Why do we know so little about Jesus?

[dogsgod]

Your childish rant doesn't address a single thing as to what would make the Jesus of mythology an historical figure. We know little about Jesus because there is nothing to know.

 

[Oberon]

Your childish rant doesn't address a single thing as to what would make the Jesus of mythology an historical figure.

It isn't meant to. I have already addressed this in depth elsewhere. What it is meant to do is show how little your ill-informed opinion has to offer.

We know little about Jesus because there is nothing to know.

This was the point of my post. You have no basis to make this claim, because you lack anything remotely resembling relevant knowledge. You love internet trolling so much, so let's quote wiki again:

"The Christ-Myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it,[47] viewing it as pseudo-scholarship,[39] and some comparing the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism.[50]"

I wonder why that is. Could it be because all of those historians of the classical period realize how truly stupid the theories of the guys with B.A.'s in psychology or classics (like freke or doherty) or an expert in german studies like Wells are? Yes.

1. Sociological studies of religion reveal the importance of sect founders in order for sects like the Jesus sect to exist.
2. The gospels do not resemble myth, as no myth contains so many historical details so close to composition
3. Paul knew Jesus' brother
4. Josephus knew of Jesus, and was a contemporary.

Even if this were all we had to go on (and it isn't) it would be more evidence than for all but a handful of historical figures from antiquity.

But stick to your dogma by all means. After all, when you have nameless guys like R.G. Price, or amateurs like Doherty, or german specialists like Wells, compared to virtually the entire field of biblical studies and classical/ancient historical studies, obviously you are an unbiased observer. None so blind as those that will not see.

 

[dogsgod]

Your methods come from the church, keep repeating over and over because none of your rant makes sense.

 

[dogsgod]

Tell us how Josephus knew of Jesus and that he was a contemporary. I like a good chuckle. Tell us again you're not making this up.

 

[Oberon]

Your methods come from the church, keep repeating over and over because none of your rant makes sense.

Right. Vermes, Neusner, Ehrman, etc, are all church goers. Oh wait, they aren't even christian. My methods come from 2+ centuries of critical scholarship. Yours come from amateurs. Your best defense against thousands of pages of critical scholarship is "they are all using church methods." You haven't read them, you don't know the arguments, but by all means keep making ad hominem attacks. I have at least read price, gandy, freke, doherty, carrier, and wells, even though only one has degrees in NT studies. How many NT or biblical or classical scholars on this subject have your read who support your theory? Have you read the monumental works by Meier, Crossan, Dunn, Nock, or even the classics such as Bultmann or Schweitzer? Or really anything?

I can reference non-christian historians as easily as I can christian historians with relevant degrees.

Now, if you had the requisite knowledge to make your own arguments (sociology of religion, orality, greek, 2nd temple judaism, etc) then maybe you wouldn't need to reference reputable scholars to make your point. But you don't have that knowledge, nor do you have the references.

Tell us how Josephus knew of Jesus and that he was a contemporary. I like a good chuckle. Tell us again you're not making this up.

He references Jesus twice. The longer references has been altered, but many scholars have shown (see especially Vermes' analysis of Josephan vocabulary here) that Josephus DID discuss Jesus here. As for the shorter reference, virtually no one denies it is unaltered, and it refers to James, Jesus' brother, also mentioned by Paul. Now, Josephus was at best a child during Jesus' ministry. But he knew of Jesus' brother's trial, and he was in the proper circles to know members of the emerging Jesus sect.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Your childish rant doesn't address a single thing as to what would make the Jesus of mythology an historical figure. We know little about Jesus because there is nothing to know.

Academic and Religious scholars have spent the past two thousand years, writing about Jesus and the Christian faith.

Hundreds of very clever academics have wasted their lives trying to prove each side of the Myth/ fact argument.

There is no point at all in trying to prove the non existence of a person, let alone such a well documented one as Christ.

There are probably more Miles of shelving containing words on the subject than any other in the world.

You would have many lifetimes work simply reading all the material, There is no chance at all that you could refute even the smallest fraction of it.

This does not sound to me like writings about a fictional Man.

 

[Oberon]

Hundreds of very clever academics have wasted their lives trying to prove each side of the Myth/ fact argument.

No, they haven't. Althought the "myth" argument has cropped up again from time to time, it is always rejected by nearly every expert because of how ridiculous it is.

Scholars have spent lots and lots of time investigating Jesus, who he was, what he did, and so forth, from a historical perspective. Maybe this is a waste, but I don't think so.

There is no point at all in trying to prove the non existence of a person, let alone such a well documented one as Christ.

It is a matter of history. Some people don't think history is that important. How many people would care if Homer was historical, or Pythagoras, or if Antiphon the Orator and Antiphon the Sophist were two different people? Not a lot. And yet there are those who really want to know as best as possible what happened.

