Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Dānu]

And the MJ argument doesn't actually exist, sow where do you put that?

Yes, the HJ argument isn't much, but at the very least it's much better than the no-valid-argument at all from the MJ camp.

LOL

The BJ is the MJ, asshole.  You're just too fucking stupid to realize it.

I'm glad to see that you finally equivocate the Biblical Jesus argument with the Mythicist Jesus argument, since you just admitted both are the same. That means that the arguments from you Mythicists for full mythology are just as ridiculous as a Christians' argument for full historicity of the Biblical Jesus.

How did you determine that?

[Minimalist]

The BJ ( I love that symbolism!) is the one who walked on water, fed the masses, drove out demons, came back from the dead and flew up to fucking heaven.  How much more MYTHICAL do you want it?

I don't expect Free to ever catch on because he is resolutely stupid.  I had higher hopes for you.  The HJ shit is a relatively modern literary construction so assholes likes Free have something to hopefully hang their hat on and save a little face.

A jesus without the magic tricks who gets up every morning to take a dump is not what the morons worship.

[Free]

And neither argument comes even close to being equal to the historicity argument that an ordinary man named Jesus, who many considered to be some kind of Christ, was crucified by Pontius Pilate circa AD 33, and from the existence of that ordinary man the religion of Christianity was formed, complete with a mixture of both mythology and historicity.

You have not one shred of evidence that anyone considered a Jesus to be "some sort of Christ" when he was crucified.

Who gives a fuck about that?

[Free]

The BJ is the MJ, asshole.  You're just too fucking stupid to realize it.

I'm glad to see that you finally equivocate the Biblical Jesus argument with the Mythicist Jesus argument, since you just admitted both are the same. That means that the arguments from you Mythicists for full mythology are just as ridiculous as a Christians' argument for full historicity of the Biblical Jesus.

How did you determine that?

You know ... from the part where he says "The BJ is the MJ."

Just sayin' ...

[Minimalist]

Try to keep up with the conversation moron.  I know its hard for a Master of Religious Studies, like you.

Doesn't the latrine at Tim Horton's need cleaning about now?  You're boss will be looking for you.

[Bucky Ball]

And neither argument comes even close to being equal to the historicity argument that an ordinary man named Jesus, who many considered to be some kind of Christ, was crucified by Pontius Pilate circa AD 33, and from the existence of that ordinary man the religion of Christianity was formed, complete with a mixture of both mythology and historicity.

You have not one shred of evidence that anyone considered a Jesus to be "some sort of Christ" when he was crucified.

Who gives a fuck about that?

Pardon me. It was just your poor writing then ... 

the historicity argument that an ordinary man named Jesus, who many considered to be some kind of Christ, was crucified by Pontius Pilate circa AD 33. 

[Free]

You have not one shred of evidence that anyone considered a Jesus to be "some sort of Christ" when he was crucified.

Who gives a fuck about that?

Pardon me. It was just your poor writing then ... 

the historicity argument that an ordinary man named Jesus, who many considered to be some kind of Christ, was crucified by Pontius Pilate circa AD 33. 

Oh like ... you mean like when Paul, a contemporary, called him Christ?

[Bucky Ball]

Who gives a fuck about that?

Pardon me. It was just your poor writing then ... 

the historicity argument that an ordinary man named Jesus, who many considered to be some kind of Christ, was crucified by Pontius Pilate circa AD 33. 

Oh like ... you mean like when Paul, a contemporary, called him Christ?

Fail again. You have no evidence to claim he was considered a "Christ" when he was executed.
BTW, your stupid little LOL is nothing but a measure of your incompetence and insecurity here. Did Drich teach you that ?

[Dānu]

I'm glad to see that you finally equivocate the Biblical Jesus argument with the Mythicist Jesus argument, since you just admitted both are the same. That means that the arguments from you Mythicists for full mythology are just as ridiculous as a Christians' argument for full historicity of the Biblical Jesus.

