Historical Jesus

[HansMustermann]

Well, you have to also understand that Xianity doesn't actually appear in a vacuum. There are several ideas bubbling around, including such stuff as:

- whether the messiah had already come. (Because otherwise God's promise to keep David's line on the throne until the end time, was a bit of a lie. Since, you know, Herod didn't qualify.)

- whether that messiah would be the second coming of Joshua, which is the same name as Jesus in Aramaic

- whether the Tanakh was really supposed to be taken non-literally. (Which pretty much sums up the Pharisees right there.)

- taking that one step further: pesher interpretation of the Tanakh, or basically ancient bible code CT. Remember those delusions of reference I accuse the character "Paul" of? Yeah, he didn't invent that. There were already nutcases thinking that if you read the right words and phrases out of context, you get the REAL Tanakh narrative. (See, for example, the Dead See scrolls.)

- whether the Temple is has become corrupt and just a Roman puppet, and needs to be replaced with something else. (See, the Qumran sect.)

- various other ideas, such as John's Logos (see, Philo)

It seems pretty clear that at some point some would come to the conclusion that "no, the messiah obviously didn't come already" and some to the polar opposite that basically, "yes, he did." It's a binary question. There are only two possible answers: yes or no.

And predictably there was only one kind of messiah they could possibly invent. I mean, you couldn't claim that the messiah was actually a great military leader, that actually conquered the world, and actually put Jews at the top and made everyone pay tribute to Israel. People would go outside and notice, "Hmmm... for some reason, the Romans are still acting like they're in charge of the place..."

Which ultimately basically means: well, colour me unimpressed that there were different flavours of that messianic apocalyptic cult around. Once you reach that conclusion, and different people apply that pesher logic differently, it's what you'd EXPECT to get, innit? So yeah, colour me unimpressed that there would be sects of Simon The Sorcerer around. (It was a good adventure game.)

 

[dejudge]

The NT authors fabricated their Jesus, their disciples and their Paul.

There are three contradicting fiction stories of Saul's conversion in Acts of the Apostles however it must be noted that the voice of the fabricated ascended Jesus said nothing about Paul as a persecutor.

The original story was about Saul as a converted persecutor not Paul.

Examine Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26.


Acts 9:4

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Acts 22:7

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Acts 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

The name Saul was changed later to Paul in Acts.

ONLY the name Saul is used from Acts 8 to Acts 15.

Saul was the original fabricated convert and persecutor.

The name Paul was a late addition not the original.

Paul was a fiction character based on the fabricated Saul in Acts.

The story of Saul in Acts preceded the fabrication of the Epistles under the name of Paul.

Acts of the Apostles was written before the Pauline Epistles.

The multiple authors of the Pauline Epistles used the stories about Saul in Acts to manufacture their Pauline character.

In Acts, the fabricated Saul persecuted non-existing Churches of Christ and the supposed Paul would claim it was he who was the persecutor.

Galatians 1:23

But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

The author of Acts did not hear of Paul as a persecutor.

The author heard of Saul.

The authors of the Pauline Epistles had to use the fiction stories of Saul because their Paul never had any history.

The authors of the Pauline Epistles stole the "identity" of Saul -a fiction character.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes Acts is almost certainly a fabrication and a forgery. But this is just one of the NT books.

 

[HansMustermann]

Considering that Acts is a historical novel, I'm not sure what's so surprising that it conflicts with other accounts. It's like saying that Abraham Lincoln Vs Zombies is conflicting with other accounts about Lincoln. Uh, so? How's that unexpected in the slightest?

And I mean, it's not like it's the single Acts we have. There are IIRC something like half a dozen Acts written by different people, and telling wildly different stories. As such, they even conflict with each other in a major way.

Whop de do, big surprise there

 

[acbytesla]

Considering that Acts is a historical novel, I'm not sure what's so surprising that it conflicts with other accounts. It's like saying that Abraham Lincoln Vs Zombies is conflicting with other accounts about Lincoln. Uh, so? How's that unexpected in the slightest?

