keyser_soze

Absolutely not! That stuff makes my stomach roll.:banghead: How, in the world, can one person get people to follow such a mindless, baseless, pile of excrement is beyond my grasp. The articles are so ridiculous, you shake your head HOPING that people aren't so stupid as to believe it, yet they do. How to compass that?

Metacrock

Meta => What a strange argument! You seem to suggest that the only way we can refur to the actual man is if the actual man is the legond that grew up around him! Otherwise what? the real guy just ceases to exist right? Why couldn't there have been a real guy, and his story was exaggerrated? "But then he's not the real guy!"

NO! he is the real guy!!! it would be the one of legond who is not the real guy.





Meta =>You have to be kidding! That's not what they meant , and you know it. That meant they believed that the man from Nazerath who influenced so many people was not really flesh and blood, not that no one really say someone cliaming to be that guy! That's about the Gnostics. the gnostics did not believe that Jesus was just made up fiction in text. They believed a real entity walked the earth called "Jesus of Nazerath." He just wasn't made out of flesh, he appeared to be







Meta => He does not! Quote the text! He doubts that Jesus was Messiah, not that he existed!





Meta =>Quote the text! quote the text! I call you on your sources. I don't believe that. Show me! Prove it! Why did the question even come up if Christians weren't supporting those views? BTRW what year was that? Becasue maybe by the 3d or 4th century people started saying that because it was far enough away the time of the events that all the living witnesses were dead and it didn't have the same historical feel anymore. But In the frist three centuries at least no one argumed it.

We have extra biblical texts in abundance that show Christians arguing for incarnation and curcifiction, as easly as AD 95 with 1 Clemet



Meta =>yes and his material is much like that found in the Mishna, which indicates common sources from first century. Celsus also argues for the darkness at noon.

but say, why would he affirm Jesus' existence if Christians didn't believe in it themselves?







Meta =>NOt the same thing as denying his physical existence as a man. Denying the incarnation just means they didn't believe he was God.

but even those groups Hege. talks about don't offer alternate versions of the myth. They don't say "O he was stabbed to death."





Porphyry explicitly criticised the Gospels as ficition in the 3rd C.



Meta => Dishonest argument! I find your whol approch eithe totally dishonest or else you just dont'what incarantion means. Becasue just saying that the gospels are fiction in no way means that he's denying Jesus existed as a man! Also thired century.



Julian explicitly claimed Jesus was "invented" and "spurious" in 4th C.




Meta => O you mean Julian the apostate? gee what a surprize! But that still is not mean he denied his existence as a man!



Its true some of these doubters are arguing against the physicality of Jesus, or attacking the Gospels rather than the existence of Jesus.

Nonetheless, these doubts show that the Jesus stories were DOUBTED by MANY skeptics for VARIOUS reasons - the exact opposite of your claim that the stories were quickly seen as true and widely spread.


Meta => So what? We are only aruging for his existence as a man.


They agree because they are COPIED from each other - G.Mark was the first, but its not by an eyewitness, and not even by a local.




Meta => So what? Why does it have to be by an eye witness? Mark got his info from eye witnesses.


Pardon?
The bases of the Gospel myth is clearly seen in the mythology and religions of the times :
* OT (Isaiah etc.)
* Philo (Logos etc.)
* Pagan dying son-of-god myths (Osiris, Attis, Dionysos, Iasius)
* Homeric epic

There is almost NOTHING in the Gospels that is original.




Meta => Of course not! It's a prophesy form the OT, it's not suppossed to be orignal, its suppossed to be a fullfillment! but the dying rising savior gods thing is crap. it's a lie and i can prove it!

But not in this thread







Poppycock!
There is NO contemporaneous attestation what-so-ever, even in places where it might be expected :
* Justus of Tiberias
* Philo
* Seneca
* C. Musonius Rufus
* Plutarch
* Dio Chrysostom
* old Pliny
* Theon of Smyrna
* Lucius Apuleius
plus another 40 more authors, less relevant, from that period.




Meta => That's the importance of talking about probality. History is not empirical expirment.




