Historical Jesus

[acbytesla]

When I read dejudge's posts, I keep seeing this vision of him at a book-club discussion group debating Conan Doyle's work and the exploits of Sherlock Holmes, arguing, brow-beating everyone and thumping the table as he explains that there are no contemporary historical references to Holmes or Watson, therefore Historical Sherlock must be a complete fiction, not realising all along there everyone in the discussion group already knows this..

My issue with Dejudge's perspective is because it is based on the absence of extra Christian apologists writings in the first or early second century. His theory may be right, but the absence of such writings doesn't make Paul being fictional definitive.

 

[smartcooky]

My issue with Dejudge's perspective is because it is based on the absence of extra Christian apologists writings in the first or early second century. His theory may be right, but the absence of such writings doesn't make Paul being fictional definitive.

Indeed, that is my view.

My view as regards the existence of Saul/Paul, both Marys, Jesus, and his disciples is that they are probably not real historical figures, and are not based on any contemporaneous historical individuals. I hold this view because there is a lack of supporting evidence for their existence.

However, the lack of evidence for the real world existence of a person or object is just that, a lack of evidence. It is NOT proof that the person or object did not exist.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm not aware of examples of it.

Try Matthew 15:21-28

Just because he acknowledged her faith at the end, does not mean he no longer likened her to a dog.

 

[dejudge]

My issue with Dejudge's perspective is because it is based on the absence of extra Christian apologists writings in the first or early second century. His theory may be right, but the absence of such writings doesn't make Paul being fictional definitive.

Absence of evidence does not make Paul an historical figure.

All characters deemed to be non-historical have no historical evidence.

Absence of evidence has always been used to argue for non-existence.

Absence of historical evidence allows me to argue that Paul was a figure of fiction.

Unless historical evidence is found for Paul then my argument that Paul did not exist cannot ever be contradicted or overturned from now until eternity and beyond.

 

[acbytesla]

Absence of evidence does not make Paul an historical figure.

All characters deemed to be non-historical have no historical evidence.

Absence of evidence has always been used to argue for non-existence.

Absence of historical evidence allows me to argue that Paul was a figure of fiction.

Unless historical evidence is found for Paul then my argument that Paul did not exist cannot ever be contradicted or overturned from now until eternity and beyond.

No one said you couldn't argue your point. And I think your argument has merit. But IMV, it is by no means conclusive.

I'm not sure if the Jesus cult at that time was significant enough for anyone to even notice them or any of the NT characters. That no one noticed and therefore were never mentioned outside of their cult doesn't mean they didn't exist.

 

[dejudge]

No one said you couldn't argue your point. And I think your argument has merit. But IMV, it is by no means conclusive.

I'm not sure if the Jesus cult at that time was significant enough for anyone to even notice them or any of the NT characters. That no one noticed and therefore were never mentioned outside of their cult doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Once you admit you are not sure about what you say then you cannot overturn my conclusion that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not exist.

I am sure Jesus is described in the NT as a fiction character from conception to ascension and that Paul is a fabricated convert in Acts of the Apostles.

 

[smartcooky]

Absence of evidence does not make Paul an historical figure.

But it also does not prove that Paul did not exist. The very best we can do is to say that we do not know one way or the other.

All characters deemed to be non-historical have no historical evidence.

And who deems them non-historical? You?

Absence of evidence has always been used to argue for non-existence.

That statement may be true, but it does not make what it implies correct. Anyone who argues that absence of evidence is proof of anything is wrong.

Absence of historical evidence allows me to argue that Paul was a figure of fiction.

Again, that statement may be true. You can argue that Paul was a fictional figure as much as you like, but the absence of evidence is just one supporting factor for your claim. It does not prove your claim is correct.

Unless historical evidence is found for Paul then my argument that Paul did not exist cannot ever be contradicted or overturned from now until eternity and beyond.

That is again true. You might be 100% correct in your claim, but it is also true that no amount of brow beating and table thumping makes any of what you say fact. Again, the very best we can do is say that we don't know whether Paul existed or not. I concede that he is more likely than not to completely fictional, but I will not rule out the possibility that he existed. If you claim to be 100% certain that Paul was entirely fictional, then you are fooling yourself and lying to everyone else.

You seem to be arguing from the perspective that this is only a binary argument - its not. While it is correct that there are only two possibilities of fact as to the reality of Paul, either he was real or he wasn't, the moment you step over into debating what we know about the existence of Paul, then by default you add a third position, that we do not know if he was real or not.

