Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Rhythmcs]

You don't know what was actually said, and the consensus of biblical scholars is that whatever it was, you won't find it in john or by reference to john. There's a difference between a secularized fan fic jesus, ala eider (and now, you too)...and a historical jesus.

Opinions, lol. I have opinions, you have opinions, we all have opinions - but if I offer my opinion that the whole thing is a windup and someone says "The consensus™!" - then they've locked themselves into that disputation of opinion by purported fact.


That person can no longer offer "opinions" outside of that purported fact while disregarding the opinions of others as preempted by the same purported fact.

[airportkid]

This event likely happened historically because it appears to be too complex of an argument to be invented by a Christian, and it contradicts Christian beliefs, so much in fact that they had to interpolate the text to give the impression that Jesus was God and the only Son of God. But upon close examination, we can see what he really said, and it's not what Christianity claims it to be.

Because it's unlikely a Christian would write something opposing their dogma, it must be true?  No chance somebody else thought it'd make a cool piece of fiction?  People all over the world have written things opposing Christian dogma by the trillions of words for hundreds of years so ALL of it must be true because no Christian would write such things?

That looks like VERY flawed logic.

[Rhythmcs]

Additionally.. the christian religion is, by definition, a rejection of the jewish religion. Why wouldn't some nut say some thing that doesn't fit with a religion they're allegedly in the process of reforming....? Honestly, all I see is a heads jesus wins tails joos lose bit, here.

[Free]

This event likely happened historically because it appears to be too complex of an argument to be invented by a Christian, and it contradicts Christian beliefs, so much in fact that they had to interpolate the text to give the impression that Jesus was God and the only Son of God. But upon close examination, we can see what he really said, and it's not what Christianity claims it to be.

Because it's unlikely a Christian would write something opposing their dogma, it must be true?  No chance somebody else thought it'd make a cool piece of fiction?  People all over the world have written things opposing Christian dogma by the trillions of words for hundreds of years so ALL of it must be true because no Christian would write such things?

That looks like VERY flawed logic.

It's not just the opposition to their dogma, but the complexity of the argument itself and the fact that my analysis demonstrates that there was an original text that the Christians then interpolated to reflect what you see in that Gospel.

[Free]

Additionally.. the christian religion is, by definition, a rejection of the jewish religion.  Why wouldn't some nut say some thing that doesn't fit with a religion they're allegedly in the process of reforming....?  Honestly, all I see is a heads jesus wins tails joos lose bit, here.

If Jesus existed the way I understand him, it isn't much wonder why the Jews would want to stone him. I see Jesus as being more of a polytheist than a monotheist. Not that he was a polytheist, but I see leanings towards it.

[Free]

You don't know what was actually said

Actually I know what was actually said in the oldest text available in Greek, and I have given you that. Translating from the oldest texts is a decades old hobby of mine. I use all modern scholarship to my advantage.

It is what I gave you. But if you are asking if Jesus actually said anything there or if that actually happened, then that all rests with the answer to a couple questions.

Q: Did Jesus exist as an ordinary man?

A: More likely than not.

Q: Did Jesus positively exist as an ordinary man?

A: I haven't a fucking clue.

[Rhythmcs]

The consensus of modern scholarship disagrees with your opinion. Assuming jesus was a real boy, nothing about him can be found in john or by reference to john. Your opinion about what jesus really said, in reference to johannine text, is equivalent to some superfan who doubts that thor -of the marvel IP- would actually say what he did in the movies.

[Free]

The consensus of modern scholarship disagrees with your opinion.  Assuming jesus was a real boy, nothing about him can be found in john or by reference to john.  Your opinion about what jesus really said, in reference to johannine text, is equivalent to some superfan who doubts that thor -of the marvel IP-  would actually say what he did in the movies.

Dude, you're out of your fucking mind.

And way out of your league. 

