Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[jimhabegger]

I'm thinking of Matthew, Luke and John as possibly containing some lessons taken directly from other collections that were circulating, even if they were mostly from Mark. That may or may not matter for my purposes.

Except we have no indication of any such "collection" existing.  There was the Q Source theory (quelle = German for "source") which is a purely hypothetical imagining of a source document but it is roughly the equivalent of the tachyon in physics:  A tachyon (/ˈtækiɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always travels faster than light.  No one has ever seen one, measured one, nor can it be demonstrated that they have any impact on other particles.  The same goes for Q.  It would be truly "miraculous" which does not even slow these religitards down.

Sorry. Maybe every time I say "collections," I need to specify that I'm thinking of lessons circulating orally. Not excluding the possibility of some of them being written, but not presuming that any of them were.

[jimhabegger]

Yes, what I wanted to discuss is what the Bible gospels are saying about how to live the best life we can. The other gospels, and other writings, and anything we know or want to guess about how and why those four gospels were written, might be relevant as part of the context for understanding what they're saying, but my focus is on the four Bible gospels.

So then you don't actually think Mary Magdalene would make a nice man ?  

I would need to read what was written about her, and think about it, before I could answer that question. 

(later) Maybe what I'm interested in here is some differences that I see between what the Bible gospels are saying, and the doctrines of Christianity today, especially a difference I see between the gospel of Jesus according to the Bible gospels, and the salvation-by-self-indoctrination in Christianity today.

[Minimalist]

Sorry. Maybe every time I say "collections," I need to specify that I'm thinking of lessons circulating orally. Not excluding the possibility of some of them being written, but not presuming that any of them were.

Okay, Fair enough.  But if they are not written down then the only way we would know about them is if someone did write down where or from whom he had heard such tales.

They didn't do that, either. The bible ascribes all of jesus' pithy sayings to him alone.

As an example, the only reason we know anything about Socrates is that Plato ostensibly wrote down things he said.

Plato may be full of shit.  We'll never know.  The bible is full of shit and that I'm certain of.

[jimhabegger]

Sorry. Maybe every time I say "collections," I need to specify that I'm thinking of lessons circulating orally. Not excluding the possibility of some of them being written, but not presuming that any of them were.

Okay, Fair enough.  But if they are not written down then the only way we would know about them is if someone did write down where or from whom he had heard such tales.

They didn't do that, either. The bible ascribes all of jesus' pithy sayings to him alone.

As an example, the only reason we know anything about Socrates is that Plato ostensibly wrote down things he said.

Plato may be full of shit.  We'll never know.  The bible is full of shit and that I'm certain of.

If you want to think of everything in Mark as being invented by the author or authors, and everything in Matthew, Luke and John as being either taken from Mark or invented by the authors, that's okay with me, for discussion purposes. I might have misunderstood. I thought that everyone was agreeing that it would all have been taken from sayings and stories that were circulating orally in Christian communities at the times when the gospels were first written.

[jimhabegger]

I'm starting to not like Irenaeus.

(later) and Polycarp.

[Minimalist]

The  point is that there were shitloads of stories circulating but only a relative handful of them were subsequently written into what became the 4 canonical gospels.

Many of those stories were dismissed on theological grounds because they contradicted the version championed by the eventual winners.

But the real answer to your ultimate question is "yes, this shit was made up by someone."  If someone related oral tales to a scribe who wrote them down then we are dependent on the memory/integrity/sanity of an unknown person in an unknown time and an unknown place.  I don't know about you but I don't find any of that reassuring.  On the other hand, if the scribe was simply writing what he had heard or he himself believed then it is equally worthless.  I don't see any way out of the corner you have painted yourself into.  But don't feel bad about it.  Thomas Jefferson tried to do the same thing and his was one of the great minds ever produced on this continent.