There are probably more Miles of shelving containing words on the subject than any other in the world.

The question of God would beat the question of the nature of the historical Jesus in terms of ink spilt.

 

[dogsgod]

Academic and Religious scholars have spent the past two thousand years, writing about Jesus and the Christian faith.

Hundreds of very clever academics have wasted their lives trying to prove each side of the Myth/ fact argument.

There is no point at all in trying to prove the non existence of a person, let alone such a well documented one as Christ.

There are probably more Miles of shelving containing words on the subject than any other in the world.

You would have many lifetimes work simply reading all the material, There is no chance at all that you could refute even the smallest fraction of it.

This does not sound to me like writings about a fictional Man.

The historical Jesus shelves are bare. You'll find the life of Jesus in the mythology section.

 

[Oberon]

The historical Jesus shelves are bare. You'll find the life of Jesus in the mythology section.

Is there are reason for these little sound bites which are demonstrably false? There are hundreds of books on the historical Jesus.

Of course, if you wanted to talk about academic historical works on the "mythic Jesus theory" you would find the shelves quite bare, especially if you were looking for books or monographs by an academic press.

 

[dogsgod]

You have no basic reasoning skills. You simply go along with the status quo of the Jesus is historical group because you feel safe in numbers. You demonstrate that in every one of your posts. Your main argument is that many believe. It means nothing. The notion of yours that the gospels are an historical account makes you a laughing stock. You can't discern fact from fiction. If you want to believe there's an historical person behind the mythology than by all means, but don't expect reasonable people to make such a leap of faith because Christian scholars are numerous.

 

[Oberon]

You have no basic reasoning skills. You simply go along with the status quo of the Jesus is historical group because you feel safe in numbers.

Wrong. For one thing, I've done the research myself. I read the ancient languages, I've read the modern scholarship (english, german, and french), I've studied classical history, 2nd temple judaism, sociology of religions, and all the other things important in evaluating the historicity of Jesus. I don't need consensus.

You, on the other hand, have done none of the above. Virtually all your sources cited are online. Almost none are by people who are experts in the field. Absolutely none are publications which have passed the process necessary to get published by an academic journal or press. Basically, you troll the internet to find the sites that agree with what you believe anyway, regardless of the evidence.

Additionally, we aren't talking about consensus. Consensus can be wrong. I have certain views on biblical studies which are not consensus views. However, this isn't a simple matter of majority. The question of whether Jesus even existed was asked over 2 centuries ago, and has been answered by literally thousands of pages of scholarship since then. We are talking about virtual unanimity by everyone with relevant degrees. That isn't something to take lightly.

Finally, I have given the reasons to accept at the very least that Jesus was historical. You lack the relevant knowledge to evaluate these points.

For example, I talk about Paul knowing Jesus' brother personally. You respond with Price's argument which isn't really an argument at all (there is no record anywhere of a group of followers in the earliest church called "brothers of the lord;" also, the syntactic formula is specifically a kin identification).

I talk about the how the sociological study of sects/cults shows that they develop around an enigmatic and charismatic personality. Without a historical Jesus, you don't have a figure who could be responsible for the sect, because all of the sources point to Jesus, and they aren't aware of each other (i.e. you can't claim it was Paul who started the whole thing, because there are independent traditions apart from him).

You have compared the gospels with classical myths (which at best you have read in translation). None of these place their "godman" in a historical place nearby while people were still living.

I have cited studies comparing the gospels to ancient historical genres.

And so on.

In other words, there is plenty of reason why so many people, christian or no, who are experts in ancient history in this area and time, virtually all agree that you can't explain the Jesus movement without a historical Jesus.

Which is why you are dependent on so few and so unreliable sources to defend your points.

The notion of yours that the gospels are an historical account makes you a laughing stock. You can't discern fact from fiction.

Have you read Herodotus? Plutarch? Diogenes Laertius? Or any number of other historians whose histories contain myth, magic, and miracles? I thought not.

because Christian scholars are numerous.

When all else fails, blame the fact that none of the experts agree with you because they are all christian. Despite the fact that this is completely false.

 

[dogsgod]

The stupendous reliance on one metaphorical line from Paul, brother in the Lord, and the absolute certainty that it has to be taken to mean a literal brother in spite of nothing else Paul offers in the way of such information, the weight placed on that one line to support the notion that Paul knew Jesus' brother is enormous, repeated like a mantra, as if repeating that one line over and over makes it believable, only demonstrates the true lack of anything substantial at all to justify a belief that Paul refers to any real human being of a recent past, sacrificed in order to redeem mankind, as if a real human is needed to do that. OK, so the Catholic church argues that real "flesh" and "blood" is necessary in a sacrifice if mankind is to be saved, but that is a theological basis. Nothing supports such a notion in reality.