[Rhythmcs]

Additionally.. the christian religion is, by definition, a rejection of the jewish religion.  Why wouldn't some nut say some thing that doesn't fit with a religion they're allegedly in the process of reforming....?  Honestly, all I see is a heads jesus wins tails joos lose bit, here.

If Jesus existed the way I understand him, it isn't much wonder why the Jews would want to stone him. I see Jesus as being more of a polytheist than a monotheist. Not that he was a polytheist, but I see leanings towards it.

-and yet, given some story that you think is historical, bout a bunch of people with stones already in hand and calling Some Guy a blasphemer...you think there was a Historical Event™ where he talked them out of murdering him.  This is ludicrous.  It's a little miracle, like the turning of the tables or the stopping of earth for a battle where we don't all fling off the surface into space.

The romans would never have had to kill him if this had ever occurred, even in general.

[Free]

If Jesus existed the way I understand him, it isn't much wonder why the Jews would want to stone him. I see Jesus as being more of a polytheist than a monotheist. Not that he was a polytheist, but I see leanings towards it.

-and yet, given some story that you think is historical, bout a bunch of people with stones already in hand and calling Some Guy a blasphemer...you think there was a Historical Event™ where he talked him out of murdering them.  This is ludicrous.  It;s a little miracle, like the turning of the tables of the stopping of earth for a battle where we don't all fling off the surface into space.

The romans would never have had to kill him if this had ever occurred, even in general.

Min? Min?

We need the grammar police immediately!

[Dancefortwo]

As far as I'm aware the oldest fragment of the New Testament is from "John".  It's about the size of a credit card.  It's dated  between 125 to 175 CE however it could be later.  What's interesting is that P 52  (it's called P 52 because it's the 52nd fragment of papyrus with NT writing on it that was found)  anyway, what's interesting is that experts who study ancient calligraphy say the writer was a non- professional,  judging from the ink and flow of the writing.   

  

So the oldest NT text were written by Joe-schmo with various mistakes in the lettering, not Joe the Professional Calligrapher. 

Just thought I'd bring this up.  

OK, continue on........   

[Rhythmcs]

Yes, my grammar is so bad, lets focus on that, because god forbid we have to deal with the content of my comments.

The consensus of scholars, which you have previously referrred to in order to poo-poo other opinions, which you acknowledge that your comments are...rejects the johannine text as historical.

Discuss.

[Free]

Yes, my grammar is so bad, lets focus on that, because god forbid we have to deal with the content of my comments.  

The consensus of scholars, which you have previously referrred to in order to poo-poo other opinions, which you acknowledge that your comments are...rejects the johannine text as historical.  

Discuss.

It's your attitude. If you want to fight, I am armed to the teeth.

If you want a civil discussion, I am still armed to the teeth.

Pick your poison, because I'm good with it either way.

[Free]

As far as I'm aware the oldest fragment of the New Testament is from "John".  It's about the size of a credit card.  It's dated  between 125 to 175 CE however it could be later.  What's interesting is that P 52  (it's called P 52 because it's the 52nd fragment of papyrus with NT writing on it that was found)  anyway, what's interesting is that experts who study ancient calligraphy say the writer was a non- professional,  judging from the ink and flow of the writing.   

  

So the oldest NT text were written by Joe-schmo with various mistakes in the lettering, not Joe the Professional Calligrapher. 

Just thought I'd bring this up.  

OK, continue on........   

I have no argument here.

[Rhythmcs]

Yes, my grammar is so bad, lets focus on that, because god forbid we have to deal with the content of my comments.  

The consensus of scholars, which you have previously referrred to in order to poo-poo other opinions, which you acknowledge that your comments are...rejects the johannine text as historical.  

Discuss.

It's your attitude. If you want to fight, I am armed to the teeth.

:chokes on drink:...Is that what this looks like?

If you want a civil discussion, I am still armed to the teeth.

Pick your poison, because I'm good with it either way.

Already did, The Consensus™ you have earlier referrred to as truthmaking.  It says you're full of shit about this "event" in john.

