Historicity of Jesus

[Cavebear]

He never said they were, hence you are laying down a red herring.

LMAO. Oh OK. I'll let him tell us what he meant by people writing "lives' ... or perhaps you can explain what he meant, and tell us what "lives" there were from the time.

The religious climate at the time definitely shows a mixture of belief systems and fact. There are numerous places and historical figures mentioned in the Gospels that have been proven to exist. Since Pilate and others have been demonstrated to exist, we have no good reason to doubt the probable existence of a Jesus who was crucified by Pilate, and there are no records disputing this as we would expect those records to surface if they actually existed, and that's how a valid argument from silence works.

So then, texts with a mixture of beliefs and facts are true. Good to know you believe in Harry Potter.

Reading comprehension issue? Did I say they were true, or did I say they "definitely shows a mixture of belief systems and fact?"

Desperate much? Your narcissism forcing you to distort reality to support your own belief system?

 

  
We know you're going to cherry pick the one thing you accept as true here. YOU have no "good reason". In your pontificating, you always forget to say, "in my opinion".
You don't get to pontificate at me. I know what a pompous arrogant fraud you are. I never said they didn't contain facts. I said *gospels* are proclamations of belief. And you also know you accept ONLY one thing in them ... so your post is dishonest. Some people do believe some things that are true. As usual, you missed the point, AND you post the very obvious, in order to appear to know more than you do.

I never said I only accept "one thing" in the Gospels. I said the crucifixion is the one thing we find consistent all through many Jewish, Roman, and Christian texts in relation to the historicity of Jesus. I accept that the Pilate mentioned in the Gospels was real and he crucified Jesus, as well as other characters, places, and things.

We disagree on that. I've never seen any evidence there was an actual "Jesus" as described in the bible. I suspect some combination of various wandering preachers, a developing subset of judaism, and the work of writers decades to a century later trying to consolidate a new theism.

[Cavebear]

Reading comprehension issue? Did I say they were true, or did I say they "definitely shows a mixture of belief systems and fact?"

Desperate much? Your narcissism forcing you to distort reality to support your own belief system?

 


You have many times said we know one thing for sure ... bla bla bla. It's all over here.
All you have to do is look in the other thread.
I'll find it/them when I have time.

Did Pilate exist? Yes.
Did Jerusalem exist? Yes.
Did John the Baptist exist? Yes.
Did King Herod exist? Yes.
Did Peter and the apostles exist? According to Paul, yes, and we know he existed as well.

And the list goes on and on. Since we have within the gospels people who we know existed, why should we cherry pick the central figure- Jesus- out of those Gospels and claim he didn't exist?

Get a clue yet?

Pilate, yes. Jerusalem, yes. Herod, yes. There are outside references and of course Jerusalem exists. Not sure about John. Less sure about Paul. And the other apostles are even less certain.

[jimhabegger]

It's easier for me now to see how people can be well informed about Bible scholarship, and still think that Jesus, his apostles, and even Paul, are fictional characters invented by some early Christians.

[brunumb]

You wouldn't expect anything from the first century to exist now. Papayas is not an archival medium, in case that needs to be explained to you.

Maybe that was because people kept eating them.  

[Minimalist]

You do not write Lives about mythical characters for a start, so the authors of the gospels definitely believed that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Poor Danny.  You really are hopeless.

There are morons walking around today who believe all sorts of stupid shit and write about it constantly.

Sorry to tell you that your boyfriend, jesus, is equally stupid shit.

But the discussion is not about what they believed because what they believed was the Biblical Jesus - the miracle working, son of god horseshit that permeates your silly bible.  The discussion is about the "Historical" jesus who is merely some dumb fuck who talked too much and got himself killed.

Try to keep up.

[Minimalist]

You wouldn't expect anything from the first century to exist now. Papayas is not an archival medium, in case that needs to be explained to you.

Maybe that was because people kept eating them.  

Papayas are good.  Papyrus?  Not so much.