 

[acbytesla]

Once you admit you are not sure about what you say then you cannot overturn my conclusion that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not exist.

I'm not trying to. I do feel your certainty is misplaced however.

I am sure Jesus is described in the NT as a fiction character from conception to ascension and that Paul is a fabricated convert in Acts of the Apostles.

I'm sure there was no divine Jesus. There may or may not of been a person or a conglomeration of persons that the character Jesus is based on.

What I do know is someone wrote all this nonsense down. Whether it was late second century figures or a mid to late first century person who wrote himself into the story is the question. My answer is I don't see enough evidence to make that determination.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

But it also does not prove that Paul did not exist. The very best we can do is to say that we do not know one way or the other.

The problem with absence of evidence is that we also have an absence of evidence of someone making up the story of Jesus or Paul. We don't have a valid historical document saying, "And then Bill sat down and made up this story about a guy named Jesus. And he made up some letters about a guy named Paul to support that story."

Where are documents from the 2nd century saying this is a new cult that just started up? Why isn't there somebody saying, "I'm a religious leader from Antioch as was my father and grandfather and great-grandfather and his father before him and we keep tabs on a religious activity here and have talked with the elders here and absolutely nobody has heard of this Paul guy before a couple years ago."

Somebody started and spread a cult preaching the Jewish faith to Gentiles based on Jesus as the Messiah. Who was it, when and why? How come we don't have documents about this person? Did nobody call them out on their lies?

Why do writers in the 2nd century say they learned about Jesus from existing cult members and apostles? Was this some brilliant astroturf gaslighting?

 

[dejudge]

But it also does not prove that Paul did not exist. The very best we can do is to say that we do not know one way or the other.

Absence of evidence does not prove Paul existed. It is absurd to suggest that because you don't know if Paul existed that I must accept your lack of knowledge.


[

And who deems them non-historical? You?

Who deems that Adam and Eve were non-historical? Who deems that Cain and Abel were non-historical ?Who deems that Noah was non-historical? Who deems that characters in the Christian Bible were non-historical? Only You??

That statement may be true, but it does not make what it implies correct. Anyone who argues that absence of evidence is proof of anything is wrong.

Your statement is quite absurd. It is completely impossible to argue that Jesus and Paul were non-historical if there was historical evidence.

Again, that statement may be true. You can argue that Paul was a fictional figure as much as you like, but the absence of evidence is just one supporting factor for your claim. It does not prove your claim is correct.

At least you have admitted that absence of evidence supports my argument.

Absence of evidence is always the fundamental factor in the argument for non-existence.


[

That is again true. You might be 100% correct in your claim, but it is also true that no amount of brow beating and table thumping makes any of what you say fact. Again, the very best we can do is say that we don't know whether Paul existed or not. I concede that he is more likely than not to completely fictional, but I will not rule out the possibility that he existed. If you claim to be 100% certain that Paul was entirely fictional, then you are fooling yourself and lying to everyone else.

I conclude that Paul was a fabricated converted based on writings of antiquity and lack of historical corroboration and can only change my argument if historical evidence is found.

You seem to be arguing from the perspective that this is only a binary argument - its not. While it is correct that there are only two possibilities of fact as to the reality of Paul, either he was real or he wasn't, the moment you step over into debating what we know about the existence of Paul, then by default you add a third position, that we do not know if he was real or not.

You are contradicting yourself.

You seem to have no idea what an argument is.

One can argue for an HJ and Paul.

One can argue against an HJ and Paul.

I am arguing against the historicity of Jesus and Paul based on claims in writings of antiquity and their lack of historical corroboration.

My argument is based on several factors.

This is a partial list.

1. The NT stories about Jesus and Paul are fiction.
2. The author called Paul claimed he witnessed events that could not have happened.
3. Not a single NT writer mentioned or copied his Epistles - not even the author of Acts who was Paul's supposed close companion.
4. Multiple 2nd century Christian writers and even a non-apologetic knew nothing of Paul as an evangelist and nothing of the Epistles and Churches.
5. The Pauline letters are really a compilation of multiple unknown writers.
6. There is no historical corroboration for Paul and Epistles by non-apologetic writers.
7. Non-apologetic writings were forged to make it appear that Paul was in communication with Seneca who lived in the time of Nero.
8. 2 Peter, the only NT writing outside Acts of the Apostles [regarded as fiction] which mention Paul only once is a forgery.
9. The author of Acts appears to have used the writings of Josephus to help to fabricate Paul.
10. An apologetic source state the Pauline Epistles were written after the Revelation of John.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem with absence of evidence is that we also have an absence of evidence of someone making up the story of Jesus or Paul. We don't have a valid historical document saying, "And then Bill sat down and made up this story about a guy named Jesus. And he made up some letters about a guy named Paul to support that story."

