Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Rhythmcs]

Exactly. The HJ of The Consensus is pre-paul, pre-gospels, and completely independent of them - as a hypothetical historic person. Paul and the gospels are the thing, in the HJ notion, that's getting in the way of figuring out who he was, not telling us who he was.

We can posit..if only for the purpose of conversation, that there really was some guy who got himself got by the romans for whatever - but that doesn't move the chains between HJ and MJ a single inch. I have no problem believing that there was a man, or many men - but none of them, whoever they were, appear to have had a meaningful effect on the religion professed in their alleged name or names. In this, the supposed debate between historicism and mythicism is just about pointless, as neither of them claim different things with respect to the actual religion. The historicists don't think that jesus the man is the explanation for the religion of paul or the gospel authors any more than mythicists do.

Kindof an open secret. As I keep repeating, The Consensus..those two words, are doing alot of heavy lifting. People think that it's something that it isn't, and means something that it doesn't.

[eider]

I have to ask........ did you read it recently?  Ever? 
If you scrutinized it very closely you would read a passage which almost certainly referred to the writer. 
And G-Mark is all about a man if you redact the fiddlings.  And then the other gospels begin to turn him in to....The God who created the whole universe and selected this planet among trillions to produce a creature like God's self after many billions of years. So can you see the difference? 

Have you studied G-Mark?

You are asserting here. Provide the passage that almost certainly refers to the writer.

So you never found it either! 
Have you read G-Mark? 
Are you really interested in G-Mark and it's author?

Let's just see if anybody has really studied G-Mark.  If you have then you would be able to tell me exactly what Jesus did after arriving in Jerusalem on that Palm Sunday.  If you can't tell me that then I know you have absolutely no interest in G-Mark or its author at all. 

Well, have you?  Are you?

[Rhythmcs]

I guess we could go through it here? It begins thusly "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet". Bam, done - not HJ. That's MJ..explicitly. An allegedly pre-existing belief to which a later man was later added.

[Free]

LOL
Nice story bro, but it needs some zombies and dragons.

I have proven (above posts) that in fact Paul did write about him, and you were unable to provide
any historical or scholarly support for your unsupported assertions about the the Jews of the day.
In fact the gospels refute your anti-Semitic view of the Jews and Jesus.

Paul's Jesus was VERY specifically written about a number of times.
Paul's Jesus was a celestial being who absolutely was also human being, with a specific human history who was crucified and died.
You may not like that, but that's what the texts show. A dual-nature. The Pauline Jesus was an "entity" .. BOTH human and divine.
You may not like that, ... but that's too bad. For anyone later to come along and attempt to deconstruct what was the Pauline concept into
separate "Biblical" and "historical" Jesuses is dishonest. Paul's Jesus was ONE entity, with two natures. Pauls' Jesus was BOTH a celestial being and a human historical being who was crucified and died. We know what the authors of the Pauline letters thought about THE Jesus they had in mind.

Philippians 2: 6-8 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!"
It doesn't matter what we think of this, ... or the fact that he's not interested in more human details. His Jesus was a dual-natured being who did actually suffer death. You can't supply your own definitions and then using that strawman say that Paul never talked about Jesus. Paul talked about HIS Jesus quite a lot.

This is not a nothing. 1 Corinthians 23-26 "23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."  ....... a Jewish human, participating (willingly) in a Jewish festival. You may not like the Pauline "school's" ideas but you don't get to make up shit about what they clearly wrote.

It's pretty obvious that Paul did not consider this entity (Jesus) as equivalent with "God" or Yahweh.
Philippians 2:9-11 "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." A deity higher than Jesus gave him something .. exaltation. The Jews thought that the heavenly host consisted of many divine beings, but none equivalent to "God"/Yahweh. Jesus Christ was one of those, maybe even the highest of "those", but not "the Father" who remained highest.

Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Jesus went to the temple, and preached in the temple. His followers went to the temple and prayed in the temple, (according to the gospels).
The story you paint of a rebel is not supported by anything. He said he didn't come to change anything.
He and his followers participated in the Jewish festivals and culture, and was sought out by all sorts of Jews, according to the stories about him.

Pauline quotes about Jesus :

Acts 22:20–21 “And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.”

Romans 5:1–2 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."'

