Historical Jesus

[acbytesla]

It is news to you because you are not familiar with Christian writings of antiquity.

Christian writers did state that it was the disciples who preached the Gospel to the whole world.

Examine Aristides' Apology written during the reign of Trajan 117-138 CE.

Aristides' "Apology"

Examine Justin's First Apology.

First Apology XXXIX
.

First Apology XLIX

It is clear that there were Christians writers in the 2nd century who knew nothing at all of Paul, nothing at all of Paul as an evangelist, and nothing at all of his Epistles.

And to confirm that Paul was unknown up to the late 2nd century the writing called "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen is of great significance.

According to Origen, Celsus in a writing called "True Discourse" wrote against the Christians and their teachings.

Celsus wrote nothing at all about Paul, the teachings of Paul or his supposed Epistles to Churches but he wrote about the Jesus stories found in the Gospels.

Examine Origen's "Against Celsus"

Against Celsus

Now, if the Pauline post-resurrection story that over 500 people saw Jesus after he was raised from dead was already known and circulated in Christian writings for at least 120 years then why would Celsus say only one person did so??

The answer is obvious, the Pauline Jesus post-resurrection story was unknown up to c 175-177 CE.

So, Aristides, Justin Martyr and Celsus, Christian and non-Christian writers, all from the 2nd century knew nothing at all from Paul, his Epistles and Churches.

Paul and the Epistles must have been fabricated after c 175-177 CE or after Celsus' True Discourse.

Except Marcion knew prior to that.

I think you keep forgetting that once Jesus did not exist then he had no disciples.

Jesus did not exist- Paul could not have heard his voice.

Paul's conversion was fabricated in Acts. There was no Christian at all named Paul.

The disciple/apostle Peter did not exist. He was not in Jerusalem
James the brother of the Lord did not exist. He was not in Jerusalem.

In the Epistles, Paul claimed he stayed with Peter for 15 days and also met James in Jerusalem.

The stories in the Epistles about Paul with Peter and James are utter fiction.

The Pauline character was fabricated. The Epistles were falsely attributed to a fiction character..

I don't who fabricated Paul but whoever manufactured the character wanted the teachings in the Epistles to be authoritative since his Paul was supposedly in direct contact with the resurrected Jesus.

I'm not forgetting that the disciples were made up. But it is the Gospels however that say that the church will be built on Peter. I agree that whoever wrote the Epistles was attempting to own the Jesus story and be authoritative.

 

[HansMustermann]

It's pretty much here. Sure, if he's omnipotent, he can do anything. Then he could have also simply forgiven man. Right?

If a human being without sin was required to be sacrificed for God to forgive man and each of us is born with original sin that we inherited from our parents then it is impossible for Mary and Jesus to be without sin because neither benefitted from such a sacrifice.

Welcome to the wonderful world of theology, where a problem counts as solved if you just move it up a notch.

But as I often remind myself, often when it seems that someone picked a bloody stupid solution to a problem, it's actually just that they're not telling you the real problem they're trying to solve. Like if the boss insists on an overblown architecture that totally isn't justified by the actual problem at hand, it might be that the REAL problem he's trying to solve is getting a couple more people under him so he has to be promoted one level higher as a manager. Or if someone insists that a web-site back in the days of analog modems needs 1MB of graphics, it's not that he's incompetent at solving the problem of "how do we design a good website", it's that the REAL problem he's solving is "how do I give a contract to my cousin who made a graphics design company"

And we might suspect that in the case of the RCC it might also be a case where we're just not told the REAL problem they're trying to solve.

Thing is, we know that the very early church was more OK with women holding church positions. We also know that what would later become the RCC had a major chip on their shoulder against that. Not only we see for example Tertullian railing against churches that allowed women priests, but basically they even go and forge instructions from Paul not to allow that, and endorsing a position where women are inferior.

(Which also brings us back to Paul being THAT important to everyone. For whatever reason.)

