To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not sure why Jay wants to talk in detail about the first-century church at Jerusalem, but as I've told him, I don't know much about it and can't see any real relevance.

So the Jerusalem Church is real but its relationship with Yeshua was wholly fabricated by Paul, creating a movement which increasingly counterposed itself to Jews and the Judaizers on the one hand and and the Pagans on the other. This convoluted fabrication occurs across an area peppered with those having links to Jerusalem, yet no one - not in Palestine, not in Babylonia, not in Rome, nor in the rest of the diaspora - no one exposes the fraud. Or perhaps they did and the (presumably dishonest, exceptionally thorough, and unbelievably resourceful) Christian redactors, acting centuries after the fact, somehow managed to expunge every hint of such critique - even managing to effect their despicable censorship among the Jews.

You don't know ...

You're not sure ...

You can't see any real relevance ...

Talk about near comic understatement!​

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Just curious. How would they expose the fraud?

have you exposed the fraud of Haile Selassi, for example? Or do you believe he's a reincarnation of Jesus? I mean, lots of people revere him, there are churches, movements, etc. And at least you have concrete modern evidence he existed.

If you can understand why you say 'no', then you can understand why people also said 'no', back then.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just curious. How would they expose the fraud?

"It's all a liar. I lived in Jerusalem for years as have my friends. There was never a hint of a man named Yeshua having anything whatsoever to do with that sect."

 

[Heathen Hammer]

"It's all a liar. I lived in Jerusalem for years as have my friends. There was never a hint of a man named Yeshua having anything whatsoever to do with that sect."

And who would seek out this statement?

How far would they have to travel? How much would it cost them? Who would they go looking for? What happens to the family and business they leave behind? To what purpose? And who exactly would they tell?

Your presumptions are pretty ridiculous.

Again: have you sought out Haile Selassi's followers?

We already have the answer. You just need to recognize it. And boy, are you resisting tooth and nail. Which I find very odd, for a stated Hebrew.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And who would seek out this statement?

What polemical material have you read from the period? You're making yourself look silly.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You're making yourself look silly by avoiding a question which will eviscerate your point. But please, do go on.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's an interesting theory, but if they were already established in the earlier part the first century, it seems probable that someone: Pliny, Philo, Josephus, or any other ancient historians that dealt with Judea during that period, would have mentioned them at some point.

It doesn't seem likely to me. I'm sure there were a bunch of sects and cults around all the time back then. I don't see why an historian would necessarily mention them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It doesn't seem likely to me. I'm sure there were a bunch of sects and cults around all the time back then. I don't see why an historian would necessarily mention them.

Do you claim that Josephus on James is a forgery?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So the Jerusalem Church is real but its relationship with Yeshua was wholly fabricated by Paul....

Really? What a convoluted and strange fabrication. I really don't see where you come up with this stuff.

Why not accept my theory that 'Yeshua' was probably some first-century BCE preacher who was mythologized into a God? Wouldn't that be a better explanation than your theory that Jeshua was fabricated by Paul?

...yet no one - not in Palestine, not in Babylonia, not in Rome, nor in the rest of the diaspora - no one exposes the fraud.

What fraud? What are you talking about?

You present a theory and then you immediately cut off its legs by pointing out that someone would have exposed the fraud -- whatever that means to you.

Thereby proving that your own theory is faulty.

I'm sorry, Jay, but I have to say that your method of debate seems most peculiar to me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

"It's all a liar. I lived in Jerusalem for years as have my friends. There was never a hint of a man named Yeshua having anything whatsoever to do with that sect."

Maybe no one in the early church believed there was a man named Yeshua. They were all worshipping the proto-Jesus Godman.

Lots of ways of seeing it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you claim that Josephus on James is a forgery?

You and I have already discussed this. It was an unpleasant exchange, as are all our exchanges.

 

[fallingblood]

If you would like to present any evidence or arguments for your theory about Jesus, Blood, you are welcome to do so. I will be happy to examine anything which you can provide.

You have the burden of proof. I look forward to watching as you try to bear up under it, although I have to say that I'm not feeling optimistic. I think that if you had any evidence, you might have provided it by now.