1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 5:7–8 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

1 Corinthians 15:24–26 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1 Timothy 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

You poor old academic you.....! What waffle!

You showed nothing described by Paul, spoken or acted by Jesus in all that waffle, not one single incident during Jesus's campaign......... and then you slip in a quote from G-Matthew:-
Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

All those laws discarded and ignored by the Priesthood, the Jewish Leaders, which Jesus wanted FULFILLED.   He was obviously most interested in all the Poor-Laws. His words and actions show that clearly.

Go and do some studying, is my suggestion.

You think you can come here with that attitude and expect us to take you seriously?

Me and Bucky have had some massive arguments here and elsewhere over the past decade, and as an historian I know that he knows his stuff inside and out, and has come a very long way over the past 10 years in that now he can teach me things that, although not in my expertise, are very enlightening.

So ... who the fuck are you?

[Free]

You are asserting here. Provide the passage that almost certainly refers to the writer.

So you never found it either! 
Have you read G-Mark? 
Are you really interested in G-Mark and it's author?

Let's just see if anybody has really studied G-Mark.  If you have then you would be able to tell me exactly what Jesus did after arriving in Jerusalem on that Palm Sunday.  If you can't tell me that then I know you have absolutely no interest in G-Mark or its author at all. 

Well, have you?  Are you?

^^^^ Alert! "Nice shiny object above!"

Post the goddamn passage or shut the fuck up.

[Rhythmcs]

Pissing contest is great, however.."as it is written in isaiah the prophet" is an explicit confirmation of mythicism. Is that important? Does it settle or suggest something?

[Free]

Nicely done.

Huh?  He showed not a single action or speech of Jesus (in life)and then snuck in a speech from Jesus out of G-Matthew.
Paul did refer to the win and bread ritual but that was about it.

You missed his entire point.

[Bucky Ball]

Let's just see if anybody has really studied G-Mark.  If you have then you would be able to tell me exactly what Jesus did after arriving in Jerusalem on that Palm Sunday.  If you can't tell me that then I know you have absolutely no interest in G-Mark or its author at all. 
Well, have you?  Are you?
... bla bla bla ...

Not really. You have no clue who the author was, and neither does anyone else.
The gospel has one of the versions of him stupidly doing what he was executed for. There are a number of other versions of it, including another in Mark.
He caused a ruckus in the temple ... the temple which was the economic life-blood of the entire city and surrounding region. The thing that fed and clothed THE PEOPLE.
He was then summarily executed by standing Roman order in the Pax Romana, and was tossed into a common grave.
It was as stupid as it would be to light a fire in the lobby of City Bank or Wells Fargo, because you don't like their "profit scheme".
Were the Jews staying away from Jerusalem because they thought the prices were too high ? LOL
The money-changers were necessary as Roman coin was "unclean" and the sacrificial animals has to be purchased in Jewish money.
It was a really really stupid thing to do, as the city had a perfect right to try to make a living, and no one forced them to buy anything,
or do anything. The priestly families in that culture had the right to take a small percentage, as they had been for hundreds of years.
Their work was valuable to the Jewish populace, in general. He was a Galilean peasant, ... a nobody. He was not tried, he was just executed, (if any of it happened at all).

BTW, in the 13th Chapter there it talks about the "Son of Man". If you actually did know Mark, or anything about the gospels, you woould not have made such an obvious and stupid error in your post about that title.

[Bucky Ball]

You poor old academic you.....! What waffle!

bla bla bla

All those laws discarded and ignored by the Priesthood, the Jewish Leaders, which Jesus wanted FULFILLED.   He was obviously most interested in all the Poor-Laws. His words and actions show that clearly.

Go and do some studying, is my suggestion.

LOL. ANYONE who does not agree with your ignorant amateurish nonsense needs to "study" ? LOL
Do you hand out certificates when anyone agrees "just enough" ?
You poor old anti-Semite, you. bla bla bla

You have no evidence there ever was a Jesus, or what he thought. All you know is what a few people believed about him.
You forgot in your hated of the ancient Jews, to tell us EXACTLY what laws the Jewish leaders discarded, what they wrote at the time about why they were doing that, and don't forget to include all your research in the Talmud, and why you think all the tings in it about they WROTE for anything they "changed" is invalid. Oh wait. You never read any of that. LOL

Since you seem to be claiming you're an expert on ancient economic systems, and you have judged some to be bad and some to be good,
what are your credentials for discussing ancient economic systems, and what standards are you using to make those judgement ?
Tell us what the thresholds are for your "bad" and your "good".
Be very specific. With whom have you studied and where ?

