aa5874

Those who claim that there was an Historical Jesus [an actual human non-divine Jesus] should have had the easiest of task to show that THEIR Jesus did exist as human at the time they subscribe.

Any claim that was made for THEIR historical Jesus MUST have been or should have been already found in a recognized credible source.

In effect, HJers should just be showing their sources of antiquity that support THEIR Jesus.

For example, if I claimed Pilate was a governor or procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius then I would merely make references to credible sources of antiquity that support my assertion.

I would simply refer to Antiquities of the Jews attributed to Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.5s
I will also make reference to Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Pilate.

"On Embassy to Gaius" XXXVIII It is that simple. Once a claim is made about Pilate then a credible source MUST be shown.

Now, HJers make claims about an Historical Jesus and that THEIR Jesus lived in Nazareth.

The very first thing HJers MUST show is a credible source that clearly states that there was a MAN a human being that was called Jesus who lived in Nazareth.

Now, in a book Did Jesus Exist? by Ehrman the author claimed it is widely attested that Jesus probably came from Nazareth. See page 293--Did Jesus Exist? by Ehrman.


However, at page 290 of Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman declares that any story found in Matthew, Mark and Luke is NOT Multiple attested and in addition he would claim that the Jesus stories contains historically unreliable information.

Ehrman is in a hopeless contradictory position.

Ehrman used Sources which are ADMITTEDLY not historically reliable and were copied from one source for Attestation that Jesus came from Nazareth.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts of the Apostles are the sources in the Canon that mention Jesus of Nazareth but they are NOT historically reliable--they cannot serve as attestation because those very books themselves NEED to be corroborated by neutral sources of antiquity.

Ehrman Discusses the Gospels are Filled with Discrepancies and Contradictions at page 182 of Did Jesus Exist?

The Pauline writings which Ehrman PRESUMES was written before c 70 CE do NOT state that Jesus came from Nazareth and the Pauline writer mentioned Jesus Christ OVER 300 times.

This is EXTREMELY important. Ehrman's OWN early source for His Jesus, the Pauline writings, do NOT state that Jesus came from Nazareth and do NOT say Jesus lived in Nazareth or mentioned Nazareth.

Remarkably, the Pauline writer wrote NOTHING about a Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth is an invention. Jesus of Nazareth had NO Life, No activity in Nazareth.

And to show that Jesus of Nazareth is an invention we will see that NO author who claimed Jesus came from Nazareth wrote anything of his supposed Life in Nazareth.

1. The author of the short-ending gMark wrote NOTHING of the activities of Jesus in Nazareth before he was supposedly baptized by John.

2. The author of the Long-ending gMark wrote NOTHING of the activities of Jesus in Nazareth BEFORE he was supposedly baptized by John.

3. The author of gMatthew wrote NOTHING of the activities of Jesus in Nazareth BEFORE he was supposedly baptized by John.

4. The author of gLuke wrote NOTHING of the activities of Jesus in Nazareth before he was supposedly baptized by John.

5. The author of gJohn wrote NOTHING of the activities of Jesus in Nazareth before he was supposedly baptized by John.

6. The author of Acts of the Apostles wrote NOTHING of the activities of Jesus in Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth is an INVENTION.

The supposed 30 years that Jesus lived in Nazareth is completely UNKNOWN.

Jesus of Nazareth is a MYTH.

Kent F

What if the original belief was in a wholly spiritual Jesus, say from mid to late 1st century and that the belief in a Jesus who was born of the virgin Mary developed from it several decades later? After all, God is believed to be wholly spiritual so why should the Son of God be any different?

In this scenario, the Roman church started off as a heretical sect which took the original belief in a spiritual Jesus and transformed it into the belief in a divine man of flesh and blood, and thereby made it possible to create a succession starting with the human apostle Peter.

Jesus was not a historical figure, as your evidence show, but your evidence falls short if we claim that Jesus was believed to be spiritual earlier on. The earliest gospel, Mark, does not have a birth story or a genealogy and it ends in limbo. The so called genuine Pauline epistles without interpolations do not have a historical Jesus but a spiritual one. This textual evidence therefore contradict your claim that the Jesus story was fabricated from scratch in the 2nd century. Because if so, Mark would be in agreement with the other gospel writers regarding the birth story and the resurrection and there would be no need to interpolate the epistles and add others. There would be no need for the longer ending of Mark or Acts.

How do you explain the interpolations, the longer ending of Mark, Acts and added epistles if it was all created from scratch by people of the same church?