Do you have any evidence at all that Jesus really existed in first-century Judea?

Why do I have the burden of proof? I am the one supporting the accepted idea about Jesus. You have, on the other hand, stated an idea that really no one agrees with, and expects everyone else to forget the position that has been accepted for a very long time. I don't have to show what is already accepted. However, if you want to claim an opposing idea, and claim that the majority is wrong, you have the burden of proof to show why everyone else is wrong.

As for evidence, I have already listed it. Paul write about Jesus, as if he lived in the first century. The Gospels write about Jesus as if he lived in the first century. Josephus writes about Jesus, as if he lived in the first century. Jesus is attached to other first century figures (such as his brother James), John the Baptist, Caiaphas, Pilate, etc. We see him being killed in a manner that suits the first century. We see him discussing topics that suit the first century.

All you have done, in order to try to offer a rebuttal, is make up stuff, and dodge points. Point in case, your claim that godmen were crucified, yet you refuse to point to any other supposed cases. Why? Because there aren't others.

 

[fallingblood]

I briefly address the proto-Jesus theory in the first volume of my 3 volume series, 'I Am Christ.' I find this theory very interesting, especially with regards to the works of the fourth century church father, Epiphanius and the Hebrew transliteration of the term 'curler of women's hair' an idiom applied to Jesus' mother Mary in the Toledoth Yeshu.

Can you stop peddling your book series?

 

[fallingblood]

You're making yourself look silly by avoiding a question which will eviscerate your point. But please, do go on.

Your question is ridiculous though. How does it relate to showing that a historical person existed or not? You are not dealing with a historical issue, but a theological issue. What someone claims to be does not suggest they did or did not exist. So really, it is a pointless question.

Does it matter how I prove a person to be a fraud? No, because proving a person is a fraud, is very different from proving that someone didn't exist.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Your question is ridiculous though. How does it relate to showing that a historical person existed or not? You are not dealing with a historical issue, but a theological issue. What someone claims to be does not suggest they did or did not exist.
Does it matter how I prove a person to be a fraud? No, because proving a person is a fraud, is very different from proving that someone didn't exist.

it mattered to the point he was trying to make about people bothering to go through the trouble to 'expose the fraud'. Please stick to your own fallacies in this, and don't meddle in his, thank you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why do I have the burden of proof?

Because I say so. Why else?

You have, on the other hand, stated an idea that really no one agrees with, and expects everyone else to forget the position that has been accepted for a very long time.

No one agrees with me and everyone agrees with you?

How interesting. Well, OK. But I'm not sure what to make of that, even if I considered it to be true.

I don't have to show what is already accepted. However, if you want to claim an opposing idea, and claim that the majority is wrong, you have the burden of proof to show why everyone else is wrong.

You know I actually giggle every time you insist that I have the burden of proof. Out loud sometimes. Sorry.

As for evidence, I have already listed it.

So? I've listed my evidence and arguments repeatedly, yet I continue to be taunted to list my evidence. It seems to be standard debate practice around here. I'm just trying to fit in.

Anyway, I've disproven everything you've posted.

Paul write about Jesus, as if he lived in the first century.

Nah. He doesn't. He writes about a godman. So Paul is my evidence, not yours.

The Gospels write about Jesus as if he lived in the first century.

If you accept the gospels as good history, then that's what you accept. But since it's such a minority position among serious historians, you have the burden of proof, you know. Can you prove that the gospels are good history books?

Josephus writes about Jesus, as if he lived in the first century.

If you believe it, then you believe it. What can I say.

We see [Jesus] being killed in a manner that suits the first century. We see him discussing topics that suit the first century.

Yes, and Sherlock Holmes dressed appropriately for his time and place. If that convinces you of Holmes' historicity, then it does. Me, I'm skeptical. I think it's easy to place a fictional character into a real environment. (I've read various writers who claim that the gospelers got lots of that stuff wrong, by the way.)

All you have done, in order to try to offer a rebuttal, is make up stuff, and dodge points.