Also... this Hippy Jesus you espouse, is a bit of a hypocrite. According to you he hates the practices in the temple.
Practices that have been going on UNCHANGED for hundreds of years, (without any advice from you I might add).
Yet he seems to be hanging around the temple a lot. A lot, .... preaching it it, using the environment and the crowds there for his own purposes,
praying in it, his disciples prayed in it, and continued to after his death. It appears the temple practices didn't bother any of them *that* much.

[Rhythmcs]

Let's just see if anybody has really studied G-Mark.  If you have then you would be able to tell me exactly what Jesus did after arriving in Jerusalem on that Palm Sunday.  If you can't tell me that then I know you have absolutely no interest in G-Mark or its author at all. 
Well, have you?  Are you?
... bla bla bla ...

Not really. You have no clue who the author was, and neither does anyone else.

Whoever the author was, they just told us (in the preamble, no less) that they had a preexisting belief that they later added a later man to.

That's mythicism, no matter the name of the person writing it. That's mythicism, whether Eider is an anti-semite, or isn't an antisemite.

[Minimalist]

Thanks. Now I know that I need to read all the letters that say they're from Paul, to see if there are any other mentions of what Jesus said and did during his lifetime, not counting after his resurrection, if I really want to know. (to self: Hm. Do I really want to know, enough to put that much time into it?)

Easy!  If you download Paul's letters then you can use 'search' with the name 'Jesus' and you will see that there isn't a single anecdote or story about anything that Jesus said or did.

I did that already. I found three possible examples, but for my purposes in that search there would need to be many more.

Here, Jim.  In On The Historicity of Jesus, Carrier quotes the following passage.

v>
2. The Peculiar Indifference of Paul and his Christians

As a psychologist once put it (about Paul's letter to fellow congregants in
Rome, whom he had not yet met and thus can't have shared his own stories
with):

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page
letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher.
This letter has only one topic, your friend's new teacher. [But] at the end
of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul
presents the central figure of his theology this way  ..
.. It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of--or
fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of-Jesus.
3

Indeed, Paul mentions 'Jesus' or 'Christ' in his seven authentic letters at
least 280 times-and that doesn't count other references to him as only 'the
Lord' or 'Son of God'. Altogether, Paul found over three hundred occasions to mention Jesus (by some name or title), and on at least half of those occasions he tells us some particular fact or other about this Jesus. But (as we'll see) not one of those facts connects Jesus with an earthly life.

Pg 514

So much of this jesus shit is desperately imagining that they see what they want to see.

[Rhythmcs]

-and how could it be anything else, as they weren't selling a biography, they were selling a religious belief. I suppose it can't be put any more bluntly..but there's absolutely nothing about the NT that's trying to establish a man that existed or even depends on a man having ever existed. It is all about, from cover to cover, establishing a religion that didn't, regardless of whether some man did.

I mean, fuck, that's the totality of -all- religion. Not what is, but what some person(or some community)thinks should be.

[Minimalist]

The whole point of Pliny's letter is that he is making it up as he goes along.

That's a bit desperate Min, even for you.

He's looking for leadership from Trajan on what to do about the Christians. Nothing more, nothing less.

Moreover he makes clear that the complaint against this particular group was that they were holding political meetings which had been banned.

Trajan's reply is exceedingly mild.

Neither seems to know that they were dealing with a gang of crazed arsonists who tried to burn down the capitol a mere 40 odd years earlier as "Tacitus" ( Pliny's good friend!) is supposed to have reported.  That seems odd don't you think?

Both knew they were dealing with Christians ... after all ... it's right in your quote.

Oh, stop it.

Trajan's reply states:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it — that is, by worshiping our gods — even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

(I wish Trajan was on our SCOTUS - we could use a jurist like him!)

Two Roman aristocrats talking about a supposed anarchist group who tried to burn down the capitol and THIS is what the fucking emperor came up with?

You have a fabulous tendency to avoid seeing what is inconvenient to you, and, since you seem to be unable to stay off of the ad hominems you may start getting some back.