Anyway, the position quickly becomes that to be a priest you have to be a dick. Err... have a dick, I mean. Guys can be all special to God, but women apparently can't.

So we might SUSPECT that it's just to tell women that no, they can't be all special like Mary. She was a special one-off prototype made by God, so she can be all special. YOU are not and can not.

 

[acbytesla]

Welcome to the wonderful world of theology, where a problem counts as solved if you just move it up a notch.

But as I often remind myself, often when it seems that someone picked a bloody stupid solution to a problem, it's actually just that they're not telling you the real problem they're trying to solve. Like if the boss insists on an overblown architecture that totally isn't justified by the actual problem at hand, it might be that the REAL problem he's trying to solve is getting a couple more people under him so he has to be promoted one level higher as a manager. Or if someone insists that a web-site back in the days of analog modems needs 1MB of graphics, it's not that he's incompetent at solving the problem of "how do we design a good website", it's that the REAL problem he's solving is "how do I give a contract to my cousin who made a graphics design company"

And we might suspect that in the case of the RCC it might also be a case where we're just not told the REAL problem they're trying to solve.

Thing is, we know that the very early church was more OK with women holding church positions. We also know that what would later become the RCC had a major chip on their shoulder against that. Not only we see for example Tertullian railing against churches that allowed women priests, but basically they even go and forge instructions from Paul not to allow that, and endorsing a position where women are inferior.

(Which also brings us back to Paul being THAT important to everyone. For whatever reason.)

Anyway, the position quickly becomes that to be a priest you have to be a dick. Err... have a dick, I mean. Guys can be all special to God, but women apparently can't.

So we might SUSPECT that it's just to tell women that no, they can't be all special like Mary. She was a special one-off prototype made by God, so she can be all special. YOU are not and can not.

Makes sense. To address human problems.

What I find amusing is that I never thought about this contradiction before. While I always thought it was nonsense that Jesus had to be sacrificed in order for man to be forgiven. From my perspective the whole story falls apart right there. Still I remember a long discussion with a pastor as well as many a sermon attempting to explain this nonsense.

The argument was that all men/women are born with the sin of their parents and Adam and Eve. There is no way to escape it. And even God had to obey the rules. Therefore the sacrifice of a perfect being without sin was required.

I always thought they got away with this by saying Mary was a virgin. But that alone wouldn't do it. It is impossible for Mary to be without sin and therefore Jesus is also not innocent . This story is so filled with holes.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yep. As I was saying, welcome to the wonderful world of theology

 

[dejudge]

Except Marcion knew prior to that.

Marcion did not.

Marcion taught nothing at all from the Pauline Epistles and the so-called Gospels.

Marcion taught dualism the Good and Evil.

Justin's First Apology

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.
And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works..

Justin's "First Apology"

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

Refutation of All Heresies

But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies1

2. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself.

Ephraem Against Marcion III

These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker.

The Pauline Epistles are not at all compatible with the teachings of Marcion and were unknown in his time.

I'm not forgetting that the disciples were made up. But it is the Gospels however that say that the church will be built on Peter. I agree that whoever wrote the Epistles was attempting to own the Jesus story and be authoritative.

In Christian writings it is Peter and the disciples who were the first to start Churches - not Paul.

In Jerome De Viris Illustribus, Peter arrived in Rome since 43 CE at least 15 years before Paul.

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years

If Peter [the supposed bishop of Rome for 25 years] was a fiction character why is it Paul was not fabricated??

Christian writers manufactured their Jesus, the disciples, and Paul.

 

[acbytesla]

Marcion did not.

Marcion taught nothing at all from the Pauline Epistles and the so-called Gospels.

Marcion taught dualism the Good and Evil.

That too. According to others. Marcion created the first New Testament canon which included the Epistles.

