Historical Jesus

[acbytesla]

I suppose at the very least you can say it's inconclusive?

Paul does address the larger congregation as brothers repeatedly. And in one point he mentions more "brothers of the lord" going around.

Plus, as Carrier correctly points out elsewhere, everyone in those personal-salvation mystery cults at the time were "brothers." When you were initiated into such a cult, you became basically adopted into that family, and became the "brother" of everyone else. It's not something that would be unique for Paul's Xianity. EVERYONE did it. If you were to join the cult of Mythras, or Osiris or whatever, you'd equally become brothers with everyone else in that cult. In fact, it would be the exception if Paul's cult DIDN'T do that.

So, yeah, at the very least we can say it's inconclusive? You can't take it to NECESSARILY mean biological brother. Maybe he did mean that, maybe he didn't.

But basically that does bring us back to the importance of words. If you don't know how the word was used in all the cults at the time, someone can sell you some misleading meaning that supports his pet view. E.g., "no, brother totally means biological, so Jesus was real."

The overwhelming problem IMV is there are far too many unreliable variables to draw conclusions. We don't know who wrote specific lines let alone different books. We don't know if there were a hundred different writers or five. We don't even know when. And what I find ridiculous is attempting to date writings of a fictional book by using the text of the book.

These books were also all written in ancient Greek but it seems unlikely that ignorant carpenters in Jerusalem were speaking Greek. Far more likely it would have been Aramaic or Hebrew. What happens in the translation?

And what we have today are fragments of copies of copies of copies. Each written by hand with who knows how many edits.

In another thread they are debating what qualifies as science. Well, this ain't it.

 

[Delvo]

People pretty much wash over how bigoted and racist some of Jesus' behavior was.

I'm not aware of examples of it.

Never mind the antics of the OT Jews under the leadership of Jesus' dad..

Those antics always seemed to imply to me that, if Jesus was sent here by a god, it must have been another god who was opposed to that one, so he could save us from that one. I only found out within the last couple of years that there were some Christian sects not long after Christianity began which agreed with me.

It is clear that Christian writers were implying Jesus had a brother called James.

The authors you pointed out are a bit late.

As usual, Ehrman with his absurd logical fallacies argues that Jesus must have existed because Paul knew his brother.

Actually, because the people to whom that letter was addressed would know Jesus's brother and thus would have known if Paul had made him up and thus would not believed Paul if James were made-up.

If you write something that you expect specific other people to read and accept, then you don't make up extra elements that those people could be expected not to accept.

And then, if James was real and that letter's intended audience knew him, they'd probably know whether his alleged brother Jesus was real too.

 

[dejudge]

The authors you pointed out are a bit late.

That's because the Epistle to the Galatians was written no earlier than the late 2nd century.

Actually, because the people to whom that letter was addressed would know Jesus's brother and thus would have known if Paul had made him up and thus would not believed Paul if James were made-up.

If you write something that you expect specific other people to read and accept, then you don't make up extra elements that those people could be expected not to accept.

And then, if James was real and that letter's intended audience knew him, they'd probably know whether his alleged brother Jesus was real too.

Your statement does not make sense because you have no corroborative evidence whatsoever that the letter was really written in the 1st century, no historical evidence whatsoever that there were people in Galatia who received a letter from the so-called Paul, no historical evidence at all that Jesus, James and Paul existed.

 

[smartcooky]

The overwhelming problem IMV is there are far too many unreliable variables to draw conclusions. We don't know who wrote specific lines let alone different books. We don't know if there were a hundred different writers or five. We don't even know when. And what I find ridiculous is attempting to date writings of a fictional book by using the text of the book..

To be fair, you can do that to an "earliest possible date" because time only moves in one direction. If a book mentions the details of the Apollo 11 moon landing and EVA, you can date that book to no earlier than July 20, 1969, and exclude any possibility that it was written before that.

 

[acbytesla]

To be fair, you can do that to an "earliest possible date" because time only moves in one direction. If a book mentions the details of the Apollo 11 moon landing and EVA, you can date that book to no earlier than July 20, 1969, and exclude any possibility that it was written before that.

The problem with the "earliest possible date theory is it always seems to come from reading clues in the text which in fact only means that it could only be written any time after that date.

What I see is writers building their entire case based on those dates and that is fallacious.

 

[dejudge]

The problem with the "earliest possible date theory is it always seems to come from reading clues in the text which in fact only means that it could only be written any time after that date.

What I see is writers building their entire case based on those dates and that is fallacious.

It is not fallacious at all to deduce the earliest possible dates for writings by using clues in and outside the texts whether or not the writings are fiction.

On the other hand, it is completely fallacious to date writings to specific dates when there are no clues in and outside the texts.

For example, it is wholly fallacious to date First Thessalonians to c. 50 AD,
Galatians to c. 53, First Corinthians to c. 53–54, Philippians to c. 55, Philemon to c. 55, Second Corinthians c. 55–56 and Romans to c. 57.