Where are documents from the 2nd century saying this is a new cult that just started up? Why isn't there somebody saying, "I'm a religious leader from Antioch as was my father and grandfather and great-grandfather and his father before him and we keep tabs on a religious activity here and have talked with the elders here and absolutely nobody has heard of this Paul guy before a couple years ago."

Somebody started and spread a cult preaching the Jewish faith to Gentiles based on Jesus as the Messiah. Who was it, when and why? How come we don't have documents about this person? Did nobody call them out on their lies?

Why do writers in the 2nd century say they learned about Jesus from existing cult members and apostles? Was this some brilliant astroturf gaslighting?

Again, there are very few documents from this time period. And contrary to Christian stories there weren't really laws saying you had to believe in this God or that God. The Roman empire had lots and lots of gods. If there were twenty people praising the giant turd in the sky, who cares?

But maybe people did write about them and nothing is left. The earliest known fragment of the Gospels is dated to mid second century. And when I say fragment, I mean fragment. Barely a couple of words.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Again, there are very few documents from this time period. And contrary to Christian stories there weren't really laws saying you had to believe in this God or that God. The Roman empire had lots and lots of gods.

We have Pliny the Younger writing to Emperor Trajan in about 112 asking about the problem with Christians. Pliny has been executing Christians, but he wants to make sure he is doing the right thing. These letters indicate that Christians have been persecuted and executed on various local levels for sometime without any official Roman policy.

Trajan's response is to not proactively seek out Christians, but execute them if they turn up because they might be a problem. Nobody had to pray to a Roman god, but Christians on trial could be forced to pray to a Roman god in order to prove that they are not a Christian (because a Christian would not pray to a Roman god) as well as curse Christ.

So it isn't really unexpected that we don't have surviving documents of a fairly small cult that you could be executed for belonging to.

 

[dejudge]

Once you admit you are not sure about what you say then you cannot overturn my conclusion that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did not exist.

I'm not trying to. I do feel your certainty is misplaced however.

Telling me about your feelings is of no use.

I'm sure there was no divine Jesus. There may or may not of been a person or a conglomeration of persons that the character Jesus is based on.

How is it you are sure there was no divine Jesus? You have evidence to substantiate your certainty?

What I do know is someone wrote all this nonsense down. Whether it was late second century figures or a mid to late first century person who wrote himself into the story is the question. My answer is I don't see enough evidence to make that determination.

So, because you don't know the answer then I must accept your lack of knowledge of the evidence?

 

[acbytesla]

How is it you are sure there was no divine Jesus? You have evidence to substantiate your certainty?

Really?

So, because you don't know the answer then I must accept your lack of knowledge of the evidence?

I don't think you know either. You've already admitted that it is the lack of evidence that convinces you.

 

[dejudge]

We have Pliny the Younger writing to Emperor Trajan in about 112 asking about the problem with Christians. Pliny has been executing Christians, but he wants to make sure he is doing the right thing. These letters indicate that Christians have been persecuted and executed on various local levels for sometime without any official Roman policy.

It cannot be assumed the mention of people called Christians must refer to those who believe the Jesus stories.

There were many many so-called Christian cults since the 1st century that had nothing whatsoever to do with stories of Jesus.

It must be noted that the Pliny letter did not mention any person called Jesus.

According to apologetic writings the term "Christians" was also used by people who did not accept the stories of their Jesus.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho XXXV

.....Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names...

The followers of Simon Magus, Meander and Marcion were also called Christians in Justin's First Apology.

Pliny's letter about Christians cannot be shown to have any relation to the Jesus story.

 

[dejudge]

How is it you are sure there was no divine Jesus? You have evidence to substantiate your certainty?

Really?

Yes!!! By what means did you become certain that Jesus was not divine?

Was it your gut feelings? Did someone tell you so?

So, because you don't know the answer then I must accept your lack of knowledge of the evidence?

I don't think you know either. You've already admitted that it is the lack of evidence that convinces you.

What you think cannot overturn my argument at all. You appear to be confused. You put forward the bizarre notion that historical evidence for Jesus and Paul is evidence that they did not exist.