[Minimalist]

I don't know where Eider is getting this first century mark stuff.

But, it is obviously an embarrassment to the jesus freak establishment that there are no first century texts...and damned few second century texts... dealing with this stuff.

In a 2012 debate between Ehrman and Daniel Wallace, Wallace claimed that a recent find in Egypt, securely dated to the first century and that it would be published in the following year.  The years went by and nothing happened except lots of jesus freaks pissed their pants about this supposedly revolutionary "find."

It was a fraud.  Wallace, to his credit, had the personal decency to apologize to Ehrman although he seems to have been a victim of the scam rather than the perpetrator.

Nonetheless, this remains the case.

[Rhythmcs]

No general rule, no fixed standard. Seems to me, according to the historic record.... that by as late as 100ad there was no such thing as a "christian". Seems more like there were a bunch of things called christian (and hey, they hadn't quite sorted out what that meant themselves.....), for the same reasons we keep referring to some Mark, or some Paul...or....most glaringly, some fucking Jesus.

Convention.

Pliny isn't telling us about a historical jesus, he's telling us that there are a group of "other than romans" in his jurisdiction..and he has no fucking clue how to deal with them, and seemingly no knowledge that they're severely concerning (and militant!) dissidents. Say some words, drop some coin, charges forgotten...and further, we're looking into the assholes making accusations, cuz assholes, so sayeth the emperor of rome, no less.

There's really no other way to put this and it isn't even exclusively about this one thing..... The story of christianity, even the story as accepted by atheists? Complete bullshit.

[Free]

That's a bit desperate Min, even for you.

He's looking for leadership from Trajan on what to do about the Christians. Nothing more, nothing less.



Both knew they were dealing with Christians ... after all ... it's right in your quote.

Oh, stop it.

Trajan's reply states:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it — that is, by worshiping our gods — even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

(I wish Trajan was on our SCOTUS - we could use a jurist like him!)

Two Roman aristocrats talking about a supposed anarchist group who tried to burn down the capitol and THIS is what the fucking emperor came up with?

You have a fabulous tendency to avoid seeing what is inconvenient to you, and, since you seem to be unable to stay off of the ad hominems you may start getting some back.

They are talking about Christians. Trajan is telling Pliny how to punish them. He's telling Pliny not to bother looking for them, but wait until they have been "denounced" as Christians- which is a formal accusation as opposed to an anonymous one- and if they are found guilty of being a Christian they are to be punished unless they prove they are not a Christian by worshipping the Roman gods. After they prove they are not Christians, they will receive a pardon through the repentance procedure, which is by worshipping the Roman gods.

Whatever YOU are seeing isn't there.

[Inkubus]

And Tacitus referred to Jesus over a century after he had dissappeared from the scene.

No, he did not.

Thank goodness for that!  So we can forget Tacitus..........I have to tell you that I never did bother with Tacitus!
Heh-Heh! 

Dude I must ask, and I'm not mocking you in any way I am perfectly capable of doing that it's what I'm known for, its what I do but are you on the spectrum?

[Rhythmcs]

They are talking about Christians. Trajan is telling Pliny how to punish them. He's telling Pliny not to bother looking for them, but wait until they have been "denounced" as Christians- which is a formal accusation as opposed to an anonymous one- and if they are found guilty of being a Christian they are to be punished unless they prove they are not a Christian by worshipping the Roman gods. After they prove they are not Christians, they will receive a pardon through the repentance procedure, which is by worshipping the Roman gods.

Whatever YOU are seeing isn't there.

Correct, christians, not christ, and certainly not any HJ.

-and as we all know, that's how people deal with known terrorists......  Bells, balls, yanking the other one.

[Free]

They are talking about Christians. Trajan is telling Pliny how to punish them. He's telling Pliny not to bother looking for them, but wait until they have been "denounced" as Christians- which is a formal accusation as opposed to an anonymous one- and if they are found guilty of being a Christian they are to be punished unless they prove they are not a Christian by worshipping the Roman gods. After they prove they are not Christians, they will receive a pardon through the repentance procedure, which is by worshipping the Roman gods.

Whatever YOU are seeing isn't there.

Correct, christians, not christ, and certainly not any HJ.