How did you determine that?

You know ... from the part where he says "The BJ is the MJ."

Just sayin' ...

The latter part, dumbass, not the former part.

[Free]

Pardon me. It was just your poor writing then ... 

Oh like ... you mean like when Paul, a contemporary, called him Christ?

Fail again. You have no evidence to claim he was considered a "Christ" when he was executed.

Oh I see, so you need to move the goalposts until you see someone who wrote at the moment he was crucified raise his hand and say something to the effect of, "Yep, I was there. They called him a Christ, the stupid bastards!"

Is that what you're looking for, Bucky Boy?

[Bucky Ball]

Oh like ... you mean like when Paul, a contemporary, called him Christ?

Fail again. You have no evidence to claim he was considered a "Christ" when he was executed.

Oh I see, so you need to move the goalposts until you see someone who wrote at the moment he was crucified raise his hand and say something to the effect of, "Yep, I was there. They called him a Christ, the stupid bastards!"

Is that what you're looking for, Bucky Boy?

No gramps, I was responding to exactly what YOU WROTE. 
"an ordinary man named Jesus, who many considered to be some kind of Christ, was crucified"
No one moved any goalposts. Paul is not "many". Got anything else ? 

I thought not. 

As long as we're on the subject, without some very serious evidence to support it, the notion that between 30 "something" CE, and about 20 years later, (in the complete absence of ANY specific evidence), there is no reason AT ALL to think that a sub-sect of Jews started thinking that this Jesus had been "exalted" to the right hand of God, (when apocalyptic Jews thought "exaltation" in NO OTHER instance involved re-animation and some sort of "special exaltation"). There is no instance in all of Judaism where a hero is re-animated. There also is not one instance in Judaism where a "son" of God, (and there were many many "sons of God", as it was a general honorific meaning "a just man" which was accorded to MANY), meant something "special". The idea that there was something "special" at all about this particular dude is obviously false.

[Free]

Fail again. You have no evidence to claim he was considered a "Christ" when he was executed.

Oh I see, so you need to move the goalposts until you see someone who wrote at the moment he was crucified raise his hand and say something to the effect of, "Yep, I was there. They called him a Christ, the stupid bastards!"

Is that what you're looking for, Bucky Boy?

No gramps, I was responding to exactly what YOU WROTE. 
"an ordinary man named Jesus, who many considered to be some kind of Christ, was crucified"
No one moved any goalposts. Paul is not "many". Got anything else ? 

I thought not. 

As long as we're on the subject, without some very serious evidence to support it, the notion that between 30 "something" CE, and about 20 years later, (in the complete absence of ANY specific evidence), there is no reason AT ALL to think that a sub-sect of Jews started thinking that this Jesus had been "exalted" to the right hand of God, (when apocalyptic Jews thought "exaltation" in NO OTHER instance involved re-animation and some sort of "special exaltation"). There is no instance in all of Judaism where a hero is re-animated. There also is not one instance in Judaism where a "son" of God, (and there were many many "sons of God", as it was a general honorific meaning "a just man" which was accorded to MANY), meant something "special". The idea that there was something "special" at all about this particular dude is obviously false.

Now now now ... BUCKY! You know your words are etched in stone on these forums, right? Here let me quote you again:

 Fail again. You have no evidence to claim he was considered a "Christ" when he was executed.

Hence my response of:

"Oh I see, so you need to move the goalposts until you see someone who wrote at the moment he was crucified raise his hand and say something to the effect of, "Yep, I was there. They called him a Christ, the stupid bastards!"

Is that what you're looking for, Bucky Boy?"

So, can you correlate your "when he was executed" with my "at the moment he was crucified"  or do you need help with that also?

[grympy]

Who gives a fuck about that?

Pardon me. It was just your poor writing then ... 

the historicity argument that an ordinary man named Jesus, who many considered to be some kind of Christ, was crucified by Pontius Pilate circa AD 33. 