And I mean, it's not like it's the single Acts we have. There are IIRC something like half a dozen Acts written by different people, and telling wildly different stories. As such, they even conflict with each other in a major way.

Whop de do, big surprise there

This is a big problem with Dejudge's analysis. There are too many forged books as well as agreed on interpolations. Even Christian biblical scholars acknowledge this. But Dejudge is arguing pretty much all of The Epistles of Paul are late second century forgeries. Few atheist historians even argue this. It's ridiculous to say just because some of them are that therefore you know they all are.

 

[dejudge]

This is a big problem with Dejudge's analysis. There are too many forged books as well as agreed on interpolations. Even Christian biblical scholars acknowledge this. But Dejudge is arguing pretty much all of The Epistles of Paul are late second century forgeries. Few atheist historians even argue this. It's ridiculous to say just because some of them are that therefore you know they all are.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are merely repeating what plenty people believe and have not examined the writings of antiquity for yourself.

You have already admitted you don't know whether or not Paul existed and don't know when and who wrote the Pauline Epistles.

I am dealing specifically with the evidence from the writings of antiquity not what plenty people believe.

The evidence from writings of antiquity show that NT Jesus did not exist.

Since Jesus did not exist he had no disciples/apostles named Peter, James and John.

The evidence of writings of antiquity show that Saul/Paul was a fabricated convert who persecuted fiction characters.

The so-called Paul claimed he heard from the fiction character called Jesus and he met apostles Peter and James when no such persons ever lived and wrote to Churches which never ever existed.

Paul in the Epistles had no history and that is why the writers had to use the fiction character called Saul in Acts.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all fiction and all the NT authors are unknown fabricators of their bogus history of the Jesus cult manufactured sometime in the 2nd century.

 

[acbytesla]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are merely repeating what plenty people believe and have not examined the writings of antiquity for yourself.

You have already admitted you don't know whether or not Paul existed and don't know when and who wrote the Pauline Epistles.

I am dealing specifically with the evidence from the writings of antiquity not what plenty people believe.

The evidence from writings of antiquity show that NT Jesus did not exist.

Since Jesus did not exist he had no disciples/apostles named Peter, James and John.

The evidence of writings of antiquity show that Saul/Paul was a fabricated convert who persecuted fiction characters.

The so-called Paul claimed he heard from the fiction character called Jesus and he met apostles Peter and James when no such persons ever lived and wrote to Churches which never ever existed.

Paul in the Epistles had no history and that is why the writers had to use the fiction character called Saul in Acts.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all fiction and all the NT authors are unknown fabricators of their bogus history of the Jesus cult manufactured sometime in the 2nd century.

Agreed, I don't know what I'm talking about.

But I am damn sure of this. The best known ancient history and biblical scholars don't think very highly of the opinion that Paul was a fabrication.

 

[dejudge]

Agreed, I don't know what I'm talking about.

But I am damn sure of this. The best known ancient history and biblical scholars don't think very highly of the opinion that Paul was a fabrication.

The best Scholars say all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries!!

 

[acbytesla]

The best Scholars say all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries!!

OK then. What I see out of you is similar to what Christians say. Anyone who says what they like and approve of are good or are the best.

You leave no room for discussion.

 

[Craig B]

The best Scholars say all the Pauline Epistles are forgeries!!

I suppose if Paul never existed, writings attributed to him must be forgeries, but if the best scholars say this, who are these scholars and in which of their writings will I find their opinions to this effect?

 

[dejudge]

OK then. What I see out of you is similar to what Christians say. Anyone who says what they like and approve of are good or are the best.

You leave no room for discussion.

What a big joke!!!!

You just claimed "the best known ancient history and biblical scholars don't think very highly of the opinion that Paul was a fabrication".

You seem to like what your best Scholars say.

 

[acbytesla]

What a big joke!!!!

You just claimed "the best known ancient history and biblical scholars don't think very highly of the opinion that Paul was a fabrication".

You seem to like what your best Scholars say.