[jimhabegger]

There are morons walking around today who believe all sorts of stupid shit and write about it constantly.

Like sharing articles from Onion magazine as if they were actual news.

[Minimalist]

No, like swallowing medications meant to combat animal parasitical infections and thinking it will work against a virus.

They redefine stupid on a daily basis.

[Cavebear]

It's easier for me now to see how people can be well informed about Bible scholarship, and still think that Jesus, his apostles, and even Paul, are fictional characters invented by some early Christians.

Keep reading here. We will get you up to speed eventually.

Seriously, beliefs and facts can be easily confused sometimes. You are told something by a trusted authority and it seems a "fact". It doesn't mean you are gullible or anything, you had reason to trust the person who told you. But then, later in life, you hear something contrary and you check it out. Sometimes, you realize that the thing you originally were told was wrong (or let's just say "inaccurate") because there is better evidence against it.

It's hard to change your mind sometimes. Old (false) memories die hard. For example, as a child, I learned my Mother's birthdate wrong by one day and learned the error as an adult. And forever after was never quite sure which memory was correct.

I was fortunate to have not been religiously indoctrinated, so I don't have false memories to fight with. I studied religions later, so only the documented facts got "implanted". I had religious friends who KNEW Jesus existed because they were told he did and they never thought to question it. When we grew older (and only when they introduced the subject) I asked them how they knew. Some sputterred in anger, but a couple actually thought about it and realized they didn't have "proof" and admitted it.

That doesn't mean they changed their beliefs, but it DID make them aware of "facts vs faith" and I think they looked at the world a little more carefully. That's pretty much all I ask of people: Look at facts and beliefs and understand the difference. You can always have your own beliefs, but not your own facts...

[Cavebear]

There are morons walking around today who believe all sorts of stupid shit and write about it constantly.

Like sharing articles from Onion magazine as if they were actual news.

I love Onion. If I tried, I could probably write for them, I have that sense of absurdity. Years of Firesign Theater opened my my mind when I was younger and you really can't appreciate weird jokes and puns sci-fi or politics without a willing suspension of rational criticism sometimes.

So I'm kind of on the Onion side of humor and the factual side of Snopes...

[Minimalist]

TheOnion has been out-nutted by the republiKKKunt party and Q.  In their wildest dreams theOnion could not match the insanity of MJT and the rest of these flaming assholes.

[Cavebear]

TheOnion has been out-nutted by the republiKKKunt party and Q.  In their wildest dreams theOnion could not match the insanity of MJT and the rest of these flaming assholes.

Yeah, sometimes reality beats fiction. As in "you couldn't make this stuff up"... LOL! If I had written a fiction story with characters like MJT and Trump 20 years ago, I think I would have been laughed at.

[Aractus]

That's just the opinion of Paul.

So we can confidently right-off Paul's epistles in there entirety as just opinion?

You can believe whatever you want, the only reason you know Paul's opinion is that he wrote it down and it survives. What about the opinions of the other apostles like Cephas, James, and John?

Name me ONE primary source for that little tidbit and I will concede the point.

There's several and you'll never concede the point as you're an asshole. You can start with [this collection](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...rsion=NRSV) of early non-gospel Passion traditions. They're not all completely unique, never claimed that they are, but there are several distinct traditions there that you cannot trace to Mark:

• 1 Cor 15:3-8 - this is written well before Mark.
  
• Acts 13:27-31 - this is in pre-Marcan form. You can clearly see how you can go from this to Mark when converted to prose, but you can't really see how you can go from Mark to this and what is especially implausible is going from Luke's Passion narrative to this (for example Lk 23:51a directly contradicts Acts 13:29).
  
• Acts 4:24-28 - this tradition has Herod in it, note that Luke and Luke only has added Herod into Mark's Passion narrative (Luke 23:6-12). Perfect example of how tradition gets converted into prose.
  

