Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Minimalist]

Actually, we have the same kind of shit for Mo that we have for jesus.... the sincerely held beliefs of believers written down about 80-100 years after the supposed fact with no historical records worth a shit to back any of it up.

[eider]

Hang on..... are you telling me that Paul DID write a single line about Jesus?  I'm telling you that he didn't...apart from tsome last meal.

Correct. 

Are you telling me that there were Roman forces all over Galilee which was ruled by a Jewish Tetrarch?  Wrong again.

I didn't write that! I wrote the opposite.  Antipas had his own government and force.

Are you telling me that there is a better deposition than G-Mark, once the additions and fiddles have been redacted?

No there isn't.......  is English your first language?

[eider]

I have studied the time, and you have no evidence for even ONE thing you assert.
I got nothing wrong there.

Oh yes you did.  You even suggested that I am Christian. 

You have no evidence for a "John the Baptist". You actually have no evidence for a "Jesus of Nazareth" and even if you think you do, you have no way of distinguishing between him and all the other similar Jesuses of the time. There are scholars who try to say Jesus was an Essene. We don't know. Saying "just not god of the universe" is a fatuous comment, as it would have been blasphemous to equate anyone with Yahweh. Much later, the Christians endowed him with "divinity". Of course no Jew equated him with Yahweh.

J the B..... Josephus and G-Mark deposition.
Jesus..... The entry by Josephus (although not the words). G-Mark deposition. 
Hey! Even enemies of Christianity accepted a Jesus and his boatmen and taxmen followers!
It's no good you telling me about what various scholars say about other stuff......   you need to focus on what I wrote, yes?
And a Deist certainly doesn't believe that Jesus or any other was/is God of this universe. 

No Jew said even Yahweh was the "god of the universe".  He was (only) the God of Israel. What, you never read Deuteronomy ?
There were many "sons of God", to a Jew it simply meant they were a righteous person.
Again you have no evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth. Your sentences just above are what is known as a non-sequitur. It's meaningless.
One does not follow from the one before. You have no evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth was real.

Deuteronomy cannot provide any evidence for JtheB nor Jesus....don't know why you mention it, although I do like reading that book.
And it's no good to repeat yourself..... you cannot add strength to your incorrect points by doing that. 

Most of all, your personal discomfort with their ancient economic and religious system is 110 % irrelevant.
Judging ancient cultures by modern standards, and worse, "personal standards", is known in the study of History as "presentism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
You are committing "presentism", if not just judging arbitrarily and capriciously.

Don't add stuff to what I wrote. But you can assume that I think that human nature runs true through all ages, and that the Priesthood of that time was greedy, corrupted, hypocritical and a bunch of quislings.

I never said you were a Christian. I said you bought their world-view, and indeed you again proved it, and repeated the same prejudiced error with your use of the phrase "money-go-round". You have no  information AT ALL to judge ancient Judaism, clearly you know nothing about their culture and how they did EXACTLY what every other ancient culture did with respect to their gods and worship sites. If you have evidence lets have the academic references. About 5-10 will do fine.

Deists don't buy the world views of others,  and my mention of money-go-round was exactly correct.
Have you studied this period?

You need to actually start your study of History formally from someone who can guide you away from such common mistakes and amateur errors.

Like you?  You don't seem to know a deposition when you see one.  
If you think you can debate me over the historical Jesus then please do so.

There you go again. Your personal opinion of their ancient cultural practices are utterly irrelevant. More presentism.
The ONLY question, is, "did they consider it a rip off". No one cares if YOU consider it one.
You have presented no evidence THEY considered it a "rip-off". 

Do you think that Jesus and his wrecked Anna's bazaar and picketed the Temple Courts two days running for nothing?
Have you studied all this?

Obviously they did not, as many many thousands, possibly millions of people attended the festivals every year.
No one forced them to attend any festival.
What an incredibly ignorant statement. "As if" anyone cares about your opinion of what they did.
They did it as they found it worth-while.
But go ahead ... make you ignorant judgmental claims, with no support, and keep making a fool of yourself.
How infantile.