The very fact that many scholars agree that the Pauline epistles have been heavily interpolated while Acts has been left more or less as is clearly show that these texts have different origins from different times. The tampering with the "unsatisfactory ending" of Mark also proves that Mark has a different origin.

aa5874

I am no longer accepting speculation without evidence. You MUST, MUST, MUST provide credible sources for your claims.

Your scenario does NOT require any research or knowledge of the evidence and written statements of antiquity just a vivid imagination and idle speculation.

Again, your statement is quite contradictory and useless. Once the evidence shows Jesus was NOT historical then whether people claim Jesus was spiritual or human is totally irrelevant.

It is the EVIDENCE of antiquity that matters NOT speculation.

Jesus was NOT historical as the evidence shows.

The very same gMark that does NOT have a birth narrative claimed Jesus WALKED on water and Transfigured. No man can do those things.

If you had knowledge of Myth fables of antiquity you should know that gMark's Jesus could have come DIRECTLY from heaven into Nazareth.

You ought to know that Marcion's Son of God had NO birth Narative but came DIRECTLY from heaven to Capernaum according to Tertullian.

"Against Marcion" 4 Remarkably, Mark's and Marcion's Son of God had NO birth Narrative and were in the region of Galilee at the VERY same time, the 15th year of Tiberius.

Mark 2:1 KJV Quite remarkably Mark's Son of God and Marcion's Son of God were in the same place at the same time doing the same thing WITHOUT a birth narrative.

The evidence suggests that Mark's Son of God and Marcion's Son of God are the very same.

I no longer accept the Presumption that the Pauline writings are earlier. Presumptions do NOT require knowledge of the evidence and written statements of antiquity. Presumptions are worthless to re-construct the past.

The evidence shows that Jesus was NOT historical. It is the evidence that matters.

The Pauline writings, P 46, have been dated by Paleography to the mid-2nd-3rd century which is LONG AFTER c 70 CE.

I do NOT expect any evidence at all about Jesus, the Apostles and Paul to be dated by Paleography or scientific means to any time BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE because they all did NOT exist at that time.

The DATED evidence supports my postion.

My conclusion that Jesus was Myth is AIR-TIGHT.

How do you explain the Differences in the Birth Narratives of gMatthew and gLuke in the very SAME Canon??

How do you explain the Differences in the Synoptics and gJohn in the very SAME Canon??

I have NOT argued that the same people or that the same church wrote all the books of the NT Canon from scratch.

I have CONSISTENTLY argued that the NT Canon is a COMPILATION of Myth Fables that people of antiquity BELIEVED.

After all people of antiquity BELIEVED Marcion's Son of God Myth fable WITHOUT a birth Narrative.

Based on the evidence and written statements of antiquity the story of Jesus was a Myth Fable that was Believed in antiquity just LIKE Marcion's Myth Fable of the Son of God WITHOUT a birth narrative in the 2nd century.

aa5874

Up to now HJers cannot say what role an historical Jesus played in the development of the Christian movement.

Even if it is assumed that the Pauline writings were first and written before c 70 CE an historical Jesus is irrelevant.

Once we go through the Pauline writings it is clear that if we assume they are the earliest writings about Kesus that the Pauline knew virtually NOTHING of the activities of an historical Jesus for his Entire life.

The Pauline writer if he preached Christ crucified and resurrected since 37-41 CE, the time of Aretas, then throughout his letters he acquired NO details of Jesus ONLY that he was Christ, God's Own Son, who died for OUR Sins, was buried, and was resurrected on the THIRD DAY and that the resurrected Jesus visited OVER 500 people, Paul himself included.

The Pauline writer did NOT write at all that he PERSONALLY Met an historical Jesus but he did state, as if under an oath, that he was Visited by the non-historical resurrected Jesus.

If the Pauline letters were the earliest information about Jesus then the Gospels stories were ALL Fiction since virtually everything in the Four Canonised Gospels are NOT mentioned by the Pauline writers.

There is simple NO history of a human Jesus in the Canon and nothing about the Life of the human Jesus.

If the Pauline writings were the earliest then the claim that Jesus was from Nazareth was a LATE invention--Paul never stated Jesus was from Nazareth and naever mentioned Nazareth.

If the Pauline writings are the earliest then the claim that Jesus did Miracles are LATE Inventions--Paul wrote Nothing about the Miracles of Jesus.