And yet I can list many many scholars even atheist scholars who believe the historicity of Paul is a fait acompli and only a couple who don't.

So call it a joke if you want.

 

[dejudge]

If Paul did not exist then writings under that name are not really forgeries- they are fraudulent historically worthless writings.

All the Pauline Epistles are indeed fraudulent historically worthless writings where multiple unknown writers pretended to have heard from a fiction character called Jesus and met with apostles who never ever existed.

 

[dejudge]

And yet I can list many many scholars even atheist scholars who believe the historicity of Paul is a fait acompli and only a couple who don't.

So call it a joke if you want.

It is indeed a big joke.

You seem to think that whatever plenty people believe must be true.


Please tell me how many Scholars in Europe, Asia and the Middle East believe the historicity Paul and how many don't?

 

[acbytesla]

It is indeed a big joke.

You seem to think that whatever plenty people believe must be true.


Please tell me how many Scholars in Europe, Asia and the Middle East believe the historicity Paul and how many don't?

You haven't even listed scholars who don't. I know of one, Hermann Detering.

 

[HansMustermann]

This is a big problem with Dejudge's analysis. There are too many forged books as well as agreed on interpolations. Even Christian biblical scholars acknowledge this. But Dejudge is arguing pretty much all of The Epistles of Paul are late second century forgeries. Few atheist historians even argue this. It's ridiculous to say just because some of them are that therefore you know they all are.

Well, personally I still say that the more important question on most people's mind is the one in the thread title: the historical Jesus.

Paul just isn't that important. Or rather the only way he really enters that argument is in the fact that the cults all around the eastern coast of the empire weren't started by Jesus himself, but by other people in his name. Some bloke in Corinth wouldn't convert because he personally met Jesus, but because someone else told him about some totally miraculous Jesus. I.e., the growth of the sect is not an argument for Jesus being the real thing.

And one way or another that still is the case. Whether the guy telling them the story called Paul or Peter or Simon The Sorcerer or a time-travelling Marty McFly, the core issue remains the same: they were hearing the story second hand. There is no more reason to assume that some bloke joining the mystery cult of the dead and risen Jesus would first go check all the archives and trial records and establish that there actually was a Jesus and it's exactly what he did preach, than for some bloke joining the cult of Isis or Dionysus. They just trusted that the priest is not BS-ing them.

In fact, even if that dude was actually called Paul, he says that most people weren't even initiated by him. He mentions that he himself only baptized a couple of people, and then they baptized more. (Quite the contradiction with the thousands a day converted personally by Paul in Acts.) So most people wouldn't even hear the second hand story, they'd hear it third or fourth hand, from someone who totally wasn't a witness even via a vision or anything.

Add the fact that Paul isn't even claiming to be a first hand witness of anything (other than in one blatantly forged paragraph), nor sharing virtually any information about what Jesus said or did or looked like, and he becomes even less important. Never mind his cultists, you can't even use HIM as a biographic source for Jesus.

All that remains is that SOMEONE, or rather several SOMEONES, were going around telling some uninformed people a religious story, and some of those decided to trust him or her, or not. But we kinda knew that already, even without Paul's letters, because that's how cults work. I mean even in more recent and literate times, with press and good records and everything, people didn't convert to, say, Mormonism because they independently verified that Alma The Elder did exist and did exactly what the book says, but because they trusted some bloke telling them that story.

So, anyway, I find Paul a rather uninteresting derail, personally. It doesn't really bring anything new.

 

[dejudge]

You haven't even listed scholars who don't. I know of one, Hermann Detering.

You know the name of one of the best Scholars.

 

[HansMustermann]

If Paul did not exist then writings under that name are not really forgeries- they are fraudulent historically worthless writings.

All the Pauline Epistles are indeed fraudulent historically worthless writings where multiple unknown writers pretended to have heard from a fiction character called Jesus and met with apostles who never ever existed.