You mean that you haven't heard of the pressures that were put upon Northern Jews to attend festivals at times?

Just ranting and throwing your 'ignorant' insults at folks is not a sign of competent research carried out, Bucky Ball.

[Cavebear]

Hey, calm down a bit guys.  I can't tell who is saying what any more and who is atheist or not.  I mean, I'm always up for a good argument about theistic texts, but you are both getting a bit more "angrier than useful" to discussion.

How about you each express a summary of your views in (say) 8 lines here just to help us all understand the basic yells?

[Inkubus]

Hang on..... are you telling me that Paul DID write a single line about Jesus?  I'm telling you that he didn't...apart from tsome last meal.

Correct. 

Are you telling me that there were Roman forces all over Galilee which was ruled by a Jewish Tetrarch?  Wrong again.

I didn't write that! I wrote the opposite.  Antipas had his own government and force.

Are you telling me that there is a better deposition than G-Mark, once the additions and fiddles have been redacted?

No there isn't.......  is English your first language?

What the fuck are you up to?

On the 23 June *you* wrote:
https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid364986

Hang on..... are you telling me that Paul DID write a single line about Jesus?  I'm telling you that he didn't...apart from tsome last meal...

...Are you telling me that there were Roman forces all over Galilee which was ruled by a Jewish Tetrarch?  Wrong again...

...Are you telling me that there is a better deposition than G-Mark, once the additions and fiddles have been redacted?

You can't blame the fucked up quote function for this one.

[Cavebear]

Oh well, I tried...

[jimhabegger]

Oh well, I tried...

I've watched these debates sometimes, and I'm thinking that the arguments on both sides are partly based on theories about human behavior, but I haven't seen what ground anyone is standing on for those theories, on either side, other than some examples of alleged happenings that fit their theory.

(edited to add the following)
... theories about human behavior in general, for example about how beliefs can or can not become popular, and more specifically about the motives, intentions, character and capacities of the people who wrote the gospels, and all the ones before them who told the stories that their stories were based on.

[Minimalist]

Any discussion which treats any part of the Holy Horseshit as somehow relevant becomes worthless.  The self-serving rantings of later believers are designed to solidify the position of their particular variant not to establish what happened or why.

Which leaves us with trying to evaluate this stuff in the light of what little actual historical/archaeological information we have.  Not an easy task.

But as every other religion demonstrates an actual human or god is not needed to kick-start it.  They spring up all by themselves from the fertile minds of men.

[Free]

I have studied the time, and you have no evidence for even ONE thing you assert.
I got nothing wrong there.

Oh yes you did.  You even suggested that I am Christian. 

You have no evidence for a "John the Baptist". You actually have no evidence for a "Jesus of Nazareth" and even if you think you do, you have no way of distinguishing between him and all the other similar Jesuses of the time. There are scholars who try to say Jesus was an Essene. We don't know. Saying "just not god of the universe" is a fatuous comment, as it would have been blasphemous to equate anyone with Yahweh. Much later, the Christians endowed him with "divinity". Of course no Jew equated him with Yahweh.

J the B..... Josephus and G-Mark deposition.
Jesus..... The entry by Josephus (although not the words). G-Mark deposition. 
Hey! Even enemies of Christianity accepted a Jesus and his boatmen and taxmen followers!
It's no good you telling me about what various scholars say about other stuff......   you need to focus on what I wrote, yes?
And a Deist certainly doesn't believe that Jesus or any other was/is God of this universe. 

No Jew said even Yahweh was the "god of the universe".  He was (only) the God of Israel. What, you never read Deuteronomy ?
There were many "sons of God", to a Jew it simply meant they were a righteous person.
Again you have no evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth. Your sentences just above are what is known as a non-sequitur. It's meaningless.
One does not follow from the one before. You have no evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth was real.

Deuteronomy cannot provide any evidence for JtheB nor Jesus....don't know why you mention it, although I do like reading that book.
And it's no good to repeat yourself..... you cannot add strength to your incorrect points by doing that. 

