Historical Jesus

[acbytesla]

It was known since at least the 4th century that there was no mention of the Jesus and Paul in 1st century non-apologetic writings and that is precisely why Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", Tacitus "Annals" and Suetonius and" Lives of the Twelve Caesars" were corrupted.

In "Against the Galileans"composed by Julian the Emperor c 362 CE it is implied that no well-known writer mentioned Jesus and Paul when writings about events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

Julian's Against the Galileans"

There was no rebuttal to the challenge by Julian.

It appears that the earliest non-apologetic source which mentions Christians who worshiped a crucified man is Lucian of Samosota Peregrinus written around c 165 CE.

Lucian's Peregrinus

It must be noted that Lucian writing at around c 165 CE described the Christians as a new cult which would contradict the NT where the Jesus cult should have been known for at least 130 years earlier or since the time of Tiberius.

The mere fact that at around c 165 CE the Jesus cult in Palestine was regarded as a new development this means it was initiated sometime in the 2nd century and not since 26-36 CE.

The abundance of evidence support the argument that the Jesus story and cult were really started in the 2nd century and that all NT Epistles to the cult must have been composed sometime later.

No offense but "new" is subjective. "New" in relation to what? It's like those signs that tell me to "slow" . What the hell does that mean?

 

[dejudge]

I think its reasonable to accept that that an itinerant preacher named Jesus lived and that he left behind a group of disciples who came to be called Christians. But not reasonable that he did miracles and got himself resurrected.

Your position is not really reasonable because you cannot provide any historical evidence to support it.

You are not even familiar with the teachings of Christians.

You seem not to know that Christian cults do not worship human beings as Gods.

Christians regarded those as evil who worship human beings as Gods.

It makes no sense whatsoever for Christian cults to openly worship a known man as a God while at the same preaching that people should not worship human beings as Gods.

Examine Romans 1

Romans 1

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Examine To Autolycus 1.

Theophilus' To Autolycus

But God, the living and true God, I worship, knowing that the king is made by Him. You will say, then, to me, "Why do you not worship the king?" Because he is not made to be worshipped, but to be reverenced with lawful honour, for he is not a god, but a man appointed by God, not to be worshipped, but to judge justly.

The teachings of Christian cults was that their Jesus was God's own son, the Creator.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Colossians 1:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him...

There is no historical evidence anywhere that NT Jesus was an actual human being.

NT Jesus was fiction from conception to ascension.

 

[dejudge]

No offense but "new" is subjective. "New" in relation to what? It's like those signs that tell me to "slow" . What the hell does that mean?

The fact is that there is no mention of a Christian cult in Palestine which worshiped a crucified man by non-apologetics until c 165 CE.

Lucian's Peregrinus does not in anyway contradict my argument that the Jesus cult of Christians was a new religion which started sometime in the 2nd century.

 

[dejudge]

Surely religions start with the embellishment of the life of a charismatic figure or minor historic event, which in turn is further embellished via second and third-hand transmission until it receives the status of historical truth.

Religions do not require historical truths at all.

Please read "Against Heresies" attributed to Ireaneus.

Please read "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

Religions primarily require Belief.

Once a person believes anything then historical truth becomes irrelevant.

 

[acbytesla]

The fact is that there is no mention of a Christian cult in Palestine which worshiped a crucified man by non-apologetics until c 165 CE.

Lucian's Peregrinus does not in anyway contradict my argument that the Jesus cult of Christians was a new religion which started sometime in the 2nd century.

I didn't say it did. But you seem to use his term "new cult" to confirm your position. It seems to me, that the evidence points to it being written starting somewhere between 70CE and 170CE.

When the story started circulating and actual churches based on the story commenced is just wild speculation for everyone.

And I'm assuming that all your cites are correct.

 

[dejudge]

I didn't say it did. But you seem to use his term "new cult" to confirm your position. It seems to me, that the evidence points to it being written starting somewhere between 70CE and 170CE.

If it seems to you that it started between 70 CE and 170 CE then you should present the evidence.

It is rather pointless telling me what you imagine

When the story started circulating and actual churches based on the story commenced is just wild speculation for everyone.