Oh like ... you mean like when Paul, a contemporary, called him Christ?

 2 cents.

I think I've missed something. When was it decided (and by whom) that any of the New Testament  may be cited as credible evidence about anything ? . Also, do we in fact have anything credibly written by Pontius  Pillate?. I wasn't aware that was the case. 

It is also my understanding that Jesus was not called "Christ' until the latter half (at least) of the first century.* It is my perception that the term" Christ" was invented by Christian  authors of the Gospels in referring to Jesus.  I say this  because the term "Christ' used by christians conflates the actual meaning   of "anointed"  with "redeemer". They also show an ignorance of  Jewish prophecy about the Messiah--starting  with ;THE Messiah  IS NOT DIVINE. There's heaps more which were simply ignored.  Devout   Jews would have been acutely aware of prophecy about the Mashiach. Especially under Roman occupation, when Jews  yearned for the Messiah,a warrior king in the Davidic tradition. 

Now I realise I may be wrong it places, or in fact  in all of this post.  I seem to have been misremembering some things lately. Happy to be corrected if I've made any errors of fact. 

*An Wilson  "Paul; Mind of The Apostle ". More of a general  understanding of the  fragmented nature of what later became called "Christianity" , in the first  century, at least.  I'll quote the reference if you want.

[Free]

Pardon me. It was just your poor writing then ... 

Oh like ... you mean like when Paul, a contemporary, called him Christ?

 2 cents.

I think I've missed something. When was it decided (and by whom) that any of the New Testament  may be cited as credible evidence about anything ? . Also, do we in fact have anything credibly written by Pontius  Pillate?. I wasn't aware that was the case.

Since the letters of Paul are what they are- letters- they have always been considered as credible evidence of 1st century attestation of the existence of Jesus since they were written by a contemporary.

Just because they are in the bible- which everyone admits is full of silliness- does not mean that those letters themselves suffer any lack of credibility, since they originally existed before the bible was ever formed.

They are considered 1st century historical documents to support the existence of Jesus by virtually all relevant historians.

It is also my understanding that Jesus was not called "Christ' until the latter half (at least) of the first century.*

Again, this is easily disputed by the letters of Paul.

[Phaedrus]

@Free

[Free]

@Free

@Phaedrus

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

"Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.

In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.

The terms Holocaust denialism and AIDS denialism describe the denial of the facts and the reality of the subject matters, and the term climate change denial describes denial of the scientific consensus that the climate change of planet Earth is a real and occurring event primarily caused by human activity.

The forms of denialism present the common feature of the person rejecting overwhelming evidence and the generation of political controversy with attempts to deny the existence of consensus.

The motivations and causes of denialism include religion and self-interest (economic, political, financial) and defense mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

You are in the same league as flat earthers, anti-vaxers, climate change, and evolution deniers, etc. One of the hallmarks of this condition is that you will even deny that you have this condition. That's how bad it is. It's very serious. 

I apologize for not having the resources at my disposal that would enable you to seek help for your mental condition.

I suggest you make an appointment with a psychologist and I wish you all the best.

[Minimalist]

Yeah.... and you keep going to talk to some fucking priest.

[Phaedrus]

Good thing I am reasonable enough to look past such a glaringly obvious Ad Hom while also maintaining the logical consistency of there being zero evidence for Jesus having existed.

[Free]

Good thing I am reasonable enough to look past such a glaringly obvious Ad Hom while also maintaining the logical consistency of there being zero evidence for Jesus having existed.

And honestly I cannot expect you to be any other way. The condition you have disables your ability to acknowledge reality insomuch that you will even deny reality itself actually exists.

You have my utmost deepest sympathies.

[grympy]

Oh like ... you mean like when Paul, a contemporary, called him Christ?

 2 cents.

I think I've missed something. When was it decided (and by whom) that any of the New Testament  may be cited as credible evidence about anything ? . Also, do we in fact have anything credibly written by Pontius  Pillate?. I wasn't aware that was the case.