I think that any debater who sends personal insult in place of argumentation is simply out of his depth. At least regarding the topic under discussion.

Just wanted to say that. It's my serious opinion.

 

[fallingblood]

it mattered to the point he was trying to make about people bothering to go through the trouble to 'expose the fraud'. Please stick to your own fallacies in this, and don't meddle in his, thank you.

Why not point out my fallacies? And no, his question was basically useless in this point as he is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks. And by the way, I hope you aren't holding my devastating intellect against me. It's not my fault. We're made as we're made.

Please embrace diversity, Angellous.

So have you considered Kermit the Frog or not?

Please embrace the Green.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Why not point out my fallacies? And no, his question was basically useless in this point as he is comparing apples and oranges.

Because I don't give a darn about yours. I wasn't talking to you.

 

[fallingblood]

Because I say so. Why else?

That isn't how burden of proof works. So that argument fails.

No one agrees with me and everyone agrees with you?

How interesting. Well, OK. But I'm not sure what to make of that, even if I considered it to be true.

Read what I said again, because it wasn't that. I said that you have a position no one really agrees with. How do I know this? I have done extensive study on the subject, and have only come across your idea in one book, from about a 100 years ago. The idea is basically abandoned by everyone, besides a few random people. And not everyone agrees with me. I simply am proposing a position that is held by the majority.

What does this mean? It means that I don't have the burden of proof. I don't have to prove something that is already accepted. The person (in this case, you), who is proposing an opposing idea to the consensus, must show why their position is better. Or, in other words, they have the burden of proof.

So? I've listed my evidence and arguments repeatedly, yet I continue to be taunted to list my evidence. It seems to be standard debate practice around here. I'm just trying to fit in.

Anyway, I've disproven everything you've posted.

You listed "evidence" and I offered a rebuttal. Meaning, you have to show why your evidence is still okay. Or support your evidence. You haven't. Case in point, you have refuse to point to other supposed god-men who were crucified.

And no, you haven't disproven anything I have said. You have made baseless claims that you can't back up. That isn't disproving anything.

Nah. He doesn't. He writes about a godman. So Paul is my evidence, not yours.

I have already posted my argument on this. Whether or not Paul writes about the risen Jesus (the post-easter Jesus, the resurrected Jesus) as somewhat of a godman (he doesn't portray Jesus in the same fashion of other supposed godmen), is besides the point. When talking about the pre-easter Jesus, or the Earthly Jesus, he places him in the first century.

If you accept the gospels as good history, then that's what you accept. But since it's such a minority position among serious historians, you have the burden of proof, you know. Can you prove that the gospels are good history books?

Actually, the position I take is not a minority position. I don't take the Gospels as nothing more than history. I place them in their historical context, and in their actual genres. They fit best in the genre of ancient biographies. So we have to treat them as such (or should) (Luke appears to be more like an ancient history though).

So what does that mean? It means that we have to compare them to similar literature, and then treat them like those other pieces of work.

We can't take the Gospels word for word, but we can take them as how people saw Jesus. And again, they place Jesus in the first century.

If you believe it, then you believe it. What can I say.

You could argue why that isn't the case. Or at least make some argument to support your position.

Yes, and Sherlock Holmes dressed appropriately for his time and place. If that convinces you of Holmes' historicity, then it does. Me, I'm skeptical. I think it's easy to place a fictional character into a real environment. (I've read various writers who claim that the gospelers got lots of that stuff wrong, by the way.)

Comparing apples and oranges. Holmes was never meant to be a historical character. How do we know? Because of the genre he was written in, and he wasn't claimed to be a historical figure.

I think that any debater who sends personal insult in place of argumentation is simply out of his depth. At least regarding the topic under discussion.

Just wanted to say that. It's my serious opinion.

What personal insult? I haven't called you any names. I haven't attacked your personally. I have attacked your methods, and your knowledge on the subject, but that hardly reflects who you are.

And again though, you prove the point I was making. You dodge and ignore ideas. Really, I think that is because you have no actual scholarly knowledge on this subject, and you know it.