Furthermore,
all traditional OPINIONS of Gospel-dating aside,
the EVIDENCE for the Gospels dates to a CENTURY and more after the alleged events -

* First mention of Gospels - 120s (Papias, Aristides)
* First gospel - 140s (Marcion)
* First loose gospel quotes - 150s (Justin "memoir's")
* First evidence of Modern Four Gospels - 180s (Irenaeus)


Meta =>Bull! That is total and utter bull and I can prove it. The story itself, with empty tomb can be trace to AD 50 through textual critical methods.

Your list leaves out several mentions of the Gospels, and putting Papias in 120s is not bad, that 's not such a long time after, and it's also debateable. you leave out Polycarp and Ignatious and several others. In fact that's the early date for Papias.







Wrong,
like I said, from the earlirst times, many critics did specifically attack the reality of Jesus, a list of various doubters can be found here:Early Doubters

regards,
Iasion [/B][/QUOTE]




Meta => You have failed to give one exmaple of anyone attacking the actual historical existence of the man.

Iasion

Greetings,

(re 1 John)

Thanks for your reply,

It was actually the Doketics who believed in the "phantom" Jesus (from Greek dokein "seem" IIRC) - by comparison the Gnostics had a wider variety of beliefs which somewhat overlapped the docetic view.

Furthermore, let me clarify one of your misconceptions - I am NOT claiming that early Christians wrote about, and believed in, a FICTIONAL Jesus - NO, NO, NO !

I am saying that early Christians, specifically including Paul, and also the Gnostics and also writers(ings) such as Hebrews, Revelation, Athenagoras, Tatian's Address et al, are referring to a SPIRITUAL BEING Jesus.

This spiritual being was seen by many as the answer to the pressing spiritual question of the day - whether there was a second "God" to mediate the divine to the physical.

Understanding of this Spiritual Being the Son-of-God Jesus, could be found both through personal experience, and by re-interpreting the scriptures of old.

That is exactly what Paul was doing - explaining this spiritual being Jesus (which he had personally experienced) through passages in the OT which only NOW could be understood, by people such as him, Paul.

And that was exactly what the Gnostics and Docetics believed too - that Jesus was a spiritual being of some sort, and some of them believed he actually descended to the physical plane.

But,
a century LATER,
AFTER the destruction of the Temple and the razing of Jerusalem, the Gospel myths arose and were THEN seen as historical stories and Jesus seen as a physical person.

Only THEN were the Gospels attacked as FICTION - when outsiders saw the Christians starting to pass the non-historical Gospels off as history.

Iasion

Iasion

Secular Pinoy,
Selamat

I hope to get back to you with some comments on 1 John, for now may I direct your attention to Earl's page :

Earl on 1 John

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings Vinnie,

thanks for your reply,

Yes, its true I cast a wide net to show various doubts about Jesus, but they all clustered around the same theme - the physical reality of Jesus - e.g. the doketics support my argument : that early Christians saw Jesus as spiritual being, not a physical one.

Nonetheless,
I argue that the following cases DO specifically cast doubt on a historical Jesus :

* 1 John :
Rather obtuse, yet I agree with Earl that this letter shows sign of early Christians who did NOT believe in Jesus. I draw your attention to Earl's page mentioned earlier.

Thus, this DOES show that the historicity Jesus was NOT BELIEVED IN, even by some early Christians.

* Trypho :
"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

This seems pretty clear evidence that some Jews of the day believed Christ had not been born, and did not exist anywhere.

I see no evidence that this only means Jesus was not the Messiah - he doesn't SAY that, or imply it.

He argues whether Christ was BORN, whether he EXISTED.
He does NOT say ANYTHING like - "Jesus wasn't really a Christ"
He makes NO distinction between "Jesus" and "Christ" which would be expected if he was arguing such.
He does NOT say they falsely turn a man into a Christ,
He says they falsely INVENT a Christ - i.e. made up from whole cloth.

This seems pretty clear to me, that Trypho did not believe the stories about Christ - in their totality. He is merely using the word "Christ" to refer to Jesus Christ, without giving the SLIGHTEST hint that the issue is actually Jesus not being a Christ.