-and as we all know, that's how people deal with known terrorists......  Bells, balls, yanking the other one.

Here is the full text of the letters exchanged between Pliny and Trajan. Note the bold and underlined text where Christ is mentioned three times:

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

Trajan's Reply to Pliny

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Source.

[Inkubus]

...tell me exactly what Jesus did after arriving in Jerusalem on that Palm Sunday...

He died from having a javelin launched through his chest. Which is exactly what would happen if you have a large group of people following you around while living in Roman occupied territory.

[Rhythmcs]

We have the same text, Free - I just don't think it means what you think it means...and, to continue putting a fine point on it. Christ...is not....HJ.

It's all silly, imo, in the end. There is absolutely no surviving HJ. There may have been one, but we have no information about whoever that was (and thats even according to the HJ-ists). All that survived, and all that you just bolded....the churn... was christ. Christ this, christ that, christ the other thing.

[Free]

We have the same text, Free - I just don't think it means what you think it means...and, to continue putting a fine point on it.  Christ...is not....HJ.

Pliny is informing Trajan that the Christians are worshiping Christ as though he were a god. Tacitus tells us that the Christians were so named after Christ. Josephus tells us that this Christ bore the Hebrew name of Yeshua/Jesus. All available texts inform us that Christ and Jesus are one and the same, and that this Jesus, called Christ by many, was crucified by Pilate circa CE33.

There is not, and never will be, any absolute proof that this Jesus actually existed. However, the evidence to support his existence is more than sufficient to arrive as a conclusion that the "argument" for historicity is far superior than the argument for complete mythology.

With me, it has always been about the argument, since I already know ancient history can never be conclusively proven.

[Inkubus]

I did that already. I found three possible examples, but for my purposes in that search there would need to be many more.

Here, Jim.  In On The Historicity of Jesus, Carrier quotes the following passage.

v>
2. The Peculiar Indifference of Paul and his Christians

As a psychologist once put it (about Paul's letter to fellow congregants in
Rome, whom he had not yet met and thus can't have shared his own stories
with):

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page
letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher.
This letter has only one topic, your friend's new teacher. [But] at the end
of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul
presents the central figure of his theology this way  ..
.. It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of--or
fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of-Jesus.
3

Indeed, Paul mentions 'Jesus' or 'Christ' in his seven authentic letters at
least 280 times-and that doesn't count other references to him as only 'the
Lord' or 'Son of God'. Altogether, Paul found over three hundred occasions to mention Jesus (by some name or title), and on at least half of those occasions he tells us some particular fact or other about this Jesus. But (as we'll see) not one of those facts connects Jesus with an earthly life.

Pg 514

So much of this jesus shit is desperately imagining that they see what they want to see.

I like Carrier's Roswell analogy:

What really happened? A guy found a bunch of sticks and tinfoil in the desert.
What was said to have happened? Immediately afterwards people claimed it was debris from a crashed UFO.
What was said to have happened within just thirty years? A flying saucer and alien bodies crashed and the US military recovered them and they autopsied the aliens and kept it all secret from the public.


And this all happened in the 20th century, in the era of universal literacy, modern journalism, TV and radio. If such a legend can grow so fast and still have millions of believers in modern times, how easy do you think it was for a legendary Jesus to have been made up and believed in by people during antiquity, where literacy was probably 5 percent or less, there was widespread superstition, and there were no newspapers, or journalism, or mass communication?

[Rhythmcs]

Here is the full text of the letters exchanged between Pliny and Trajan. Note the bold and underlined text where Christ is mentioned three times:

Exactly, christ..and once more for the peanut gallery..christ is not HJ.

Pliny has literally nothing to say about any HJ. He only knows about a christ, and what he knows about that..is...limited...to be generous. If we're deferring to The Consensus.........

[Free]

Here is the full text of the letters exchanged between Pliny and Trajan. Note the bold and underlined text where Christ is mentioned three times:

Exactly, christ..and once more for the peanut gallery..christ is not HJ.

Pliny has literally nothing to say about any HJ.  He only knows about a christ, and what he knows about that..is...limited...to be generous. If we're deferring to The Consensus.........

Just like in a trial, no singular piece of evidence is worth much standing on its own. Collectively, however, all the evidence, including Pliny, points directly at historicity.