And I'm assuming that all your cites are correct.

Your statement is rather baseless. You put forward the notion that because you make wild speculations that other must do the same.

 

[Delvo]

you should present the evidence.

After all the opportunities you've had to present yours, including being directly asked for it, and still continuing to not actually do so, your repetitions of evidence-evidence-evidence are just bluster.

 

[acbytesla]

If it seems to you that it started between 70 CE and 170 CE then you should present the evidence.

It is rather pointless telling me what you imagine

Your statement is rather baseless. You put forward the notion that because you make wild speculations that other must do the same.

Funny, considering I'm using your citations. But I should have said 165 CE?

The fact is that there is no mention of a Christian cult in Palestine which worshiped a crucified man by non-apologetics until c 165 CE When precisely before 165 CE is just speculation, I grant you that.

You like to argue more than I do. Which is saying something.

Let me make this clear. I'm not a biblical scholar and am not pretending to be. I am an atheist. Hell, I'd even consider myself to be an anti-theist. I have been skeptical of the mythicist position. It is a radical departure from what I thought I knew so I'm cautious. What I know at the moment is that I don't know.

 

[smartcooky]

No offense but "new" is subjective. "New" in relation to what? It's like those signs that tell me to "slow" . What the hell does that mean?

Who knows? Did anyone check?

Anyway, Goddidit... so there's your answer... the miraculous birth indeed?

 

[smartcooky]

Religions do not require historical truths at all.

That is not what he said. It seems you didn't read the post you replied to.

 

[dejudge]

Funny, considering I'm using your citations. But I should have said 165 CE?

That's really funny! If your were using my citations you should not have said 70 -170 CE.

The fact is that there is no mention of a Christian cult in Palestine which worshiped a crucified man by non-apologetics until c 165 CE

When precisely before 165 CE is just speculation, I grant you that.

I have not given a precise date for the start of the Jesus story and cult.

See below for examples of wild baseless speculation:

First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
Galatians (c. 53)
First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
Philippians (c. 55)
Philemon (c. 55)
Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
Romans (c. 57)

There is no credible corroborative evidence whatsoever for people to give such precise dates for the so-called Pauline letters.

You like to argue more than I do. Which is saying something.

What you say is subjective.

Let me make this clear. I'm not a biblical scholar and am not pretending to be. I am an atheist. Hell, I'd even consider myself to be an anti-theist. I have been skeptical of the mythicist position. It is a radical departure from what I thought I knew so I'm cautious. What I know at the moment is that I don't know.

Well, once you admit you don't know then you are merely speculating. You may have to do more research.

My argument is that based on the existing evidence, NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all figures of fiction and that all the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed no earlier than the last quarter of the 2nd century or later.

 

[acbytesla]

That's really funny! If your were using my citations you should not have said 70 -170 CE.

I have not given a precise date for the start of the Jesus story and cult.

See below for examples of wild baseless speculation:

First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
Galatians (c. 53)
First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
Philippians (c. 55)
Philemon (c. 55)
Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
Romans (c. 57)

There is no credible corroborative evidence whatsoever for people to give such precise dates for the so-called Pauline letters.

What you say is subjective.


Well, once you admit you don't know then you are merely speculating. You may have to do more research.

My argument is that based on the existing evidence, NT Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all figures of fiction and that all the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed no earlier than the last quarter of the 2nd century or later.

So 170CE would be about right?

The ONLY reason I added 70CE is that is when the temple was demolished and this is mentioned in the Gospels in a roundabout fashion. I agree that we don't actually know when this was written. It's not like it has a copyright date.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[acbytesla]

Dejudge,

I just found this link. I know that Wikipedia can be good and bad. Tell me what you think about what it says about the New Testament.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Thanks.

 

[dejudge]

So 170CE would be about right?

The ONLY reason I added 70CE is that is when the temple was demolished and this is mentioned in the Gospels in a roundabout fashion. I agree that we don't actually know when this was written. It's not like it has a copyright date.

Based on my research, I argue that stories of Jesus called Gospels were composed sometime after the writing of Tacitus' "Annals" and before the composition of Aristides' "Apology" or somewhere between 117-138 CE during the reign of Hadrian.