Marcion was the first to introduce a Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books, grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke, and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle, which were also slightly shorter than the canonical text. Early Christians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius claimed that Marcion's editions of Luke and the Pauline epistles were intentionally edited by Marcion to match his theological views, and many modern scholars agree.[16] However, some scholars argue that Marcion's texts were not substantially edited by him, and may in some respects represent an earlier version of these texts than the canonical versions.[2][17][18][19] Like the Gospel of Mark, the gospel used by Marcion did not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood. Interestingly, it did contain some Jewish elements, and material that challenged Marcion's ditheism—a fact that was exploited by early Christians in their polemics against Marcion.[20]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

 

[HansMustermann]

The Pauline Epistles are not at all compatible with the teachings of Marcion and were unknown in his time.

Yes and no. It's incompatible with some parts from OUR selection of Pauline epistles, especially the parts that everyone agrees are forged. (Or at the very least not written by the same person who wrote 7 of them. Whether that person was actually called Paul or not.) It's actually more compatible than you'd think with other parts, though, IF you don't retrofit meanings from the Gospels into them, and go strictly by what Paul actually writes there.

BUT even more importantly, we don't know if he had a different set than ours entirely. Obviously he found or forged some that were compatible with his teachings. If nothing else, as I was saying, there were plenty of forgeries to go around for everyone. Take your pick of authority figure, and chances are you could find more fakes in his name than originals, and if all else failed, you could write your own fake. Why is it that hard to believe that Marcion too would have some that support HIS views?

 

[smartcooky]

Any God worth its omnipotence can do anything it wants, and can have it any way.

Indeedy! Why didn't god just wipe out the earth with an all powerful thunderbolt every time things started to go wrong? If I was God, directing the creation of heaven and earth, I would have used that clapper board over and over until, the bloody actors got it right!

 

[acbytesla]

Yes and no. It's incompatible with some parts from OUR selection of Pauline epistles, especially the parts that everyone agrees are forged. (Or at the very least not written by the same person who wrote 7 of them. Whether that person was actually called Paul or not.) It's actually more compatible than you'd think with other parts, though, IF you don't retrofit meanings from the Gospels into them, and go strictly by what Paul actually writes there.

BUT even more importantly, we don't know if he had a different set than ours entirely. Obviously he found or forged some that were compatible with his teachings. If nothing else, as I was saying, there were plenty of forgeries to go around for everyone. Take your pick of authority figure, and chances are you could find more fakes in his name than originals, and if all else failed, you could write your own fake. Why is it that hard to believe that Marcion too would have some that support HIS views?

This

Clearly, the story of Jesus was rewritten multiple times. None of the Gospels are eyewitnesses and just viewing the Synoptic Gospels, you see copies that while they retained the same form were told differently. And John takes a radical departure. So, what the Epistles were for Marcion could have been different.

 

[dejudge]

That too. According to others. Marcion created the first New Testament canon which included the Epistles.

You need to examine the writings of antiquity instead of just repeating what you see in Wikipedia.

You seem to have no idea of the teachings of Marcion.

Do you know what is written in gLuke about the birth of Jesus?

Jesus in gLuke was the son of the God of the Jews born of a Ghost and a virgin Mary in Bethlehem

Luke 1,35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Marcion's son of God was without birth and without flesh.

Marcion did not worship the God of the Jews or Jesus of Nazareth.

Marcion's son of God had no mother.

Marcion's son of God had no childhood.

Marcion's Son of God did not grow up in Nazareth.

Marcion's son of God did not live in Galilee.

Marcion's son of God was not circumcised.

Marcion's son of God was not baptized by John.

Marcion's son of God did nothing at all in gLuke

It is just total baseless nonsense that Marcion could be using gLuke to teach that Jesus came down directly from heaven into Capernaum.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity; because, of course, he was afraid that His nativity and His flesh bore mutual testimony to each other's reality, since there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh without nativity.

Against Marcion

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum, of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own.

Refutation of All Heresies

This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles, who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions — namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship.