Now what? Do you or do you not think that The Consensus™ is truthmaking?

Ultimately, this is really simple. There either is or is not a consensus about a historical jesus....and this shit either does or does not make jesus shit more palatable, historically. If there is one, and it does, then you are plain and simply worng..in your opinion - and that's assuming jesus did exist. Your Johannine story is garbage by literally everyone's metrics - even jesus freaks. If a historical jesus did exist he never said that shit. So pick one or forever miss me about some hilarious consensus.

[Free]

It's your attitude. If you want to fight, I am armed to the teeth.

:chokes on drink:...Is that what this looks like?

If you want a civil discussion, I am still armed to the teeth.

Pick your poison, because I'm good with it either way.

Already did, The Consensus™ you have earlier referrred to as truthmaking.  It says you're full of shit about this "event" in john.

Prove it.

Your move.

[Rhythmcs]

What do you mean prove it? The Consensus™ isn't proven, it's just the consensus. It either is or is not truth making. You either do or do not defer to it.......?

I think it's bad form to defer to and insist on some consensus when a person argues against ones own position, and then simultaneously ignore that same consensus when it's profitable to one's own position.

What do you think? "John" is -historic- garbage. That's The Consensus™. You disagree, you think there must have been some -historic- event. Why?

Personal challenges are doomed, that's a big dick contest..and friend..are you sure I'm not slinging giant biblical D.....? Maybe google it...right? Is "john" a part of the purportedly historic jesus? I know what you'll find if you do.....

[Free]

What do you mean prove it?  The Consensus™ isn't proven, it's just the consensus. 

Prove that such a consensus exists.

[Minimalist]

The consensus when it comes to manuscript fragments like P 52 is largely an illusion.

https://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-f...pyrus-p52/

In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:
There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).
Biblical scholars should realise that some of the dates proposed by some of their colleagues are not acceptable to Greek palaeographers and papyrologists.

But why worry about a credit card sized item when P.66, which is a much larger papyrus and contains most of "john" - or whoever the fuck wrote it - and was dated to the early to mid 3d century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66

Far more for scholars to get their teeth into here.

Brent Nongbri has produced a broader study of the codex and argued that when one takes into consideration the format, construction techniques, and provenance of the codex along with the handwriting, it is more reasonable to conclude that the codex was produced "in the early or middle part of the fourth century."[3]

  Nongbri's work was published in 2014.

[Free]

The consensus when it comes to manuscript fragments like P 52 is largely an illusion.

https://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-f...pyrus-p52/

In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:
There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).
Biblical scholars should realise that some of the dates proposed by some of their colleagues are not acceptable to Greek palaeographers and papyrologists.

But why worry about a credit card sized item when P.66, which is a much larger papyrus and contains most of "john" - or whoever the fuck wrote it - and was dated to the early to mid 3d century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66

Far more for scholars to get their teeth into here.

Brent Nongbri has produced a broader study of the codex and argued that when one takes into consideration the format, construction techniques, and provenance of the codex along with the handwriting, it is more reasonable to conclude that the codex was produced "in the early or middle part of the fourth century."[3]

  Nongbri's work was published in 2014.

Sorry, but Godfrey doesn't cut it for any serious student, let alone scholars. I also have my doubts that he is still alive .... barely.

[Minimalist]

Oh, fuck off.  This is the shit you always pull.  When you have no answer you go straight for the ad hominems.  The only people you consider "real scholars" are the motherfuckers who agree with you.

Your act is getting very tiresome, man.  Deal with the question and stop trying to dodge with your horseshit.

[eider]

Historical Jesus ......... 6

Nazareth.

Rene Salm gathered a bunch of archaeological reports about the Hilltop believed to have been Nazareth and although it was found to have supported busy human activity in bronze and pre-bronze ages there was nothing but remains of a single building and oil lamp particles from that era to support any gospel accounts. If anybody demands a source for his opinions then please go buy his book 'The Myth of Nazareth'. The archaeology was sound, I expect, so let's go with the possibility of a building remains and those lamps, eh?