@Free I'm confused now about your use of Paul as a source. In one post I see you agreeing that we can confidently write off Paul's epistles *in their entirety* as *just opinion*, because he was compelled by his narcissism to *create a religion around his opinions*. Then in other posts I see you citing him, and only him, as your primary source for the existence of Jesus, his apostles, and Pilate.

Paul was just one of several first generation apostles. He didn't create the religion I don't know why Free said that, but he was certainly influential. Most of the other first generation apostles were illiterate, and especially the ones that had been actual disciples. He disagreed with other apostles, and even at times it would seem the teachings of Jesus.

It's easier for me now to see how people can be well informed about Bible scholarship, and still think that Jesus, his apostles, and even Paul, are fictional characters invented by some early Christians.

They're generally not that well informed about scholarship at all. Anyone can cherrypick a couple of sources and twist it to support their agenda. Bucky is well read I'll give him that much, Min most certainly isn't. Neither of them seem to understand a single book of the Bible with any greater depth than “that didn't happen it's bullshit”.

If we go to my example about Ned Kelly - if all you had from the historical record was a handful of plays about Ned Kelly and the Kelly gang you could still learn that he was: a bushranger, an outlaw, and hanged by the State. You don't need a historically accurate contemporaneous biography to learn that much. With the NT you have the equivalent of a bunch of plays written about Ned plus letters from a member of the Kelly gang, but someone who joined the Kelly gang around 2 or 3 years after his hanging.

[Bucky Ball]

Neither of them seem to understand a single book of the Bible with any greater depth than “that didn't happen it's bullshit”.

That's hilarious, A-Rats-Ass.
In almost every single argument we had here and on TTA, you LOST the argument.
Name ONE you won. You can't.
You're nothing but a fundy religionist turned atheist who KEPT just about all his fundy beliefs.

Still think Trump's gonna win ?

[jimhabegger]

It's easier for me now to see how people can be well informed about Bible scholarship, and still think that Jesus, his apostles, and even Paul, are fictional characters invented by some early Christians.

If we go to my example about Ned Kelly - if all you had from the historical record was a handful of plays about Ned Kelly and the Kelly gang you could still learn that he was: a bushranger, an outlaw, and hanged by the State. You don't need a historically accurate contemporaneous biography to learn that much. With the NT you have the equivalent of a bunch of plays written about Ned plus letters from a member of the Kelly gang, but someone who joined the Kelly gang around 2 or 3 years after his hanging.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to what I said. I'm not saying that it's impossible that Jesus and his apostles actually existed. I'm saying that it's easier for me now than it was before to see how they could have been invented by early Christians, even if they never actually existed. Like how easy it is for multitudes of people to think that an article from a satire website is actual news. The ways that multitudes of people can be fooled in our world today, about what's happening now, make it easy for me to imagine that multitudes of people could have been fooled into believing that a few decades earlier, someone named Yeshua claimed to be a promised king of Israel, that he had followers named such-and-such and so-and-so, and that he was crucified after being interrogated by someone named Pilate, even if none of that ever actually happened.

ETA:
None of the arguments either way look very convincing to me. Plausible, yes. Convincing, no.

[Free]

It doesn't make any difference who wrote it,

It certainly fucking does. 1 Timothy, a forged piece of shit dated to the 2d century at the earliest is not a "primary source."

1. Prove it was forged.
2. Prove it is dated to the 2nd century.

Of course we both know you can't prove anything for the exact same reason we can't prove that Paul wrote any letters at all, or Tacitus and Josephus are the actual authors of the works ascribed to them. 

And again it doesn't matter even if the author is not Paul and it was dated to CE 110. What you are still left with is a letter that mentions Jesus standing before Pilate and it predates the bible, and what was written there is confirmed by Tacitus.

And also ... it's not lost on anyone that you are ignoring the fact that the rest of the letters by Paul mention Jesus being crucified at least 10 times, and since we have numerous sources telling us it was Pilate who crucified him ... the imaginary legs you are standing on get blown out from under you with such a ferocity that I find it exceptionally amusing to see you desperately trying to stand when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Your pal, Paul.... and you don't say which Paul is your pal.... there are several different Pauls, only managed to hallucinate conversations with the godboy.  He never met him or saw him on earth.