 

[HansMustermann]

These books were also all written in ancient Greek but it seems unlikely that ignorant carpenters in Jerusalem were speaking Greek. Far more likely it would have been Aramaic or Hebrew. What happens in the translation?

That IS a problem but not in the way you seem to think.

There was no translation. This stuff was written in Greek, period. And by highly literate and educated people, who were not only fluent in Greek, but were good at applying all the ancient literary techniques, like the inclusio and chiasm. Not only these weren't some illiterate fisherman from the backwaters of a backwater province, these were guys who had gone to school and learned a lot more than just the Greek letters.

In fact, for the Gospel writers, they don't even seem to be any good at Aramaic, or probably didn't even know it, the way normal language structures flies right above their heads. At the very least Mark and Matthew, but most egregiously Mark, don't even know how semitic languages work. (And Mark makes a complete hash of the geography too, so, yeah, he wasn't some fisherman from Palestine.)

So, yeah, any pretense that most of the NT was written by a bunch of hicks from Palestine who had followed some rabble rouser around is pretty much out.

 

[Tassman]

This is where I agree at least somewhat with Dejudge.

I don't think we can say what is likely about Paul at all. So, he says he use to persecute Christians. Did he? Or is he just saying he did in an attempt to make his conversion more impactful? I can't tell you how many times in different social media threads where the poster says he use to have the opposite viewpoint of what he/she is about to express. I pretty much never believe them.

Granted that believers like a good conversion story.

The more I read and learn the the New Testament writings the less I feel I actually know about them. I watch biblical scholars make inferences from single words writtten in dead languages 1800+ years ago and argue vehemently opposite conclusions.

Except that the New Testament writings exist, they obviously didn't emerge from a vacuum. And given the enormous impact the Jesus story has had on the world and still does, regrettably, it behooves us to try and understand what lies behind them.

The conclusion I make is they are all full of ****.

Well yes, there’s that approach.

 

[dejudge]

Granted that believers like a good conversion story.

The NT book with the conversion story of Saul/Paul is regarded as near useless fiction.

If believers really liked a good conversion how is it that there is no other conversion story in all Christian writings similar to the supposed Saul/Paul??

Saul/Paul was a fabricated convert who never ever existed.

Except that the New Testament writings exist, they obviously didn't emerge from a vacuum. And given the enormous impact the Jesus story has had on the world and still does, regrettably, it behooves us to try and understand what lies behind them.

The NT writings must have emerged from a vacuum.

All the authors of NT writings were unknown and then falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude.

Not one NT author is known or mentioned in any non-apologetic writing of antiquity.

Not one NT Gospel author claimed to know or mention any other author of NT writings.

The first mention of the authors of the NT is in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus supposedly written around c 178 CE and still all the names of authors provided were either false attribution or associated with forgeries.

To this very day it is not known when and who really wrote a single book in the NT.

In effect, the NT writings represent at least a 2000 year vacuum.

 

[Delvo]

Your statement does not make sense because you have no corroborative blah blah blah i'm dejudge

Your statement does not make sense because mine had nothing to do with anything about the evidence or lack of evidence you keep dejudging on & on about. I wonder how far away from that subject we would need to be to get you to quit inserting that.

If believers really liked a good conversion how is it that there is no other conversion story in all Christian writings similar to the supposed Saul/Paul??

There are, but even if there weren't, it wouldn't change the fact that such stories are routinely told outside the Bible. Plenty of modern churches even evidently instill in their followers the idea that every Christian is supposed to have one, compelling life-long Christians to come up with stories about they were once not really totally Christian or "turned away" from it or whatever but now they're fixed.

Not everything about Christianity is written in the Bible. (In fact, a lot of it isn't.) And not everything about Christians is necessarily based on Christianity itself.

Saul/Paul was a fabricated convert who never ever existed.

Regardless of whether that statement is coincidentally accurate, it's a non-sequitur from what you said right before it. This kind of stuff is a non-sequitur almost every time you go back to it, actually.

The NT writings must have emerged from a vacuum.

All the authors of NT writings were unknown and then falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude.

Not one NT author is known or mentioned in any non-apologetic writing of antiquity.

Not one NT Gospel author claimed to know or mention any other author of NT writings.

The first mention of the authors of the NT is in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus supposedly written around c 178 CE and still all the names of authors provided were either false attribution or associated with forgeries.

To this very day it is not known when and who really wrote a single book in the NT.

In effect, the NT writings represent at least a 2000 year vacuum.

That was a perfect example. The statement you quoted as if to respond to it had nothing at all to do with anything you wrote after quoting it. Why bother quoting something you're not going to come anywhere near actually responding to?

 

[dejudge]

Your statement does not make sense because mine had nothing to do with anything about the evidence or lack of evidence you keep dejudging on & on about. I wonder how far away from that subject we would need to be to get you to quit inserting that.

Please, don't waste time. All you can say is "blah, blah, blah!!!

You have zero, I repeat, zero historical evidence that Jesus, the disciples and Paul existed and that the Epistles were written before c 70 CE.