Most of all, your personal discomfort with their ancient economic and religious system is 110 % irrelevant.
Judging ancient cultures by modern standards, and worse, "personal standards", is known in the study of History as "presentism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
You are committing "presentism", if not just judging arbitrarily and capriciously.

Don't add stuff to what I wrote. But you can assume that I think that human nature runs true through all ages, and that the Priesthood of that time was greedy, corrupted, hypocritical and a bunch of quislings.

I never said you were a Christian. I said you bought their world-view, and indeed you again proved it, and repeated the same prejudiced error with your use of the phrase "money-go-round". You have no  information AT ALL to judge ancient Judaism, clearly you know nothing about their culture and how they did EXACTLY what every other ancient culture did with respect to their gods and worship sites. If you have evidence lets have the academic references. About 5-10 will do fine.

Deists don't buy the world views of others,  and my mention of money-go-round was exactly correct.
Have you studied this period?

You need to actually start your study of History formally from someone who can guide you away from such common mistakes and amateur errors.

Like you?  You don't seem to know a deposition when you see one.  
If you think you can debate me over the historical Jesus then please do so.

There you go again. Your personal opinion of their ancient cultural practices are utterly irrelevant. More presentism.
The ONLY question, is, "did they consider it a rip off". No one cares if YOU consider it one.
You have presented no evidence THEY considered it a "rip-off". 

Do you think that Jesus and his wrecked Anna's bazaar and picketed the Temple Courts two days running for nothing?
Have you studied all this?

Obviously they did not, as many many thousands, possibly millions of people attended the festivals every year.
No one forced them to attend any festival.
What an incredibly ignorant statement. "As if" anyone cares about your opinion of what they did.
They did it as they found it worth-while.
But go ahead ... make you ignorant judgmental claims, with no support, and keep making a fool of yourself.
How infantile.

You mean that you haven't heard of the pressures that were put upon Northern Jews to attend festivals at times?

Just ranting and throwing your 'ignorant' insults at folks is not a sign of competent research carried out, Bucky Ball.

Dude here is the cold hard truth.

All historians can actually say about Jesus can be summed up in the following.

"There was a Jesus whom many considered to be a Christ. He was crucified at the hand of Pontius Pilate circa CE 33." 

Period. End of discussion. that's all folks!

[Minimalist]

Yeah...and the basis for even that is exceedingly slim..... to the point of transparency!

[Bucky Ball]

I have studied the time, and you have no evidence for even ONE thing you assert.
I got nothing wrong there.

Oh yes you did.  You even suggested that I am Christian. 

You have no evidence for a "John the Baptist". You actually have no evidence for a "Jesus of Nazareth" and even if you think you do, you have no way of distinguishing between him and all the other similar Jesuses of the time. There are scholars who try to say Jesus was an Essene. We don't know. Saying "just not god of the universe" is a fatuous comment, as it would have been blasphemous to equate anyone with Yahweh. Much later, the Christians endowed him with "divinity". Of course no Jew equated him with Yahweh.

J the B..... Josephus and G-Mark deposition.
Jesus..... The entry by Josephus (although not the words). G-Mark deposition. 
Hey! Even enemies of Christianity accepted a Jesus and his boatmen and taxmen followers!
It's no good you telling me about what various scholars say about other stuff......   you need to focus on what I wrote, yes?
And a Deist certainly doesn't believe that Jesus or any other was/is God of this universe. 

No Jew said even Yahweh was the "god of the universe".  He was (only) the God of Israel. What, you never read Deuteronomy ?
There were many "sons of God", to a Jew it simply meant they were a righteous person.
Again you have no evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth. Your sentences just above are what is known as a non-sequitur. It's meaningless.
One does not follow from the one before. You have no evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth was real.

Deuteronomy cannot provide any evidence for JtheB nor Jesus....don't know why you mention it, although I do like reading that book.
And it's no good to repeat yourself..... you cannot add strength to your incorrect points by doing that. 