If the Pauline writings are the earliest then the claim that Jesus was baptized by John is a LATE invention---Paul wrote Nothing about the Baptism of Jesus.

If the Pauline writings are the earliest then the claim that Jesus was on trial under the Sanhedrin and Pilate are Inventions--Paul wrote Nothing of the trial of Jesus.

It is clear the Pauline writer is NOT a witness for an historical Jesus--he either heard stories of Jesus or read about them. It is just a LOAD of BS that Paul could have gotten any historically accurate information by REVELATION" about Jesus if he did live.

Dead Men don't talk.

The very Pauline writings are evidence that the so-called Paul did NOT personally know of an historical Jesus and was FORCED to LIE about Revelations of past events concerning Jesus.

To impress his readers the Pauline writer LIED and claimed it was revealed to him that Jesus was Betrayed in the Night AFTER he had supped and was told of the conversation between Jesus and the disciples.

It was just a BIG LIE. The Pauline writer MUST have heard about the story or read about the Betrayal. It is virtually impossible for Paul to have gotten supposedly historically accurate information found in gLuke by a Revelation.

The Pauline writings are NOT credible. The Pauline writer was a LIAR and he MUST have heard or read about the Jesus story.

So, if the Pauline writings are the earliest of Jesus then all we have are stories or hearsay--Nothing of any personal knowledge of an historical Jesus.

The Gospels are far worse, virtually every thing the Gospel Jesus did was Fiction or implausible.

Every trace of an historical Jesus in BURIED in the Gospels with a mountain of Fables.

That is all we have.

A Compilation of Myth Fables that people of antiquity BELIEVED just like they Believed the Marcion Myth Fables of the Phantom in the 2nd century.

All Texts DATED by Paleography and Scientific means that mentioned Jesus, the Apostles and Paul are from around the mid 2nd century or later.

ALL the DATED EVIDENCE support the theory that the Jesus movement was started about 100 years after Jesus supposedly lived.

It was the stories of Jesus the son of God that started the Jesus movement in the 2nd century.

J-D

In the translation I found Lucian says that the Christians worship a man who founded their religion and was crucified for it, but he doesn't give details about when or where this happened or who the man was. Is that the text you're talking about?

aa5874

The Jesus stories in the Existing Codices place the character called Jesus the Son of God in the time of Pontius Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the High Priest, Tiberius the Emperor and Herod the tetrarch.

If Jesus, the so-called Son of God did exist then he should have been alive sometime around the 15th year of Tiberius or c 29/30 CE.

The same NT claimed Jesus was WELL-KNOWN and was Believed to be or carried out Fantastic Miracles and was considered a Messiah and Savior.

Jesus therefore should have had a major IMPACT on the Jews since THOUSANDS of people were following him.

But, if there was NO real Jesus then we would EXPECT No one to have been impacted by Jesus, and Not only him but we would expect No one to have mentioned his Parents, his relatives and his disciples.

And that is PRECISELY the case.

The MOTHER, RELATIVES, and DISCIPLES are all unaccounted for in non-apologetic sources.

It would appear that as soon as the Jesus story ended with the ascension that all the supporting cast for Jesus Vanished from the face of the earth WITHOUT a trace simultaneously.

Justin Martyr's writings EXPOSED a 120 year black hole.

But most remarkable, Justin's 120 year BLACK HOLE is Vindicated.

ALL DATED APOLOGETIC SOURCES by Paleography and C-14 confirm and corroborate Justin Martyr's BLACK HOLE.

There is NO Jesus story dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

There is NO Pauline letter dated to the 1st entury and before c 70 CE.


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

It was BELIEF in the 2nd century Jesus stories that started the Jesus cult NOT a real human character.

aa5874

My theory is that the Jesus cult or movement was INITIATED by 2nd century STORIES about a character called Jesus the Son of God and NOT by a human character before c 37 CE.

It is EXPECTED that the Jesus cult would have started with LITTLE or no developed theology and then EVOLVED to a High theology.

The LOWEST Theology MUST be FIRST and the HIGHEST Theology Must be LAST.

The short-ending gMark has the LOWEST developed theology in the Canon.

The Pauline writings have the Highest developed theology in the Canon.

Sinaiticus gMark 9 In the short ending gMark, the disciples did NOT uderstand why Jesus must be killed and be resurrected and the Markan Jesus did NOT explain why.

The theology of UNIVERSAL Salvation by the resurrection was NOT yet developed in the short-endinf gMark when it was composed.

gMark's disciples do NOT understand Jesus.