[jimhabegger]

I don't know if anyone would want to play this game or not. Thinking of the Bible gospels metaphorically as mostly the teachings of one person, with the miracle stories as made-up stories to illustrate some parts of those teachings, what are the teachings of that metaphorical person? I'm thinking that it all revolves around learning to live in accordance with the teachings of the Jesus in those gospels, with him as lord, meaning a person to serve and obey above all others. I'm interested in criticisms of that view, and other views of what teachings those gospels are promoting. There's already been some discussion of them promoting different theologies. Also, I might want to discuss some differences that I see between what those gospels are promoting, and modern Christian theology and doctrines.

On the topic of Paul's Christianity, even though it was written before those gospels were written, I'm thinking that what those gospels are promoting is very different in some ways from what Paul's letters are promoting.

... if the scribe was simply writing what he had heard ...

That's more like what I was thinking, but he could have asked around to get more ideas or to validate his own. According to my amateur psychology and sociology theories, he would be trying to make it look as much as possible like popular thinking to whoever he was writing it for.

[Inkubus]

I'm starting to not like Irenaeus.

(later) and Polycarp.

Good man: https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid310560

[jimhabegger]

I'm thinking now of approaching this from a different angle. I'm thinking that maybe what I'm getting at is some differences between what I see the Bible gospels promoting, and what Christians of today are promoting as Bible teachings. Besides being very different from the Jesus of today's Christian churches, my Bible gospel Jesus might also be very different from Paul's Jesus, but I'm not planning on discussing that for now.

I'm thinking of the Bible gospels as being mostly the teachings of one person. For my purposes, he can be metaphorical and purely fictional. In my story, he is saying that the best life for anyone is in learning to live according to his teachings, with him as lord, a person to serve and obey above all others. The miracle stories are not physical happenings. They are stories that he made up to illustrate some parts of his teachings, like the kingdom parables. There is nothing about people going to heaven and/or living happily ever after by telling themselves that they believe whatever they think they need to believe, to be saved. His kingdom is a metaphorical kingdom that people enter when they recognize and accept him as their lord, and are filled with a desire to serve and obey him.

I'm interested in criticisms of that, and in other views about what the gospels are saying about how to live the best life we can. One answer could be that they aren't saying anything at all about how to live the best life we can, but if anyone has any other ideas about it, I'm interested.

(later) Grasping at straws again, to keep the conversation going. 

[Bucky Ball]

I don't know if anyone would want to play this game or not. Thinking of the Bible gospels metaphorically as mostly the teachings of one person, with the miracle stories as made-up stories to illustrate some parts of those teachings, what are the teachings of that metaphorical person? I'm thinking that it all revolves around learning to live in accordance with the teachings of the Jesus in those gospels, with him as lord, meaning a person to serve and obey above all others. I'm interested in criticisms of that view, and other views of what teachings those gospels are promoting. There's already been some discussion of them promoting different theologies. Also, I might want to discuss some differences that I see between what those gospels are promoting, and modern Christian theology and doctrines.

On the topic of Paul's Christianity, even though it was written before those gospels were written, I'm thinking that what those gospels are promoting is very different in some ways from what Paul's letters are promoting.

... if the scribe was simply writing what he had heard ...

That's more like what I was thinking, but he could have asked around to get more ideas or to validate his own. According to my amateur psychology and sociology theories, he would be trying to make it look as much as possible like popular thinking to whoever he was writing it for.

The letters from the "Paul" school (of "letter writing") were not collected (and edited and some invented) until the late 1st Century. The "call" went out to "collect" them, in the 90's.
Before that individual letters were privately held by individual communities. There is no reason to think the gospel writers had any access to "Paul's" letters.

[jimhabegger]

The letters from the "Paul" school (of "letter writing") were not collected (and edited and some invented) until the late 1st Century. The "call" went out to "collect" them, in the 90's.
Before that individual letters were privately held by individual communities. There is no reason to think the gospel writers had any access to "Paul's" letters.

Very interesting. Thank you.

[Minimalist]

The "call" went out to "collect" them, in the 90's.

Who issued such a call, Buck?  What "authority" existed among scattered xtian ( to use a term which had not been invented at that time) groups to do so?

The earliest "collection" of saul/paul letters that we have any sort of historical record of is Marcion's c 140, which is a date which should be approached with trepidation since it comes exclusively from later xtian writers with an axe to grind.

