing Christianity. Was Irenaeus not guilty of the same practices as Pothinus?

The Roman army was so disorganized, that they failed to capture Irenaeus, so he succeeded in writing lots of books about various heresies,
none of which survive today, in their original Greek. I always wondered, why the Roman army did not capture Ireneaus, after he had traveled to Rome, to meet the Pope. In fact, why had not the pope himself been captured and executed?

I confess to having suspected that maybe Irenaeus had, in conjecture, never been in Lugdunum at all. Is it not very odd that a Syriac speaking cleric, educated in Greek, would be appointed head of the new Christian church in the ancient, Celtic speaking city of Lugdunum?
Were there then, no suitable candidates from among the local, Latin based intelligentsia, to recruit? Irenaeus must have been a true polyglot.

Click to expand...

Well it doesn't make any difference. Whoever wrote first, they could find the name of Jesus in the OT, and the could infer from that (rightly or wrongly) that the messiah would have been called "Jesus".

And as you know, almost everyone apart from yourself and dejudge thinks Paul was definitely the first of those biblical writers (e.g. according to bible scholars, theologians, all Christian writers etc ... who is actually right or wrong, I have no idea, and no strong opinion either way).

Craig B said:

My #20 actually cites one of your sources. Whether a guru is worse than a chimp I don't know, but "hominid" suggests the latter.

Click to expand...

So you are hiding behind a typo to avoid addressing Carrier's actual points, I see.

It is still an ad hominem effort to avoid the actual issues.

I also took your five "requirements" for a historical Jesus and dropped kicked them.

To recap:

1) Jesus was a very common name so that is useless as a requirement.

2) Any supposed contact with John the Baptist could be nothing more then a 'see our teacher knew this important person' stunt and therefore useless. Eusebius seems to have pulled this stunt by having Philo was supposedly in contact with Peter and "not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day" so that is useless.

3) The preaching is a given for about any would be messiah and so is useless. AFAIR Paul makes no comments regarding Jesus himself performing exorcisms or doing healing practices so those may have been puffing up of what may have been a very minor teacher so again useless.


4) The arrest and execution during the governorship of Pilate*could be simply a way to reconcile Paul's vision of a Jesus with "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" who in fact had drifted off into obscurity. - Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel; Wells, G A Jesus Legend (1996) to present.

Paul's conversion has traditionally been between 31-36 CE with the crucifixion of Jesus being supposedly a recent event which would make Pilate the obvious go to even if the actual Jesus wound up being crucified sometime after 41 CE during the reign of Claudius


As for followers were those identified by Paul; we don't know what Paul was really doing here. We can't exclude the idea that he was trying to take the remnants of previous messiahs and put them under the Jesus banner. 2 Corinthians 11:4 expressly talks about "another Jesus" as well as "another Gospel" while Galatians 1:8 only addresses "another Gospels" so something is going on there.

Craig B said:

...As a corollary, it appears to such reasoners, who include dejudge and other posters here, that to assert the existence of an historical Jesus is to preach Christianity.

Click to expand...

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

You seem to have completely forgotten that it was the poster under the name of "walter ego" who implied people here were fundamentalist atheists because they argued that Jesus was not a figure of history.

It is clear to everyone on this thread that people who argue for an historical Jesus MUST first discredit the Christian Bible and then turn around and use the very same discredited Christian Bible as a credible historical source.

You admit the Holy Ghost conception is a Late addition to the Gospels yet FAIL to admit that Joseph is also a LATE addition in the very same LATE sources.

Your supposed earliest sources do not mention Joseph and STATE DIRECTLY that GOD is the father of Jesus, that Jesus is the LORD from heaven, God's Own Son and use the very same NOMINA SACRA for Jesus and the God of the Jews.

Jesus is the LORD GOD in the Pauline Corpus and gMark.

You claim that Jesus the Son of a God had a "Davidic title" in gMark but FAIL to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was a WATER WALKING TRANSFIGURER in the very same story.

You admit your "Paul" saw NOTHING of Jesus, the Lord from heaven, God Creator, after he was raised from the dead but had auditory hallucinations of the resurrected Jesus yet use 2nd century or later writings by ANONYMOUS sources to argue Jesus existed in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

Your HJ argument is the very worst kind because you use ADMITTED sources of historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions and events which did not and could not have happened.

IanS said:

Well it doesn't make any difference. Whoever wrote first, they could find the name of Jesus in the OT, and the could infer from that (rightly or wrongly) that the messiah would have been called "Jesus".