There are, but even if there weren't, it wouldn't change the fact that such stories are routinely told outside the Bible. Plenty of modern churches even evidently instill in their followers the idea that every Christian is supposed to have one, compelling life-long Christians to come up with stories about they were once not really totally Christian or "turned away" from it or whatever but now they're fixed.

There is no conversion story, none whatsoever, of any Christian who was converted by a bright light and the voice of Jesus as claimed in the near useless fiction called Acts of the Apostles.

Not everything about Christianity is written in the Bible. (In fact, a lot of it isn't.) And not everything about Christians is necessarily based on Christianity itself.

What you say is really irrelevant.

The NT Jesus stories and Epistles are total fiction and all the authors are unknown without a shred of historical corroboration up to this very day. [16th April 2000]

 

[acbytesla]

It is not fallacious at all to deduce the earliest possible dates for writings by using clues in and outside the texts whether or not the writings are fiction.

On the other hand, it is completely fallacious to date writings to specific dates when there are no clues in and outside the texts.

For example, it is wholly fallacious to date First Thessalonians to c. 50 AD,
Galatians to c. 53, First Corinthians to c. 53–54, Philippians to c. 55, Philemon to c. 55, Second Corinthians c. 55–56 and Romans to c. 57.

That was my point.

 

[acbytesla]

Except that the New Testament writings exist, they obviously didn't emerge from a vacuum. And given the enormous impact the Jesus story has had on the world and still does, regrettably, it behooves us to try and understand what lies behind them.

Does it? I am not sure about that. Does it really matter that much whether this fiction was created in 70, 90, 125 or 275CE?

 

[Darat]

Does it? I am not sure about that. Does it really matter that much whether this fiction was created in 70, 90, 125 or 275CE?

Not so much in terms of the big picture but it can be useful from a studying history perspective.

 

[acbytesla]

Not so much in terms of the big picture but it can be useful from a studying history perspective.

I think it's interesting because of the politics involved in the creation of the canon. The one thing I've learned how to do as a result of all of this learning is how to destroy fundamentalists when they talk about the sanctity of scripture. More than anything, it is clear that regardless of who you are, you are cherry picking just as they were in deciding what would make it into the bible.

What I see is a very human and convoluted process. Where does ANY ONE get off saying these writings and not other writings are true and profound and inspired by God?

 

[dejudge]

Except that the New Testament writings exist, they obviously didn't emerge from a vacuum. And given the enormous impact the Jesus story has had on the world and still does, regrettably, it behooves us to try and understand what lies behind them.

Does it? I am not sure about that. Does it really matter that much whether this fiction was created in 70, 90, 125 or 275CE?

Those who argue for an HJ must claim, even without any historical evidence, that fiction stories were made up about their HJ who really lived and died in the time of Pilate c 26-36CE.

It is for that reason why it is extremely important for them to place Saul/Paul [the fabricated Christian] as a contemporary of their Jesus and the disciples and claimed he wrote letters to the churches c 50-57 CE.

The fact is that Saul/Paul the Christian was fabricated and his supposed Epistles to churches are without corroboration even within the very NT itself.

2 Peter 3.15 mentions Paul once but even Christian writers admit 2 Peter was a forgery.

Eusebius' Church History3.3

But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon.

Paul is a product of fiction, false attribution or forgery
Paul never ever existed.

 

[acbytesla]

Those who argue for an HJ must claim, even without any historical evidence, that fiction stories were made up about their HJ who really lived and died in the time of Pilate c 26-36CE.

It is for that reason why it is extremely important for them to place Saul/Paul [the fabricated Christian] as a contemporary of their Jesus and the disciples and claimed he wrote letters to the churches c 50-57 CE.

The fact is that Saul/Paul the Christian was fabricated and his supposed Epistles to churches are without corroboration even within the very NT itself.

2 Peter 3.15 mentions Paul once but even Christian writers admit 2 Peter was a forgery.

Eusebius' Church History3.3

Paul is a product of fiction, false attribution or forgery
Paul never ever existed.

Of course they do. They also claim the Gospels are true without a clue who or when they were written either. The number of Christians that think the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John has to be above 98 percent.
I still remember when it hit me the structural similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke clearly demonstrate they were copies of each other or another book.

.
If I don't believe the Gospels are true, what Paul said or if he was real becomes irrelevant.

 

[abaddon]

Those who argue for an HJ must claim, even without any historical evidence, that fiction stories were made up about their HJ who really lived and died in the time of Pilate c 26-36CE.

That is why your argument fails. It matters not a whit to me whether a HJ happened or not. People can claim whatever they wish.

If there was or was not an HJ is meaningless to me.

I only care about the topic because those crank believers want to impose their particular version (among many) of jesus on ME and everyone else around them.

They can foxtrot right oscar in that regard.

 

[abaddon]

So why exactly have you this jesus hang up? It certainly does not keep me awake at night, but for you it does. And you refuse to answer that question.

I want to know why that is? Personally, I have no issue with dismissing it as superstitious nonsense.

 

[smartcooky]

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..