[eider]

................................  The bible is full of shit and that I'm certain of.  ........................

True.
Trick is, how to sieve out any true bits.

[eider]

1. You're not "researching" anything. All you're doing is connecting the dots between myths/belief proclamations. You are not special.
You have NEVER posted the criteria by which you decide some event in a gospel falls into your (fake) filter, and it comes out as "historical". 

Investigation working with the balance of possibilities and probabilities.

All you do is random cherry-picking. You have no standards for your cherry-picking. You have no methodology. Everything you do is nothing but random nonsense.  
Your sources are not historical. What you're doing is the same as "researching" the Greek myths and connecting dots between them, then claiming they're historical.
No scholar considers the gospels as historical source material. You're in WAY over your head.

Cherry-picking is mostly about the selection of old laws to feed a self righteous agenda.
Sieving through the gospels is not cherry-picking.

Please name an historical Jesus scholar who has not quoted from or referred to the gospels.  
Waiting........... waiting.......... 

2. Even if your imaginary man was an historical person, it makes not one bit of difference to us today; there's nothing to be frightened of or concerned with, (except your ignorance).

Wake up BB, people screaming 'all myth! all myth!' at Christianity just get ignored by it.
People telling of a real person spun in to lies......  that bothers Christianity much more, I think.

And why do you take such notice of the HJ section here?  

[airportkid]

Trick is, how to sieve out any true bits.

First, HOW would you do that, specifically, in detail?

Second, and more pertinent, why bother, even there were bits of truth?  None of any truth contained in a bible isn't elsewhere - in more coherent form, in superior literary style, and, most crucially, that incorporates the more vast fund of knowledge we have that provides context and clarification.  The only reason to keep a bible around is as a mere historic curiosity.

[Bucky Ball]

Sieving through the gospels is not cherry-picking.

There is no non-religious scholar you can cite that talks about "sieving through" (dot-connecting) the gospels.

Quoting or referencing the gospels does not mean they accept them as historical, in ANY way. They do it IN CONTEXT of other historical knowledge.

YOU DO NONE OF THAT. ALLL YOU DO is quote and cherry-pick with NO OTHER knowledge or references. You IN NO WAY engage in any research.
All you do is connect your dots. Nothing else. You are not doing anything historical or any sort of "research". You are a fraud.
Ehrman quotes them all the time, DEMONSTRATNG how contradictory and non-historical they are.
Your objection is what is known as a "red herring", and creating a straw-man. It's NOT what I said, and being the liar you are, you knew that.

You have no set of criteria, NO METHODOLOGY that is historically sound or referenced in any way by anyone, any scholar, or even yourself,
by which to determine what is or is not historical. Yes. You are cherry-picking. You have no method.
If you're not cherry-picking, POST YOUR METHOD and criteria, HERE, NOW.
Let me help you.
Here are the steps in the "Eider Method of Sieving The Gospels / Dot-Connection / Cherry-Picking"
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

LMAO.

Please name an historical Jesus scholar who has not quoted from or referred to the gospels.  

Moving the goal posts I see.
LOL. You asking for evidence ? What a fucking joke you are.
As if you know anything about historical scholars. LOL
Oh ... so I get it, asshole.
You think I have to answer your questions, but you get to ignore all the questions asked of you ?
Go fuck yourself. You are a total 100% *megabyte* FRAUD. See above,. THAT is not the question.

2. Even if your imaginary man was an historical person, it makes not one bit of difference to us today; there's nothing to be frightened of or concerned with, (except your ignorance).

Wake up BB, people screaming 'all myth! all myth!' at Christianity just get ignored by it.
People telling of a real person spun in to lies......  that bothers Christianity much more, I think.

I couldn't care less what bothers anyone. Your goal is to *bother* people ? You do get that's the definition of a troll. You are a troll. No doubt.
Posting shit, not answering any questions. STILL WAITING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE about a temple rip-off.

And why do you take such notice of the HJ section here?  

I do get you wish I would go away. Such a sad little ignorant man. No references, no evidence. Nothing but sad little ignorant dot-connections / assertions.