Your original comment was:  "The only reason I put emphasis on the crucifixion is because we have numerous records of that event, which strongly increases the high probability that Jesus existed, and was crucified by Pilate."

I'm still waiting for a primary source that mentions Pilate.  I know all about the secondary, tertiary, and just plain old gossip sources.  Those are fucking worthless.


But I already see how this is going to go.  So I may as well get my shots in.  We have nothing, nada, zilch, zip, fuckall, written by paul or any other jesus freak asshole from the first century.

Explain to me how it matters that Paul doesn't mention Pilate in any of the letters deemed authentic to him when we still see him mentioning the crucifixion at least 10 times?

[jimhabegger]

@Free @Aractus How do you decide when to believe what your sources say, and when not to, other than whether you agree with it or not?

[Free]

@Free @Aractus How do you decide when to believe what your sources say, and when not to, other than whether you agree with it or not?

We use the Historical Method.

[Inkubus]

So Paul's back in favour again.

[jimhabegger]

@Free @Aractus How do you decide when to believe what your sources say, and when not to, other than whether you agree with it or not?

We use the Historical Method.

I should have known better than to ask that question. GIGO  

[Free]

@Free @Aractus How do you decide when to believe what your sources say, and when not to, other than whether you agree with it or not?

We use the Historical Method.

I should have known better than to ask that question. GIGO  

The Historical Method is a long tried and tested system for providing the best approximation to determine the historicity of everything.

[Minimalist]

It doesn't make any difference who wrote it,

It certainly fucking does. 1 Timothy, a forged piece of shit dated to the 2d century at the earliest is not a "primary source."

1. Prove it was forged.
2. Prove it is dated to the 2nd century.

Of course we both know you can't prove anything for the exact same reason we can't prove that Paul wrote any letters at all, or Tacitus and Josephus are the actual authors of the works ascribed to them. 

And again it doesn't matter even if the author is not Paul and it was dated to CE 110. What you are still left with is a letter that mentions Jesus standing before Pilate and it predates the bible, and what was written there is confirmed by Tacitus.

And also ... it's not lost on anyone that you are ignoring the fact that the rest of the letters by Paul mention Jesus being crucified at least 10 times, and since we have numerous sources telling us it was Pilate who crucified him ... the imaginary legs you are standing on get blown out from under you with such a ferocity that I find it exceptionally amusing to see you desperately trying to stand when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Your pal, Paul.... and you don't say which Paul is your pal.... there are several different Pauls, only managed to hallucinate conversations with the godboy.  He never met him or saw him on earth.

Your original comment was:  "The only reason I put emphasis on the crucifixion is because we have numerous records of that event, which strongly increases the high probability that Jesus existed, and was crucified by Pilate."

I'm still waiting for a primary source that mentions Pilate.  I know all about the secondary, tertiary, and just plain old gossip sources.  Those are fucking worthless.


But I already see how this is going to go.  So I may as well get my shots in.  We have nothing, nada, zilch, zip, fuckall, written by paul or any other jesus freak asshole from the first century.

Explain to me how it matters that Paul doesn't mention Pilate in any of the letters deemed authentic to him when we still see him mentioning the crucifixion at least 10 times?

Really Free, you are such a phony some times.

In regards to "Timothy" we have that same consensus of scholarly opinion that you steadfastly rely upon when you think it supports your bullshit coming up with the following:

https://discoveringancienthistory.wordpr...forgeries/

As mentioned before, seven of Paul’s Epistles are excepted as authentic by an overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars.  This statement should not be construed as some sort of argumentum ad populum or appeal to the masses, but is in fact limited to a select group of highly specialized scholars, who continually examine, affirm or discount the assertions of their colleagues in peer-reviewed literature.  With that said, the following seven Pauline Epistles are regarded as genuine, and having been personally authored by the Apostle Paul during his Christian ministry: Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and First Thessalonians.