Please get familiar with the writings of antiquity.

Marcion's teachings were derived from Empedocles - not the falsely attributed writings and forgeries called gLuke and the Pauline Epistles.

 

[smartcooky]

Well gee whiz....apparently we are not allowed to discuss ANYTHING or have any opinion unless we can prove that someone actually wrote it and it is "truth", or we incur the wrath of God dejudge. Oh well, there goes the entire fiction section of the local library... not allowed to discuss any of that because its fiction.

Sorry dejudge, but you are coming across as a 1920's School-Master, wielding a cane and rapping us poor schoolboys over the knuckles with it if we so much as dare to say or imply anything you don't approve of.

NOTE: Oh dear, I just ended a sentence in a preposition. No doubt you will cane me for that!

 

[acbytesla]

Well gee whiz....apparently we are not allowed to discuss ANYTHING or have any opinion unless we can prove that someone actually wrote it and it is "truth", or we incur the wrath of God dejudge. Oh well, there goes the entire fiction section of the local library... not allowed to discuss any of that because its fiction.

Sorry dejudge, but you are coming across as a 1920's School-Master, wielding a cane and rapping us poor schoolboys over the knuckles with it if we so much as dare to say or imply anything you don't approve of.

NOTE: Oh dear, I just ended a sentence in a preposition. No doubt you will cane me for that!

I know, right?

There seems to be a world of published scholars that disagree with his conclusions and us referencing them is in bad form according to him. Maybe, he's right, but I don't think I'm wrong in saying this.

 

[dejudge]

I know, right?

There seems to be a world of published scholars that disagree with his conclusions and us referencing them is in bad form according to him. Maybe, he's right, but I don't think I'm wrong in saying this.

Telling me that plenty people disagree with me is irrelevant. What plenty people say, scholars or not, is not evidence at all that Jesus, the disciples and Paul existed.

You seem not to understand that there is a world of evidence that support my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were figures of fiction.

 

[acbytesla]

Telling me that plenty people disagree with me is irrelevant. What plenty people say, scholars or not, is not evidence at all that Jesus, the disciples and Paul existed.

You seem not to understand that there is a world of evidence that support my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were figures of fiction.

I'm not disagreeing with you. At all. But you seem to act as if there isn't a great many scholars that say differently. That you're opinion on this is quite radical.

I'm certainly not a biblical scholar qualified to argue you're right and they're wrong or vice versa. I'm doing my best to evaluate this fairly. If you don't see that, that is your issue, not mine.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not disagreeing with you. At all. But you seem to act as if there isn't a great many scholars that say differently. That you're opinion on this is quite radical.

Again, my argument is not based on the quantity of people who you believe dis-agree with me.

I am not playing the numbers game.

The first person to argue the earth was round was probably regarded as an idiot by plenty people.

I'm certainly not a biblical scholar qualified to argue you're right and they're wrong or vice versa. I'm doing my best to evaluate this fairly. If you don't see that, that is your issue, not mine.

You already said you were not a biblical scholar. I don't know how you can fairly evaluate my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were figures of figures when you are not familiar with the writings of antiquity.

 

[acbytesla]

Again, my argument is not based on the quantity of people who you believe dis-agree with me.

I am not playing the numbers game.

The first person to argue the earth was round was probably regarded as an idiot by plenty people.



You already said you were not a biblical scholar. I don't know how you can fairly evaluate my argument that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were figures of figures when you are not familiar with the writings of antiquity.

I've been watching videos recently by Richard Carrier as well as Bart Ehrman. Both of whom while not agreeing with each other on the historicity of Jesus both clearly accept that Paul was real. Now, while I'm not a biblical or historical scholar, these two are. I grant you that they may be wrong. But you don't accept that you could be too. Are you arguing that they haven't read these letters?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Indeedy! Why didn't god just wipe out the earth with an all powerful thunderbolt every time things started to go wrong? If I was God, directing the creation of heaven and earth, I would have used that clapper board over and over until, the bloody actors got it right!