Most of all, your personal discomfort with their ancient economic and religious system is 110 % irrelevant.
Judging ancient cultures by modern standards, and worse, "personal standards", is known in the study of History as "presentism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
You are committing "presentism", if not just judging arbitrarily and capriciously.

Don't add stuff to what I wrote. But you can assume that I think that human nature runs true through all ages, and that the Priesthood of that time was greedy, corrupted, hypocritical and a bunch of quislings.

I never said you were a Christian. I said you bought their world-view, and indeed you again proved it, and repeated the same prejudiced error with your use of the phrase "money-go-round". You have no  information AT ALL to judge ancient Judaism, clearly you know nothing about their culture and how they did EXACTLY what every other ancient culture did with respect to their gods and worship sites. If you have evidence lets have the academic references. About 5-10 will do fine.

Deists don't buy the world views of others,  and my mention of money-go-round was exactly correct.
Have you studied this period?

You need to actually start your study of History formally from someone who can guide you away from such common mistakes and amateur errors.

Like you?  You don't seem to know a deposition when you see one.  
If you think you can debate me over the historical Jesus then please do so.

There you go again. Your personal opinion of their ancient cultural practices are utterly irrelevant. More presentism.
The ONLY question, is, "did they consider it a rip off". No one cares if YOU consider it one.
You have presented no evidence THEY considered it a "rip-off". 

Do you think that Jesus and his wrecked Anna's bazaar and picketed the Temple Courts two days running for nothing?
Have you studied all this?

Obviously they did not, as many many thousands, possibly millions of people attended the festivals every year.
No one forced them to attend any festival.
What an incredibly ignorant statement. "As if" anyone cares about your opinion of what they did.
They did it as they found it worth-while.
But go ahead ... make you ignorant judgmental claims, with no support, and keep making a fool of yourself.
How infantile.

You mean that you haven't heard of the pressures that were put upon Northern Jews to attend festivals at times?
Just ranting and throwing your 'ignorant' insults at folks is not a sign of competent research carried out, Bucky Ball.

Guess what, ... you get to PROVE your claim about the Northern Kingdom Jews. Since you -- :
a. have proven yourself to be totally incapable of even beginning to discuss this subject,
b. and have at no point offered even one shred of evidence for anything you *claim*, your assertions are all dismissed.

You are are 100 % newbie here. I am here, and on the previous board (TTA) for about 10 years, from the time I was in graduate school
at an Ivy League program, getting a PhD in Ancient Semitic Languages and Cultures, (as many here know, who were with me on that journey).
I know more about the Ancient Near East than you could possibly dream of.
What ? You read one paper-back. LOL

So, yeah, Mr. Ignorant, you are not exactly the one who gets to lecture me about "competent research" ... you don't even know what that involves ... you and your Presentism, and ignorant "rip-off" bullshit. LOLOL

[Bucky Ball]

Hey! Even enemies of Christianity accepted a Jesus and his boatmen and taxmen followers!
It's no good you telling me about what various scholars say about other stuff......   you need to focus on what I wrote, yes?
And a Deist certainly doesn't believe that Jesus or any other was/is God of this universe. 

Actually I don't. You have nothing to offer here.
You are a scholar of nothing, who didn't even know about Presentism.

Deuteronomy cannot provide any evidence for JtheB nor Jesus....don't know why you mention it, although I do like reading that book.
And it's no good to repeat yourself..... you cannot add strength to your incorrect points by doing that. 

As you know nothing about the subjects at hand, the *point* went over your head.
If you ever go read Deuteronomy, you will read about a *higher* Deity giving to Yahweh Israel,
*not* the entire universe. You see ignorant one, the Jews didn't even know about galaxies, much less "universes",
and never thought in those terms. That's why I mentioned it. It proves what you inferred about a "God of the Universe" to be ignorant and totally off-base.

Don't add stuff to what I wrote. But you can assume that I think that human nature runs true through all ages, and that the Priesthood of that time was greedy, corrupted, hypocritical and a bunch of quislings.