A two hour walk to the North or Nazareth is Sepphoris/Zippori.... Herod the Great had enjoyed his beautiful Ziporri (Birds-nest??), 7 acres of fine buildings and temples placed high of a 1000' hill-top. After Herod's death with the brigand Judas BarEzekiah invaded it and forced all inhabitants into loyalty for him. The acting Legate of Syria (Varus) sent a cohort and legions to retake and cleanse it by razing it all to the ground, selling all women and children from there in to slavery and forcing all male prisoners to carry out its destruction before being crucified.

And that was the situation when Herod Antipas was granted control of the Galilee and decided to rebuild that beautiful place for his own and visiting dignitaries' enjoyment. Thousands of labourers, hauliers, wood and stone workers, metal workers and all the support workers for those folks and their families must have poured in to the area for the work.

Zippori is a high hilltop on a very low lying plain and surrounded by many other small hilltops all around. Although these hilltops are too far away for daily travel to and from Zippori they were ideal centres for working men to keep their families. Simonias, Yafia, Nazareth, Traditional Cana, Khirbet Cana and about twenty other hills surrounding Zippori would have been inhabited. There would not have been enough space around the base of Zippori for all families, and high ground is more secure than the plain. And so Nazareth was populated with the families of working men.

So, why no building remains? Would you expect to find building remains, foundations etc upon Nazareth if there had been a busy community there in early 1st century CE?
I don't think that you would find any......... but how about your opinions?

[Free]

Oh, fuck off.  This is the shit you always pull.  When you have no answer you go straight for the ad hominems.  The only people you consider "real scholars" are the motherfuckers who agree with you.

Your act is getting very tiresome, man.  Deal with the question and stop trying to dodge with your horseshit.

No.

Godfrey is a glorified librarian. I can see an error in his article easily.

Can you? It's obvious, and in plain sight.

[Minimalist]

It is NOT his article.  He is quoting the findings of two experts in the field.

If you weren't so defensive of your horseshit maybe you could see that?

I really have a lot of trouble understanding you.  As I said before you come across as a total snob a lot of the time.

As with the earlier question of why Roman writers never heard of "jesus" before the late 2d century you strut around like the proverbial pigeon playing chess and act like such a fucking expert that you can't be bothered to answer the question at hand.  This whole "I know something you don't know" shit doesn't fly.

So, no.  These two guys are experts and Godfrey or anyone else is perfectly correct to cite them.  You would do well to take heed of his example.

[Free]

It is NOT his article.  He is quoting the findings of two experts in the field.

If you weren't so defensive of your horseshit maybe you could see that?

I really have a lot of trouble understanding you.  As I said before you come across as a total snob a lot of the time.

As with the earlier question of why Roman writers never heard of "jesus" before the late 2d century you strut around like the proverbial pigeon playing chess and act like such a fucking expert that you can't be bothered to answer the question at hand.  This whole "I know something you don't know" shit doesn't fly.

So, no.  These two guys are experts and Godfrey or anyone else is perfectly correct to cite them.  You would do well to take heed of his example.

Min, the problem is this. All your sources are fringe or unqualified. You constantly criticize the established consensus as if they don't know what they're talking about when their qualifications are unimpeachable. 

Let me show you what we see here regarding P52:

Comfort-Barrett: 100-125
Jaroš: 80-125
Nestle-Aland: 100-150
Orsine-Clarysse: 125-175

The most common number of all these experts is CE 125. The only complaint Orsine-Clarysse has is that they feel Jaros is too low. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe it is. But if we take the average of all these experts we still have an average dating of:

101-143.

Even if you take the average of that dating you still have CE 122 in contrast to the average of CE 113 before Orsine-Clarysse.

9 years difference.

Big fat hairy deal. It means nothing in ancient history.

So, what's Godfrey's motivation here?