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/82209w4ek0borgz/Clapper4Creation.png?raw=1[/qimg]

Why would He have to?

Genesis 1:31 :

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

So the Idiot could not get it right in the first place? Some omniscient being that is.

 

[dejudge]

I've been watching videos recently by Richard Carrier as well as Bart Ehrman. Both of whom while not agreeing with each other on the historicity of Jesus both clearly accept that Paul was real. Now, while I'm not a biblical or historical scholar, these two are. I grant you that they may be wrong. But you don't accept that you could be too. Are you arguing that they haven't read these letters?

I am glad you make reference to Carrier and Ehrman. If as you say that each disagree on the historicity of Jesus then did the two of them read the same letters?

Now, if Ehrman and Carrier can dis-agree on any matter are you implying that I cannot do the same?

By the way, after having read Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus it is the very worst argument I have seen. Ehrman admits his NT sources are not historically credible but still uses them as historical evidence.

As usual, both Ehrman and Carrier present no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever, zero, to show that NT Paul was a figure of history.

It is just mind-boggling to me that Carrier would argue that there is no credible evidence for an historical Jesus but accept NT Paul without historical corroboration.

 

[acbytesla]

I am glad you make reference to Carrier and Ehrman. If as you say that each disagree on the historicity of Jesus then did the two of them read the same letters?

Now, if Ehrman and Carrier can dis-agree on any matter are you implying that I cannot do the same?

By the way, after having read Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus it is the very worst argument I have seen. Ehrman admits his NT sources are not historically credible but still uses them as historical evidence.

As usual, both Ehrman and Carrier present no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever, zero, to show that NT Paul was a figure of history.

It is just mind-boggling to me that Carrier would argue that there is no credible evidence for an historical Jesus but accept NT Paul without historical corroboration.

You have to understand that I am not dismissing what you're saying. I actually agree about some of it. For example, it seems as if Ehrman wants to have his cake and eat it to. (I'm actually in the middle of a debate btween Ehrman and Robert Price where Ehrman suggests that the gospels prove Jesus because they are different.) That doesn't prove a thing to me. I look at the Synoptic Gospels as proof of at most a single attestation, not three different ones.

About Carrier, it's not like he argues Paul is real, he just uses quotes from the Epistles to suggest problems with the historicity of Jesus.

My biggest problem with all of this is the use of stories that are filled with gross exaggerations as proof to confirm and/or dismiss. It seems to me that any real scholar would/could never come to a reasonable determination about the historicity of Jesus. And maybe not Paul.

 

[smartcooky]

Now, if Ehrman and Carrier can dis-agree on any matter are you implying that I cannot do the same?

This thing is, they don't berate each other and talk down to each other, or wave the big stick around just because the other guy disagrees with him, but this is what you are doing here.

When I post on the subject of the existence or otherwise of a Historical Jesus, I do so from the position of personally not believing in his existence as a real individual, but that does NOT mean I offhandedly dismiss any discussion or opinion on the matter. I take the view that we don't actually know whether not some of the things written in the gospels are true, or whether Paul really existed, or what he was alleged to have written really was written by him, and was accurate. I simply address that which is written in the NT in much the same way that a critic writes about the characters, events and places in a fictional book or movie. I see no reason whatsoever that people cannot have a discussion about the NT's content without needing to establish its accuracy.

Furthermore, you don't actually know either - your entire methodology here appears to be that "there was no evidence for it, therefore it never happened". Carl Sagan had something to say about this... "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Its like you have deemed yourself to be the only one who is right, and everyone else is wrong, and anyone who argues against you is to be dismissed and whacked on the knuckles with your Schoolmaster's cane.

This is rather like the way Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas were suppressed by scientists of his time. While his ideas and theories were almost certainly wrong, suppressing them was even more wrong... and that brings me to another Saganism “The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge..." .