[Bucky Ball]

The "call" went out to "collect" them, in the 90's.

Who issued such a call, Buck?  What "authority" existed among scattered xtian ( to use a term which had not been invented at that time) groups to do so?

The earliest "collection" of saul/paul letters that we have any sort of historical record of is Marcion's c 140, which is a date which should be approached with trepidation since it comes exclusively from later xtian writers with an axe to grind.

So Min, I'm more than likely wrong about what I posted.
I thought I remembered something about this.
I'm down to looking now for first historical references to Paul's letters.

No one is going to list letters in a "collection" unless they (in this case) were found for a period of time before the "list" as accepted and used, by a community. ...
to be "authoritative", useful and "acceptable" to at least a faction in the group of sects, FOR SOME TIME. I see posted all over that Clement 1 referenced the letter to the Corinthians around the very end of the 1st Century, in his (do you consider Clement 1 either historical ... I think I remember people questioning his historicity also), in his own letter to Corinth. If he's not bogus also, that might mean there's a start at knowing when at least one letter was written as early as by the late 1st Century.

I stand by what I said that the letters of Paul were not available to gospel writers.

[Rhythmcs]

I mean, Paul is supposed to have palled around with gospel authors, one of them was his disciple. ...so..why would they need his letters?

[Bucky Ball]

There are more Pauls than you could shake a stick at.
I remember there are 3 mentioned in Acts. Their locations (and where the text last "leaves them") are not possible.
I think David Fitzgerald either wrote a book or did a lecture (You-Tube) on "Will the Real Paul Pease Stand Up".
They have identifiably different philosophies.

[Rhythmcs]

Its a recurring theme for the characters in the stories. It's almost as if a bunch of different people used the characters in different stories..or something...

[Minimalist]

The question is "when," Buck.  




We have zero examples of first century xtian writings.  The 2d century examples tend to be the size of a credit card and one has to wonder if there is enough there to get an accurate dating or if we are simply being subjected to more jesus-freak wishful thinking.

Just looking at the chart suggests that jesusism did not become even a semblance of a going concern until the third century.

[Bucky Ball]

We know the picture generally promoted has something WAY wrong with it.
In the year 400 C.E., in his Christmas sermon, (St.) John Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, is telling the members of his own ("Christian") congregation,
to stop going to synagogue, (there is an extant copy of that sermon).
There is trouble right there in River City.

[Minimalist]

As was correctly pointed out by someone above, winners write history.  But they do more than that.  In antiquity they decided which history got saved and which was allowed to vanish either through the violence of book-burning xtian mobsters or simply neglecting to copy works which were of no interest to them.  The comment of Photius of Constantinople about the history of Justas of Tiberias is telling.  A writer whose history covered the same time frame as Josephus' but it did not have the advantage of a xtian forgery about the godboy.  Hence Photius denounced it and it was not copied.

Not book-burning but the effect is the same.

[Minimalist]

Another question to ask oneself, Buck is when did this idea that "Rome" was the center of xtianity begin to arise?  It hardly seems possible prior to the beginning of the 7th century.  as the year 600 dawned there were five great christian sees.  Alexandria.  Constantinople.  Antioch.  Jerusalem.  and Rome.  The Pentarchy as named by Justinian 60-70 years earlier.  It is quickly to be seen that Most xtians were in the East.

For that matter, history tells us that in the West, which had fallen to the Barbarians in 476, Gaul, Spain, Portugal, Northern italy, and North Africa were under the control of the Aryan xtians who had no use for the fucking pope at all.

So I suspect we see things the same way.  Much like fucking jesus himself, the growth and domination of the "Roman" church was a story which developed later and which has very little fact to support it. 

History also tells us that by 640 Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had been removed from the mix by supposedly Arab armies leaving only Rome and Constantinople to battle for the prize.  And the Byzantines were in deep shit most of the time.

[Rhythmcs]

Just looking at the chart suggests that jesusism did not become even a semblance of a going concern until the third century.

-right around the time it fully captured the roman state through courting aristocracy, by sheer coincidence, I'm sure.