LOL. More Presentism. The Jews did not think of the priests as "quislings". You don't even know where that term came from.
BTW, I will say or comment on any fucking thing I want. You don't tell me to do anything. How long have you been here spouting your shit ? Two weeks ? LMAO.

Deists don't buy the world views of others,  and my mention of money-go-round was exactly correct.
Have you studied this period?

See above. LOL
In your ignorant biased presentist *opinion* it was a money-go-round. You gave supported that with no references, nor have you proven THE JEWS thought that.
Your opinions are dismissed. No one cares what you think about ancient cultures and practices, judged from today's standards. How ignorant can you get ?

Like you?  You don't seem to know a deposition when you see one.  
If you think you can debate me over the historical Jesus then please do so.

A what ? A "deposition" ? LOLOLOL Do you even know what THAT word means ? A fucking deposition... in what lawyers office ? LOL.

Do you think that Jesus and his wrecked Anna's bazaar and picketed the Temple Courts two days running for nothing?
Have you studied all this?

Prove it. Prove any of that happened. You have no evidence. At all. If you have studied it, you should be able to offer ONE reference. You've offered nothing. At all. period.

[Bucky Ball]

Oh yes you did.  You even suggested that I am Christian. 

I did not.
You MISINTERPRETED what I said about "Christian propaganda".
The Christian propaganda "about" a subject in no way infers you are a Christian.
You did buy the propaganda about Judaism.
Is English your first language ?
Have you ever debated anyone before ?

Deism is the same shit as theism.
A non-intervening deity (which there is not a shred of evidence for) is no different that a theist deity.
What we *observe* is the SAME universe we would expect to see, if there were no deities.
(I actually don't think you even know what deism is).

You have provided NOT ONE piece of evidence concerning ANY of you assertions.
You *claim* to have studied the period. I highly doubt it. You are not conversant either with the scholarship OR even the popular writers.
You can't reference even ONE work. Your assertions are worthless.
What, exactly, is a "money-go-round", what are you talking about, how much are the priests taking, and how do you know all this, exactly ?
Tell us when historically the temple priesthood began, what their take was of the sacrifices, and how you know what you think you know. Then tell us how the temple priesthood around the turn of the millennium differed from the traditional priesthood, and how that difference mad it a "money-go-round", then compare and contrast that with the surrounding cultures, and how it differed from them. Take your time.
Let's see your references ? Either that is answered next, ... or I'll waste no more time on you.

[Minimalist]

Guess what, ... you get to PROVE your claim about the Northern Kingdom Jews. Since you -- :

Not to interject into what has become a two-way pissing contest but the alleged orthodoxy of Galilean jews is open to serious question.  For the most part Galilee was an area rebuilt by Antipas in the Roman style after the revolts of 4 BC.  As Josephus recounts, when he led his army north in 67 the cities of Tiberias and Sepphoris closed their gates to him, told him to "get the fuck out of here," and invited in Roman garrisons.

I doubt those people spent a lot of time in the fucking temple.

[Bucky Ball]

Hang on..... are you telling me that Paul DID write a single line about Jesus?  I'm telling you that he didn't...apart from tsome last meal.
Correct. 

Philippians 2:5:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Woops.

(Oh wait. Never mind. He was talking about a "different" Jebus).
LOL

[Minimalist]

apart from tsome last meal.

Carrier notes that some sort of communal meal was a staple feature of other mystery cult religions of the time.

[Rhythmcs]

I doubt those people spent a lot of time in the fucking temple.

Just like the modern day nuts, who spend little to no time in all sorts of public institutions...but have oh so many opinions about how they should be run, and how people should behave in them.  

Temple sucks, everything's over-priced, the shamans are con artists, and the other patrons are insufficiently committed to sparkle motion.  This is a running theme in the ot and in rabbinic sources.  They've made god angry again, about whatever god is getting angry about at the present moment. It's very much an expression of a rural and urban cultural divide. In the post exile community, the story became that the sinful urbanites were cleansed from the land - so..say hello to the new boss!

More than a few peasants must have wondered who these pretty babylonian fucks thought they were - and it begins all over again.