Since the letters of Paul are what they are- letters- they have always been considered as credible evidence of 1st century attestation of the existence of Jesus since they were written by a contemporary.

Just because they are in the bible- which everyone admits is full of silliness- does not mean that those letters themselves suffer any lack of credibility, since they originally existed before the bible was ever formed.

They are considered 1st century historical documents to support the existence of Jesus by virtually all relevant historians.

It is also my understanding that Jesus was not called "Christ' until the latter half (at least) of the first century.*

Again, this is easily disputed by the letters of Paul.

Ahh.  "all relevant historians'" is a loaded sentence and  possibly a no true Scotsman fallacy.  I have  only recently  discovered for example  that there is  not even a consensus  among historians about the Historicity of  Jesus.

It is my position is; that the new testament is the mythology of Christianity,. It has little if anything to with an actual person. Consequently I am unable to accept ANYTHING written   in those books as credible  unless supported by credible evidence.  The common understanding that all myth have a basis in truth is simply untrue. It's true sometimes but mostly not .It can be very difficult at times, to tell the difference. That is why I refuse to accept anything from the Old or New Testament as history.
From wikipedia:

"There is nearly universal consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether or not Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are genuine letters of Paul. The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.[4][5][6] Some scholars have proposed that Paul may have used an amanuensis, or secretary, in writing the disputed letters.[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...e_epistles

  A N Wilson * infers the notion of  Jesus as Christ was a later invention n, because the religion  which became Christianity remained Jewish well after Jesus.

"---the idea of a separation between two religions-Christianity and Judaism-is totally anachronistic-------Jesus did not come to 'start a new religion' and nor, exactly  speaking did Paul, though a new religion came about partly  as a result of Paul's endeavours ' (pp 38-39)

Christianity has always ben egregiously wrong  about the nature of the Messiah  according to Jewish  prophecy. Another reason to reject
Th eGospels and Paul's use  of the term. 

I  also about lo asked about anything credible written by Pilate.  

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

* "Paul: The Mind Of The Apostle"  A. N. Wilson. W. W NORTON & COMPANY,1997


PS Wilson also has a different take on the nature  of the nature of the Pharisees , that--- "they  were teachers, such as Jesus himself, who believed that the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures was not a dead letter ,written in stone,  but a divinely given insight on how to live------" (ibid)

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

hey @grympy , what is Paul's source?

[Phaedrus]

hey  @grympy , what is Paul's source?

His mental illness.

[Free]

 2 cents.

I think I've missed something. When was it decided (and by whom) that any of the New Testament  may be cited as credible evidence about anything ? . Also, do we in fact have anything credibly written by Pontius  Pillate?. I wasn't aware that was the case.

Since the letters of Paul are what they are- letters- they have always been considered as credible evidence of 1st century attestation of the existence of Jesus since they were written by a contemporary.

Just because they are in the bible- which everyone admits is full of silliness- does not mean that those letters themselves suffer any lack of credibility, since they originally existed before the bible was ever formed.

They are considered 1st century historical documents to support the existence of Jesus by virtually all relevant historians.

It is also my understanding that Jesus was not called "Christ' until the latter half (at least) of the first century.*

Again, this is easily disputed by the letters of Paul.

Ahh.  "all relevant historians'" is a loaded sentence and  possibly a no true Scotsman fallacy.  I have  only recently  discovered for example  that there is  not even a consensus  among historians about the Historicity of  Jesus.

Actually there is.

Basically virtually all "relevant" historians (meaning those whose education is specifically in the origins of Christianity and near eastern studies) agree that a man named Jesus, who was considered to be a Christ, was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

More info can be gleaned HERE.

Somewhere in this thread, or another one relevant to this topic, I produced a list of about 100 living historians as part of the consensus, while those who oppose historicity can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

I myself am qualified to teach on this subject.

You can research for more info if so choose.

It is my position is; that the new testament is the mythology of Christianity.