Thus, this DOES argue that the historicity of Jesus WAS doubted by Jews contemporary with the rise of the Gospels.

* Minucius Felix :
Not clear stuff, which probably explains why it survived the Christian censors, but M. Felix argues that the crucifixion is NOT a Christian belief, e.g. :
"he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth",

There is no suggestion he is making the distinction that Jesus was not really a criminal, the passage ridicules the crucifixion and the cross and belief in them.

"Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?
M. Felix here explicitly DENIES the incarnation.

Thus, M.Felix shows the incarnation and crucifixion specifically were DENIED as Christian beliefs, by some Christians, even in mid 2nd century.


* Celsus
He clearly argues the Gospels were fiction, and considering the importance of the Gospels in arguing a historical Jesus, I'd say that makes for doubts about the historicity of Jesus (even if Celsus assumed he existed, that carries no weight that he DID exist).


* Porphyry
He clearly and explicitly attacked the Gospels as invented fiction - which is a direct DENIAL of the historicity of Jesus.


* Julian
He clearly and explicitly attacked Jesus as "invented" and "spurious" - which is a direct DENIAL of the history of Jesus.



These cases argue that the historicity of Jesus was denied or doubted from the earliest times, both by Christians and pagans, and such doubts and denials continued over the early centuries.

And, we know much of this criticism was almost destroyed for ever by the Church (e.g. Porphyry, Celsus), and we know critics were often killed for anti-Christian beliefs. This suggests the actual denials were probably more common then the amount still surviving.

As to whether you consider these doubts and denials "widely" held - who knows?

But I have shown that such denials and doubts were present, in Christians and pagans, from the very earliest times.


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

I just answered this above, to recap -

He wrote:
"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere.."

i.e. he doubts :
whether Christ has even BEEN BORN
whether Christ EXISTS ANYWHERE


He wrote;
"(you) invent a Christ for yourselves,"

i.e. he charges them with INVENTING a Christ


But NO-WHERE does he distinguish between Jesus and Christ,
he does NOT say Jesus was not Messiah,
he does NOT distinguish between Jesus and Christ,
he does not charge them with turning a man into a Christ.

He DOES attack :
whether Christ has even been BORN
whether Christ EXISTS ANYWHERE
that Christ is INVENTED.

This clearly supports my view - that he attacked whether (Jesus) Christ was ever born and existed.

I find nothing in the text to support your view - no mention is made of Jesus being a man but not Messiah, no distinction between Jesus and Christ.

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings again,

I have above,
if you haven't read M. Felix, you can find it at Peter's site.

He argues as a Christian, that Christians specifically do NOT believe in the incarnation or the crucifixion.

This occurred in the mid 2nd century (possibly) when other Christian writings still did NOT include a Jesus of Nazareth (e.g. Tatian's Address, Theophilus, Athenagoras).

And you have it backwards,
the Gospel stories of Jesus only arose in early 2nd century - about a CENTURY after the alleged events, and 1/2 century after the DESTRUCTION of the Temple, and during a time of war with the Romans.

The Gospels are separated from the events portrayed therein by generations of warfare and destruction. And the original Gospel, G.Mark, was not even written by a local, but probably in Rome. And the other Gospel merely copied G.Mark's story.

There is no history in the Gospel stories of Jesus.



Rubbish.
Trypho did in 2nd century, just as the Gospels first arose.
Celsus argued the Gospels were fiction in 2nd century, just after they became popular.
M. Felix argued against the incarnation and the crucifixion in 2nd century.
Poprhyry specifically denied the Gospels as invented in the 3rd century.

Plus other early writings such a 1 John which show Christians who did not believe in Jesus, and writings such as Athenagoras or Theophilus which say nothing about Jesus even when explaining Christian beliefs in detail.

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Rubbish.
The Jesus material, Mishnah, Toldoth Jesu etc. is all 3rd century or later.

When the whole Gospel story is attacked as fiction, by various critics over the centuries, it certainly does cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus - because the Gospel form the vast majority of our information about Jesus - there are no sources contemporary with him at all.