But that's even less important when you realize that is called an apostle in the epistles (whether they're forged or not) literally meant just the literal meaning of the word: a messenger. Or I suppose a more accurate modern translation, given that it was a messenger of religion, would be "missionary".

There was no mention of apostle meaning one of the twelve (never mind that even the twelve only appear in one forged paragraph), and in fact there's stuff contradicting that idea. E.g., in Romans 16 he praises the apostles Andronicus and Junia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not only those two aren't mentioned anywhere in the gospels or Acts as actual disciples that followed Jesus around, but they didn't even have the names that an Aramaic-speaking Jewish peasant from Palestine would have.

So yeah, all that the epistles tell you is that that there were some MISSIONARIES preaching Jesus to other people.

And at that point, do the epistles even make any difference there? You'd probably assume that some missionary work was involved anyway, because really that's how cults work. If you're going to have anyone converting, SOMEONE has to go tell the story to people.

I mean, what's the alternative? It's either you believe that there were some missionaries, or you have to believe that somehow a bunch of people all over the place spontaneously all had some revelation and converted on their own. The latter is so unlikely that even the church doesn't claim it.

 

[dejudge]

Well, personally I still say that the more important question on most people's mind is the one in the thread title: the historical Jesus.

Paul just isn't that important. Or rather the only way he really enters that argument is in the fact that the cults all around the eastern coast of the empire weren't started by Jesus himself, but by other people in his name. Some bloke in Corinth wouldn't convert because he personally met Jesus, but because someone else told him about some totally miraculous Jesus. I.e., the growth of the sect is not an argument for Jesus being the real thing.

And one way or another that still is the case. Whether the guy telling them the story called Paul or Peter or Simon The Sorcerer or a time-travelling Marty McFly, the core issue remains the same: they were hearing the story second hand. There is no more reason to assume that some bloke joining the mystery cult of the dead and risen Jesus would first go check all the archives and trial records and establish that there actually was a Jesus and it's exactly what he did preach, than for some bloke joining the cult of Isis or Dionysus. They just trusted that the priest is not BS-ing them.

In fact, even if that dude was actually called Paul, he says that most people weren't even initiated by him. He mentions that he himself only baptized a couple of people, and then they baptized more. (Quite the contradiction with the thousands a day converted personally by Paul in Acts.) So most people wouldn't even hear the second hand story, they'd hear it third or fourth hand, from someone who totally wasn't a witness even via a vision or anything.

Add the fact that Paul isn't even claiming to be a first hand witness of anything (other than in one blatantly forged paragraph), nor sharing virtually any information about what Jesus said or did or looked like, and he becomes even less important. Never mind his cultists, you can't even use HIM as a biographic source for Jesus.

All that remains is that SOMEONE, or rather several SOMEONES, were going around telling some uninformed people a religious story, and some of those decided to trust him or her, or not. But we kinda knew that already, even without Paul's letters, because that's how cults work. I mean even in more recent and literate times, with press and good records and everything, people didn't convert to, say, Mormonism because they independently verified that Alma The Elder did exist and did exactly what the book says, but because they trusted some bloke telling them that story.

So, anyway, I find Paul a rather uninteresting derail, personally. It doesn't really bring anything new.

So, in other words, Paul did not have to actually exist for unknown fraudsters to claim he wrote letters. Not even the Church had to be real.

You don't seem to understand that up to now [20th April 2000] that the Roman Church does not know that at least some of the supposed Pauline letters must have been written by fraudsters.

Unknown fraudsters also wrote Epistles under the names of fiction characters Peter, James, Jude and John and to this day the Church have been completely fooled.

The Church believes Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John were really real.

They have no clue.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, well, what the CHURCH believes is... not exactly evidence-based in any case. I mean, it's the same guys who claim that bread and wine actually transform into the flesh and blood of Jesus, if you say a few magic words over it

Anyway, my interest in a Historical Jesus is more about what can be supported than about what any particular church believes. Belief is the domain of theology. History is a completely different domain. And at the end of the day, with or without Paul, the answer to what can be supported about a HJ is pretty much summed up in two words: "bugger all"