And as you know, almost everyone apart from yourself and dejudge thinks Paul was definitely the first of those biblical writers (e.g. according to bible scholars, theologians, all Christian writers etc ... who is actually right or wrong, I have no idea, and no strong opinion either way).

Click to expand...

Personally I don't see the logic in thinking "Paul" came after Mark. The idea that Paul could have had access to Mark with so much reference material to push his own version of Christianity and NOT use it doesn't make that much sense.

IanS said:

And as you know, almost everyone apart from yourself and dejudge thinks Paul was definitely the first of those biblical writers (e.g. according to bible scholars, theologians, all Christian writers etc ... who is actually right or wrong, I have no idea, and no strong opinion either way).

Click to expand...

Your claim that "bible scholars, theologians, all Christian writers etc think Paul was definitely the first of those biblical writers" is of no real value because you will not be able to present any evidence from antiquity to show that Paul was DEFINITELY the first of biblical writers.

The existing 2nd century or later hand-written Pauline Corpus [Papyri 46] were NOT written by Paul.

In the NT itself, people who wrote about Paul did not even claim he wrote letters to seven Churches, Timothy, Jude and Philemon.

May I remind you that the "Plenty People think" argument is useless in this forum.

This forum and thread was initiated for EVIDENCE and HISTORICAL data.

Penty people think [imagine things] WITHOUT first securing the required evidence or historical data.

The claim that the Pauline Corpus are early writings is hopelessly flawed and WITHOUT a shred of corroboration by non-apologetic and even aplogetic sources of antiquity.

The INTERNAL evidence in the very NT shows that the ENTIRE PAULINE Corpus was a LATE invention AFTER the stories of Jesus were ALREADY composed.

Apologetic sources PLACE Paul AFTER gLuke or AFTER the writing called Revelation.

See the Muratorian Canon.

See Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1.

Anyone familar with Koine Greek will see that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN to the author of the short gMark and that the Pauline Corpus contains POST-RESURRECTION events that were UNKNOWN by all authors of the Canonised Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

maximara said:

Personally I don't see the logic in thinking "Paul" came after Mark. The idea that Paul could have had access to Mark with so much reference material to push his own version of Christianity and NOT use it doesn't make that much sense.

Click to expand...

How can you see the logic that "Paul came after Mark" when you are relying on Carrier's argument?

Please, tell us what is the actual credible CORROBORATIVE evidence from antiquity for an historical character called Paul?

It is most fascinating that the very persons who ask for evidence for an historical Jesus are TERRIFIED to ask for the evidence for an historical Paul.

There is NO corroborative evidence, no historical data from antiquity for Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

The character called Paul was an INVENTION EXACTLY like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul were FABRICATED to falsely give PRIMACY to the Christian Canon.

maximara said:

Personally I don't see the logic in thinking "Paul" came after Mark. The idea that Paul could have had access to Mark with so much reference material to push his own version of Christianity and NOT use it doesn't make that much sense.

Click to expand...

I don't know whether those letters are earlier or later than any gospels. But I am just arguing with the claims made here by HJ people who do say Paul's letters were written around 50-60AD ...

... so when I say "Paul could have got the name of Jesus from what he believed was written in the OT", I am of course just reminding the HJ posters of that. It's not me claiming Paul's letters were written c.50-60AD, it's the HJ opponents here who are all saying that ... dejudge knows that very well, but it does not stop him replying as if it was me that was claiming Paul's letters were written c.50-60AD ... why he feels it's good idea to completely misrepresent things like that is anyone's guess.

dejudge said:

It is most fascinating that the very persons who ask for evidence for an historical Jesus are TERRIFIED to ask for the evidence for an historical Paul.

There is NO corroborative evidence, no historical data from antiquity for Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

The character called Paul was an INVENTION EXACTLY like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul were FABRICATED to falsely give PRIMACY to the Christian Canon.

Click to expand...

Exactly so, dejudge. For once I agree. There is no better reason for believing in Paul than for believing in Jesus, except that the information given about Paul is more plausible than much of that given for Jesus. But apart from you, most of these people do believe in Paul. Yet in the interest of equity they shouldn't!

Where does Paul come from? The Bible. Where else? Nowhere! Are we allowed to pick and choose things to believe out of the Bible, on the mere grounds that they seem plausible? Absolutely not!

You got them there, dejudge!