There are currently five Pauline Epistles which are known frauds: First and Second Timothy, Hebrews, Ephesians and Titus.  These texts are known as pseudepigraphical- falsely claimed (assigned) authorship. Each of these Epistles have their own issue(s) which demonstrate their status as forgeries.  By way of a short example, both First and Second Timothy contain structure(s) and language not found in any of Paul’s other letters.

BTW, one of those so-called "authentic" epistles, 2d Corinthians, is now known to be a mash-up of between 2-5 different letters and Bart Ehrman has taken apart the concept of authenticity in a video in the other thread.

You not only cherry-pick evidence, you cherry pick scholars and methods when it suits you.  You should correct that practice.  It is dishonest.


As for your second attempt at a "Gotcha" remember this?

Your original comment was:  "The only reason I put emphasis on the crucifixion is because we have numerous records of that event, which strongly increases the high probability that Jesus existed, and was crucified by Pilate."

I asked you for a primary source which sustains that position.  You tossed out a fraudulent piece of shit.  I'm still waiting for an actual source which supports your claim.

As far as I am concerned right now all you are doing is repeating xtian mythology concocted sometime in the 2d century and insisting that it is true.


Oh, and finally:

Explain to me how it matters that Paul doesn't mention Pilate in any of the letters deemed authentic to him when we still see him mentioning the crucifixion at least 10 times?

Which of those 10 indicates that this supposed crucifixion happened on earth?  In Jerusalem?  By Pilate( well, we already know you can't do that one ) with his fucking mother standing there and his heroic "apostles" running for the hills?  When you compile your list we can compare them to a list of interpolations which those same scholars have made in the so-called "authentic pauline corpus."

[Free]

It certainly fucking does. 1 Timothy, a forged piece of shit dated to the 2d century at the earliest is not a "primary source."

1. Prove it was forged.
2. Prove it is dated to the 2nd century.

Of course we both know you can't prove anything for the exact same reason we can't prove that Paul wrote any letters at all, or Tacitus and Josephus are the actual authors of the works ascribed to them. 

And again it doesn't matter even if the author is not Paul and it was dated to CE 110. What you are still left with is a letter that mentions Jesus standing before Pilate and it predates the bible, and what was written there is confirmed by Tacitus.

And also ... it's not lost on anyone that you are ignoring the fact that the rest of the letters by Paul mention Jesus being crucified at least 10 times, and since we have numerous sources telling us it was Pilate who crucified him ... the imaginary legs you are standing on get blown out from under you with such a ferocity that I find it exceptionally amusing to see you desperately trying to stand when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Your pal, Paul.... and you don't say which Paul is your pal.... there are several different Pauls, only managed to hallucinate conversations with the godboy.  He never met him or saw him on earth.

Your original comment was:  "The only reason I put emphasis on the crucifixion is because we have numerous records of that event, which strongly increases the high probability that Jesus existed, and was crucified by Pilate."

I'm still waiting for a primary source that mentions Pilate.  I know all about the secondary, tertiary, and just plain old gossip sources.  Those are fucking worthless.


But I already see how this is going to go.  So I may as well get my shots in.  We have nothing, nada, zilch, zip, fuckall, written by paul or any other jesus freak asshole from the first century.

Explain to me how it matters that Paul doesn't mention Pilate in any of the letters deemed authentic to him when we still see him mentioning the crucifixion at least 10 times?

Really Free, you are such a phony some times.

In regards to "Timothy" we have that same consensus of scholarly opinion that you steadfastly rely upon when you think it supports your bullshit coming up with the following:

https://discoveringancienthistory.wordpr...forgeries/

As mentioned before, seven of Paul’s Epistles are excepted as authentic by an overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars.  This statement should not be construed as some sort of argumentum ad populum or appeal to the masses, but is in fact limited to a select group of highly specialized scholars, who continually examine, affirm or discount the assertions of their colleagues in peer-reviewed literature.  With that said, the following seven Pauline Epistles are regarded as genuine, and having been personally authored by the Apostle Paul during his Christian ministry: Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon and First Thessalonians.