[jimhabegger]

Browsing through the Wikipedia article "Historical Jesus," it's looking to me like all of the criteria that have been used by historians to say that Jesus existed were invented for the purpose of being able to say that he existed.

(edited to add the following)

If I'm understanding it correctly, the "scholarly consensus" on the existence of Jesus is actually an unspoken agreement among most of the historians who write about Jesus, to keep inventing new ways of being able to say that he existed.

[Minimalist]

Great post, Jim.  I wish I could have LIKED it twice.

That scholarly consensus is mainly concerned with maintaining the viability of some asshole named jesus actually walking around.  Where it breaks down is that all of them seem to see a different guy behind the curtain.

It's almost as if they made the whole fucking thing up!

[jimhabegger]

Where it breaks down is that all of them seem to see a different guy behind the curtain.

I noticed that too. 

I found a list of other people, Pythagoras and Homer for example, whose existence is questioned, and I don't think that any of them have as many personalities diverging as widely from each other as the personalities of "the historical Jesus." Looks pretty suspicious to me.

[Minimalist]

At least in the case of Pythagoras we do have writings of contemporaries of his who mention his existence.  In fact, if we had anything remotely like that for this jesus guy we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.


But we don't.

[Bucky Ball]

There were hundreds of gospels. Some of them really quite bizarre.
Orthodox authorities burned a lot of them.
Some were saved, but just barely.
Clearly the authors felt free to make up anything they wanted.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/artic...%20century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

[mordant]

There were hundreds of gospels. Some of them really quite bizarre.
Orthodox authorities burned a lot of them.
Some were saved, but just barely.
Clearly the authors felt free to make up anything they wanted.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/artic...%20century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

I think the authors of the canonical gospels also felt free to make up anything they wanted. There's plentiful evidence that others inserted stuff to tweak canonical texts, too (interpolations). Some of the non-canonical stuff is particularly amateurish, but there's nothing about the canonical material that's less fantastical and fabulist. We are just more used to it, is all.

[Bucky Ball]

There were hundreds of gospels. Some of them really quite bizarre.
Orthodox authorities burned a lot of them.
Some were saved, but just barely.
Clearly the authors felt free to make up anything they wanted.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/artic...%20century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

I think the authors of the canonical gospels also felt free to make up anything they wanted. There's plentiful evidence that others inserted stuff to tweak canonical texts, too (interpolations). Some of the non-canonical stuff is particularly amateurish, but there's nothing about the canonical material that's less fantastical and fabulist. We are just more used to it, is all.

The most telling reason about the canonical gospels was the one Irenaeus used about why there should be four gospels, and why it was OK to suppress all the others. Irenaeus of Lyon in "Adversus Haereses" declared that the four he espoused were the four pillars of the Church: ‘it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four’ as there are 4 corners of the earth and 4 winds.

[eider]

Hey, calm down a bit guys.  I can't tell who is saying what any more and who is atheist or not.  I mean, I'm always up for a good argument about theistic texts, but you are both getting a bit more "angrier than useful" to discussion.

How about you each express a summary of your views in (say) 8 lines here just to help us all understand the basic yells?

Good idea..........  OK..........
In early 1st century The Jewish Great Temple in Jerusalem was a corrupted, money-go=round that had lost its way.
People like John the Baptist were offering 'cleansing and redemption' for nothing and so this attracted crowds and reduced Temple takings.
After the Baptist was stopped Jesus tried to take a similar campaign forward, but he got little support in his home province and so tried to gain huge support at a Great Feast, at the Temple.
He caused mayhem and riot in the Temple two days running and was stopped. (Hang on..... only four sentences left!!  )
The Roman Prefect was sympathetic to this rioter and it's possible that Jesus may have survived that week, but naturally.... I don't think that 'God' is even aware of us here, so the Christian bit doesn't imnpress me.

That's about it.........  It's a tiny event in a big big world, but it was used to sprout a very clever system of control, the Romans could threaten a three day self torturing death in the most horrific way, but Christianity can really scare folks with unbearable torture FOR ETERNITY..... nice.