However, the Pauline writer Taught his converts and people in Rome and in the Roman Empire that they MUST BELIEVE Jesus was Resurrected to be SAVED.

The Pauline writers UNDERSTOOD the theology of the Resurrection.

Romans 10:9 KJVThe Pauline writings have a Higher Theology than the short-ending gMark. The Jesus movement is expected to have started with LITTLE or no developed and then progress to a Higher theology.

The Jesus story came FIRST and all the DATED TEXTS of the Jesus stories are from the 2nd century.

The Jesus movement, the Belief in Jesus the Son of God, is a product of 2nd centuries stories EXACTLY as the DATED TEXTS show.

aa5874

It is extremely important to understand the Sequence of the writings in the Canon. This can be easily done by examining statements in the writings of the same Canon in conjunction with Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources.

Two very critical books of the Canon are the short-ending gMark and the Interpolated Long ending gMark.

The 12 additional interpolated verses in LgMark dramatically changed the Jesus story.

In the short-ending gMark, SgMark, up to the day it was composed NO-ONE preached the Jesus story--No-one was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

So whatever time AFTER the Fall of the Temple that is selected for SgMark, it STILL means that Paul and the Pauline letters were NOT known by the author.

The short-ending gMark DESTROYS the credibility and history of Paul.

SgMark DESTROYS Paul, the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles.

So all we have is a story of a Mythological character called the Son of God that walked on water, transfigured, supposedly did implausible miracles and was rejected by the Jews as a Messiah and was crucified.

SgMark had NOTHING at all to do with UNIVERSAL Salvation by Sacrifice and the Resurrection and NOTHING to do with the Preaching of the resurrected Jesus.

But, again, No Jesus story was known by any Jewish or Roman writer up to 115 CE and when SgMark was written the author was NOT aware of Paul, the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline writings had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the start of the Jesus cult in the 2nd century. The Pauline writings had NOTHING at all to do with early Christianity---NOTHING.

Based on sgMark there is NO 1st century Church--gMark was NOT written to start a new religion. SgMark supports Justin Martyr's Big Black Hole.

It was the INTERPOLATED LgMark that was manipulated for a new religion.

It was a Jesus story that started the Jesus movement in the 2nd century since there was NO human Jesus at that time.

Grog

The musings of someone with admitted limited knowledge aside, your thread is interesting and I have learned a lot by reading this and your other comments. I have not accepted yet that the Pauline writings are second century nor that they were written after the Gospel story. That doesn't mean I don't find your theory of Christian origins persuasive. It is definitely something to talk about.

Kent F

But this is precisely my point which you dismissed as speculative! Jesus was not historical but he was originally believed to be spiritual. The Jesus of Mark, Paul and Marcion was not a man of flesh of blood, he was divine and this belief has to be earlier than the belief in a historical Jesus.

I agree. So why is this argument any different from mine that the belief in a spiritual Jesus has to be the earliest?

I agree again. Jesus became historical but he wasn't to begin with.

I agree yet again. Jesus was Myth. But you continue to ignore the texts we do have. The so called genuine Pauline epistles without the interpolations contain a spiritual Jesus and they are therefore in line with the earliest belief. I'm not saying that this belief has to be before 70CE, more likely later, but it's still the earliest, just as Mark with his spiritual/allegorical Jesus is the earliest gospel writer.

The canon is not from one source, it's a collection of writings from different sources but it's a collection compiled and manipulated by one source, the Roman church. And the Roman church arrived later on the scene than the one in Alexandria (which has Mark as its patron saint, its founder and first Bishop. The head of the Alexandrian church also adopted the title of Pope earlier than the Roman church.)

But you still fail to see that this belief has to be the earliest. The logical evolution of the texts are from spiritual to historical, not the other way around. Mark has to be earlier than the more fleshed out stories in Matthew and Luke, the Pauline Epistles with no mention of the virgin Mary or Pilate or Jesus' mission on earth has to be earlier than Acts. By the same token, Marcion has to be earlier than Matthew and Luke. It's the Roman church which claimed Marcion mutilated the gospel of Luke to make it look like he was later than Luke. But it has to be the other way around: Luke based his gospel on Marcion's and changed the spiritual Jesus into a historical Jesus. Otherwise, we have to claim that Jesus first became historical and then spiritual, despite the very fact that the earliest writers Mark, Paul and Marcion contradict this.