Sure, some of these sources do assume that Jesus existed - so what?

Just because an author who attacks the Gospels or the incarnation as fiction does not specifically say Jesus did not exist does NOT mean they do believe he existed, an attack on the reality of the Gospels also counts as an implied attack on the historicity of Jesus.

Julian, e.g., attacks Jesus as "invented" and "spurious" - clearly arguing there was no such person.

And you dismiss him with a hand wave about being the "apostate"! In other words, he is a Christian critic so he can't be believed, as only Christians know the truth - mere close-minded bias.

Really? According to what EVIDENCE?
Only according to later Christian tradition, including the reports of 4th century master-forger Eusebius about what "unintelligent" Papias supposedly said the followers told him about what the presbyters told them about what happened - such is the myths and rumours upon which the Gospels authorship is based.

In terms of actual hard evidence -
We have no sure idea who Mark was,
We have no sure idea when Mark wrote,
We don't even know for sure exactly WHAT Mark wrote.

Poppycock!
The empty tomb is UNKNOWN to any Christian until mid 2nd century :

Paul - NOT a SINGLE mention of the empty tomb,
Colossians, Ephesians - NOT a SINGLE mention of the empty tomb,
Hebrews, James - NOT a SINGLE mention of the empty tomb,
1 John, 2 Thessalonians - NOT a SINGLE mention of the empty tomb,
1 Peter, Revelation - NOT a SINGLE mention of the empty tomb,
Clement, Barnabas, Didahke - NOT a SINGLE mention of the empty tomb,
2,3 John, Pastorals, 2 Peter - NOT a SINGLE mention of the empty tomb,
Hermas, Jude, Ignatius, to Diognetus - NOT a SINGLE mention of the empty tomb,

Thats about TWO DOZEN of the first Christian documents, and NONE of them shows any hint of the empty tomb story (or indeed the bulk of the Gospel stories, only tiny fragments of the story - the crucifixion and the resurrection, perhaps the last supper).

In fact, the FIRST mention on record by ANY Christian, of the empty tomb story is in mid 2nd century c.140-150, in writers such as Justin and the Marcion and apocryphal Gospels.

So, your claim is FALSE - there is NO evidence of the empty tomb story going back to c.50.

Even though we have Christian writings covering most or all decades from 50CE to 150CE, not ONE of these two dozen earliest writings shows ANY knowledge of the empty tomb story.

So, what evidence do you base your claim on, Metacrock?

Polycarp - he wrote about the time of Justin, and he does echo many Jesus sayings,
but,
he does NOT name any Gospel,
he does NOT name any evangelist,
he does NOT cite any Gospel as scripture,
and some of the Jesus sayings are DIFFERENT to the NT.

This is a very similar picture to Justin's writings, and show that c.150 the Gospels were still un-named and not finally formed.

Ignatius - assuming his wrtings to be authentic (something I doubt) he does NOT show knowledge of the Gospels, but he does give the FIRST mention of Pilate, and is the FIRST to clearly argue for a historical Jesus, yet he gives very few details of the story, evem when the context demands it, showing he did not posess the Gospels.

Ignatius stands at the nexus between spiritual Christ and historical Jesus - before Ignatius, there is no clear mention of a historical Jesus, yet after Ignatius the Jesus story blossoms and the Gospels arise and Jesus is cemented into history.

Clement also is often cited as quoting the Gospels - in fact he does NOT do so, merely giving a couple of SAYINGS of Jesus, with NO mention of Gospels or the evangelists, while clearly citing OT books by name as scripture, and Paul's as wise writings.


All of which goes to show that the Gospels are late productions, the story of Jesus arose a century and more after the events, a century of warfare and destruction and religious ferment.

Iasion

Secular Pinoy

Iasion, thanks for the link. BTW, it's salamat, not selamat.

Iasion

Greetings again

Secular Pinoy : Iasion, thanks for the link. BTW, it's salamat, not selamat.

You are welcome. I've posted a preamble - why 1 John predates G.John.

and,
My apologies, faulty memory of high school Bahasa
I better stick to English.

Iasion