There are currently five Pauline Epistles which are known frauds: First and Second Timothy, Hebrews, Ephesians and Titus.  These texts are known as pseudepigraphical- falsely claimed (assigned) authorship. Each of these Epistles have their own issue(s) which demonstrate their status as forgeries.  By way of a short example, both First and Second Timothy contain structure(s) and language not found in any of Paul’s other letters.

BTW, one of those so-called "authentic" epistles, 2d Corinthians, is now known to be a mash-up of between 2-5 different letters and Bart Ehrman has taken apart the concept of authenticity in a video in the other thread.

You not only cherry-pick evidence, you cherry pick scholars and methods when it suits you.  You should correct that practice.  It is dishonest.

First of all the weasel words used by your source caused me to be suspicious enough to check him out.  Patrick Lowinger is a known mythicst traveling in the same circle with Carrier, and they even do podcasts together. Also, he's not employed anywhere with his qualifications.

Reputable historians would not use the words "known frauds, forgeries, et al" in relation to those epistles for the simple reason that despite a split in the scholarly world regarding their authenticity, it is still unknown if those epistles are, in fact, pseudo-graphic.  Only someone with a bone to pick would use such language, and it's unprofessional.

His opinion is dismissed.

As for your second attempt at a "Gotcha" remember this?

Your original comment was:  "The only reason I put emphasis on the crucifixion is because we have numerous records of that event, which strongly increases the high probability that Jesus existed, and was crucified by Pilate."

I asked you for a primary source which sustains that position.  You tossed out a fraudulent piece of shit.  I'm still waiting for an actual source which supports your claim.

As far as I am concerned right now all you are doing is repeating xtian mythology concocted sometime in the 2d century and insisting that it is true.

There's nothing fraudulent about what we see in 1 Timothy. Just because we can't be 100% certain of the authorship has no bearing whatsoever on what is written. It doesn't matter if was Paul, Peter, or anyone else from that era; it doesn't change the fact that what was written is STILL a reference to Jesus standing before Pilate. 

For example, if suddenly it was revealed that it was someone named Jonah who wrote it, how does that change anything? How does that change what was written?

It doesn't.

Oh, and finally:

Explain to me how it matters that Paul doesn't mention Pilate in any of the letters deemed authentic to him when we still see him mentioning the crucifixion at least 10 times?

Which of those 10 indicates that this supposed crucifixion happened on earth?  In Jerusalem?  By Pilate( well, we already know you can't do that one ) with his fucking mother standing there and his heroic "apostles" running for the hills?  When you compile your list we can compare them to a list of interpolations which those same scholars have made in the so-called "authentic pauline corpus."

Oh here ya go! 

Everybody get on the Earl Doherty Express!!!

[Inkubus]

There's nothing fraudulent about what we see in 1 Timothy. Just because we can't be 100% certain of the authorship has no bearing whatsoever on what is written. It doesn't matter if was Paul, Peter, or anyone else from that era; it doesn't change the fact that what was written is STILL a reference to Jesus standing before Pilate. 

If we don't know who wrote it then we don't know when it was written or why it was written, we don't know who the intended audience was.

[Free]

There's nothing fraudulent about what we see in 1 Timothy. Just because we can't be 100% certain of the authorship has no bearing whatsoever on what is written. It doesn't matter if was Paul, Peter, or anyone else from that era; it doesn't change the fact that what was written is STILL a reference to Jesus standing before Pilate. 

If we don't know who wrote it then we don't know when it was written or why it was written, we don't know who the intended audience was.

We know it's been there for at least 1900 years if it is pseudo-graphical. Almost 2000 years if it was actually Paul. Regardless which one, it's still within decades of the crucifixion.