The so-called Pauline letters are no earlier than 175-177 CE or after Celsus' "True Discourse".

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge,

I just found this link. I know that Wikipedia can be good and bad. Tell me what you think about what it says about the New Testament.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Thanks.

In order to get an idea when the NT writings were composed you will have do far more research than just relying on Wikipedia.

There are hundreds of writings and manuscripts from antiquity that can be read or examined.

 

[acbytesla]

In order to get an idea when the NT writings were composed you will have do far more research than just relying on Wikipedia.

There are hundreds of writings and manuscripts from antiquity that can be read or examined.

I was afraid, you would say something like that. I am not sure I want to do that much work. This is interesting to a degree. I've been studying chemistry and nuclear reactor physics which is damn hard. (At least for me)

There are links on that page that I am casually looking at. I want to know the answers but I really don't want to geek out on the dullest example of fan fiction ever written.

 

[dejudge]

I was afraid, you would say something like that. I am not sure I want to do that much work. This is interesting to a degree. I've been studying chemistry and nuclear reactor physics which is damn hard. (At least for me)

There are links on that page that I am casually looking at. I want to know the answers but I really don't want to geek out on the dullest example of fan fiction ever written.

Unless you study the writings of antiquity for yourself you will not be able to know the answers.

It was only after that I read and examined writings of antiquity that I realized the NT Gospels, Acts and the Epistles were not composed in the 1st century and that NT Jesus, his disciples and Paul were figures of fiction.

 

[acbytesla]

Unless you study the writings of antiquity for yourself you will not be able to know the answers.

It was only after that I read and examined writings of antiquity that I realized the NT Gospels, Acts and the Epistles were not composed in the 1st century and that NT Jesus, his disciples and Paul were figures of fiction.

Fair enough.

I never believed the story. No being powerful enough to create the vast universe would be so stupid to come up with such a convoluted plan to forgive man. Only a stupid ignorant human being could make up such nonsense.

I assumed that Paul was true since he seemed to be the pied piper of Christianity. Sort of like Joseph Smith. I just thought that Paul made it up and as it gained popularity others jumped on the bandwagon. Whether Paul created it in the first century or someone else a hundred years later is really irrelevant since it still is likely to be fictional.

 

[dejudge]

Fair enough.

I never believed the story. No being powerful enough to create the vast universe would be so stupid to come up with such a convoluted plan to forgive man. Only a stupid ignorant human being could make up such nonsense.

Millions of people, perhaps even billions, believe their Jesus, [ God's son and Creator] did create the vast universe and they accept the plan for salvation as written in the NT.

I assumed that Paul was true since he seemed to be the pied piper of Christianity. Sort of like Joseph Smith. I just thought that Paul made it up and as it gained popularity others jumped on the bandwagon. Whether Paul created it in the first century or someone else a hundred years later is really irrelevant since it still is likely to be fictional.

I don't know why you assumed Paul was true and the pied piper of Christianity.

If you read the fables called the NT you will notice that the character called Saul/Paul was supposedly converted after he persecuted believers in the resurrected Jesus.

In the NT, Jesus, the disciples and thousands of believers predate Saul/Paul.

Christian writers also claimed that NT Jesus, disciples and believers were before Paul.

There is no story anywhere in antiquity[fiction or not] where Saul/Paul was said to be the first to tell people about Jesus.

The disciples [not Paul] were commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospels to the world.

Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

But, there is a problem - the entire NT Jesus stories in the so-called Gospels are total fiction.

NT Jesus, the disciples and believers did not exist at all.

Now, you can easily see that NT Paul was a fabricated character.

NT Paul claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus,he met his brother James, stayed with Peter for 15 days and that the same Jesus revealed certain details to him.

Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ....................18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The Pauline writers have been trapped in their lies.

The resurrected Jesus did not exist.
Peter did not exist.
Jesus had no brother named James.



NT Paul was fabricated by some anonymous writers to appear as a witness to the resurrected Jesus, the disciples and believers because there was no-one and no historical record to corroborate the NT Jesus stories.

NT Paul and the Epistles were fabricated after Jesus stories and cult were already known.