My argument is based on several factors.

This is a partial list.

1. The NT stories about Jesus and Paul are fiction.
2. The author called Paul claimed he witnessed events that could not have happened.
3. Not a single NT writer mentioned or copied his Epistles - not even the author of Acts who was Paul's supposed close companion.
4. Multiple 2nd century Christian writers and even a non-apologetic knew nothing of Paul as an evangelist and nothing of the Epistles and Churches.
5. The Pauline letters are really a compilation of multiple unknown writers.
6. There is no historical corroboration for Paul and Epistles by non-apologetic writers.
7. Non-apologetic writings were forged to make it appear that Paul was in communication with Seneca who lived in the time of Nero.
8. 2 Peter, the only NT writing outside Acts of the Apostles [regarded as fiction] which mention Paul only once is a forgery.
9. The author of Acts appears to have used the writings of Josephus to help to fabricate Paul.
10. An apologetic source state the Pauline Epistles were written after the Revelation of John.

 

[smartcooky]

Absence of evidence does not prove Paul existed. It is absurd to suggest that because you don't know if Paul existed that I must accept your lack of knowledge.

I have snipped the rest of your post because it is irrelevant - you have failed to understand what I wrote in the first two sentences.

It is clear that you have almost no understanding of the concept of the nature of evidence, specifically what it means for there to be an absence of evidence.

If Fred Smith has been accused of committing a crime, an absence of evidence cannot lead you to a definite conclusion that Fred did not actually commit the crime. The best you can do is say that there is insufficient evidence to convict him.. in other words, you don't know!

You have repeatedly stated the Paul et al are fictional characters - and you have stated this as if they were facts. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW THAT! You do not have direct evidence that these characters were created, as fiction by other people. You might hold a strong opinion on this; you can use the absence of evidence as strong support for your claim, but you cannot know for certain that you are 100% correct

The absence of evidence never ever proves anything, other than we don't know. It never has, and it never will.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes!!! By what means did you become certain that Jesus was not divine?

Was it your gut feelings? Did someone tell you so?

Maybe because I don't believe in anything supernatural. Never seen any evidence for it. Not for walking on water, not for turning water into wine, not for resurrection.

What you think cannot overturn my argument at all. You appear to be confused. You put forward the bizarre notion that historical evidence for Jesus and Paul is evidence that they did not exist.

My argument is based on several factors.

This is a partial list.

1. The NT stories about Jesus and Paul are fiction.
2. The author called Paul claimed he witnessed events that could not have happened.
3. Not a single NT writer mentioned or copied his Epistles - not even the author of Acts who was Paul's supposed close companion.
4. Multiple 2nd century Christian writers and even a non-apologetic knew nothing of Paul as an evangelist and nothing of the Epistles and Churches.
5. The Pauline letters are really a compilation of multiple unknown writers.
6. There is no historical corroboration for Paul and Epistles by non-apologetic writers.
7. Non-apologetic writings were forged to make it appear that Paul was in communication with Seneca who lived in the time of Nero.
8. 2 Peter, the only NT writing outside Acts of the Apostles [regarded as fiction] which mention Paul only once is a forgery.
9. The author of Acts appears to have used the writings of Josephus to help to fabricate Paul.
10. An apologetic source state the Pauline Epistles were written after the Revelation of John.

Do you think repeating the same things again makes it persuasive the second or third time around?

 

[dejudge]

The problem with absence of evidence is that we also have an absence of evidence of someone making up the story of Jesus or Paul. We don't have a valid historical document saying, "And then Bill sat down and made up this story about a guy named Jesus. And he made up some letters about a guy named Paul to support that story."

How could some-one say "Bill sat down and made up this story about a guy named Jesus" when no-one knew who wrote the Gospels?

How could some-one in the 1st century say Paul wrote Epistles when they were written in the 2nd century??

Are you not aware that the NT Gospels were originally anonymous and then falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Are you not aware that the Epistles were really composed by multiple unknown writers?

If the authors of the NT had revealed their names then their fraud would have been exposed.

 

[dejudge]

Yes!!! By what means did you become certain that Jesus was not divine?

Was it your gut feelings? Did someone tell you so?

Maybe because I don't believe in anything supernatural. Never seen any evidence for it. Not for walking on water, not for turning water into wine, not for resurrection.

So, absence of evidence is the fundamental factor for your belief that Jesus was not divine.

How amazing!!!!

Well, Well, Well!!!!

I have never seen any historical evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.