That is only partly correct. What you are reading is a mixture of an early belief system that began with the Jews and ended with the Gentiles. The gospels themselves were basically hellenized by the Greeks as the Jewish followers of Jesus faded away. What you are reading is a Greek take on the existence of an ordinary man, complete with the atypical Greek mythology stewed into it.

We really don't know much more about this Jesus bloke other than he was strung up on a couple of sticks and crucified along with countless others during that time period, but just the mere existence of this person as an ordinary man is the best explanation as to the origin of Christianity.

 

A N Wilson * infers the notion of  Jesus as Christ was a later invention n, because the religion  which became Christianity remained Jewish well after Jesus.

"---the idea of a separation between two religions-Christianity and Judaism-is totally anachronistic-------Jesus did not come to 'start a new religion' and nor, exactly  speaking did Paul, though a new religion came about partly  as a result of Paul's endeavours ' (pp 38-39)

Christianity has always been egregiously wrong  about the nature of the Messiah  according to Jewish  prophecy. Another reason to reject The Gospels and Paul's use of the term. 

I  also about lo asked about anything credible written by Pilate.  

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

* "Paul: The Mind Of The Apostle"  A. N. Wilson. W. W NORTON & COMPANY,1997


PS Wilson also has a different take on the nature  of the nature of the Pharisees , that--- "they  were teachers, such as Jesus himself, who believed that the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures was not a dead letter ,written in stone,  but a divinely given insight on how to live------" (ibid)

I am afraid I can't help you with A N Wilson's take on it. He's a novelist, and not a schooled historian. It's not unlike expecting a kindergarten teacher to suddenly start teaching astrophysics. 

You can take his words for what you think they are actually worth.

[Inkubus]

hey  @grympy , what is Paul's source?

A better question is, who was Paul? If we don't know who wrote that guff then we don't know when it was written.

[Inkubus]

More info can be gleaned HERE.

Indeed it can. These are all scholars, who are referred to on that page.

Clinton E. Arnold: Resident of the Evangelical Theological Society.

C. K. Barrett: Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham.

Richard Bauckham: “the Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness”

Gregory K. Beale: Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology.

Craig Blomberg: Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary.

Darrell Bock: Evangelical Christian and New Testament scholar.

Rudolf Karl Bultmann: Lutheran theologian and professor of New Testament.

Gary M. Burge: Ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church.

D. A. Carson: Evangelical theologian and professor of the New Testament.

John H. Walton: Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College

James Dunn: Lightfoot Professor of Divinity.

Gordon D. Fee: Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies.

Simon Gathercole: Director of Studies in Theology, Fitzwilliam College.

Joel B Green: Dean of the School of Theology Fuller Theological Seminary.

Robert Horton Gundry: Professor of New Testament studies and Koine Greek.

Martin Hengel: Emeritus Professor of New Testament.

Larry Hurtado: Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology.

Karen Jobes: PhD from Westminster Theological Seminary.

Craig Keener: Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary.

George Eldon Ladd: Baptist minister and professor of New Testament exegesis.

Richard N. Longenecker: Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College.

Howard Marshall: Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis.

Scot McKnight: Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Bruce M. Metzger: Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Douglas J. Moo: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois.

Leon Morris: Ordained to the Anglican ministry in 1938.

Grant Osborne: Degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Archibald Thomas Robertson: Southern Baptist preacher and biblical scholar.

Frank Stagg: Ph.D. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Graham N. Stanton: Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity Cambridge.
University
Robert L. Thomas: President of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Francis Watson: Christian scholar and professor of New Testament Exegesis.

Rikk E. Watts: Master of Divinity Gordon-Conwell.

Michael J. Wilkins: M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary.

Ben Witherington III: Ordained pastor in the United Methodist Church.

Nicholas Thomas Wright: New Testament scholar, and retired Anglican bishop.

.................................

Now find me a comparative list of bible scholars who are>

a) Not priests.
b) Not theologians.
c) Have a degree in history.