The totally baseless assumption that the religious leader, James, referred to in Acts, is the brother of Jesus comes out of thin air, yet scholars believe so it must be true says the believer in an historical Jesus. Never mind the assumption piled on assumption to accept such a notion. Never mind that Paul claims to have witnessed a risen Christ along with 500 brothers, but makes no mention of anyone witnessing the crucifixion itself. Never mind that Paul declares in no uncertain terms that he knows of Jesus Christ from no man, but instead from revelations, visions. The blinders we have to wear in order to ignore what Paul is saying and the tunnel vision required to accept one metaphorical line to base an historical Jesus on only demonstrates a total lack of reality in what we are supposed to believe by so called scholars. Paul believes on theological grounds and expresses that. The gospels are a work of mythology that makes Paul's Jesus Christ a human god that lived on earth, that much is reasonable to assume, but the pretzel twisting a mind has to do because a bunch of scholars, with papers to prove their holy scholarlyness, want to see an historical Jesus behind the mythology is for believers to be impressed with. Those books sell, and believers lap that stuff up. They can have it, and they can worship their scholars like a bunch of wannabes that they are.

 

[dogsgod]

Jesus' existence was disputed 2000 years ago, you don't even know that much.

 

[Oberon]

The stupendous reliance

Just one of many lines of evidence.

on one metaphorical line from Paul, brother in the Lord,

OF the lord. ᾿Ιάκωβον τον αδελφον του Κυρίου/James the brother of the lord. Genitive case. A syntactical formula used for kin identification.

and the absolute certainty that it has to be taken to mean a literal brother in spite of nothing else Paul offers in the way of such information

Wrong: 1 Cor. 9:5- ως και οι λοιποι απόστολοι και οι αδελφοι του Κυρίου και Κηφας/ as the rest [of the] apostles and the brothers of the lord and Peter?

Here Paul seperates Jesus' actual kin from the apostles and from their leader Peter. Now, there is no evidence anywhere that this was some special group. In fact, they are seperated specifically from the apostles.

Moreover, Josephus also identifies james as a brother of Jesus, as do the gospels.


,

the weight placed on that one line to support the notion that Paul knew Jesus' brother is enormous

It isn't that one line. Again, at least three independent sources mention James as Jesus' brother, including a non-christian source.

as if repeating that one line over and over makes it believable

Repeating the obvious shouldn't be necessary, but it should be believable. If James is the only person Paul refers to as Jesus' brother, and Josephus does so as well, as do the gospels, and Paul says he actually knew this person, this is pretty strong evidence. It isn't the only evidence however.

only demonstrates the true lack of anything substantial at all to justify a belief that Paul refers to any real human being of a recent past

How long do you think the romans had power over Judaea, such that they could crucify Jews like Jesus? Certainly prior to Jesus, but not that much prior. Yet Paul describes Jesus as having been crucified, a ROMAN execution which would hardly have been likely in the distant past.

As for a purely spiritual Jesus, Paul cites Jesus' teaching on divorce, and distinguishes it from his own (which makes no sense if he thought Jesus never walked the earth). He talks about Jesus as in terms of "according to the flesh" and as "the seed of David" and "born under the law."

There is plenty in the epistles alone to show that Paul believed that Jesus was a recent historical figure, and that he knew Jesus' brother.

And again, this is only one line of evidence. Even if we accept a truly skeptical view of the transmission of the Jesus tradition (in line with Bultmann or Mack), there is still:

1. Sociological study of cults/sects and their leaders (which show that a historical Jesus is necessary to explain the Jesus sect)

2. The studies showing that the gospels fall into the genre of ancient history

3. The importance in Paul, and the gospels, on traditions passed along by "eyewitnesses," which is odd as these same sources (at least the gospels) don't place the events in the distant past.

4. The fact that the first "life" of Jesus was nailed down to a particular place and time, unlike any myth, but very much like the lives of historical figures (who were often credited with miracles or even miraculous births). And the author, if he wasn't alive when Jesus died, was certainly around shortly after.

5. Numerous early and independent documents attesting to Jesus' existence.

6. Zero records of any "christ cult" prior to Paul

7. The largely unchallenged fact that Josephus did mention Jesus in an altered passage, and the virtual unanimity that Josephus did mention James as the brother of Jesus, called christ.

Again, this is NOT going into the arguments on the over all reliability of the gospel tradition, or the control of the oral tradition, or any number of more conservative views of the Jesus tradition. Even skeptics like Bultmann would offer more than I have above. Yet this is more than enough to confirm that Jesus was historical.

The totally baseless assumption that the religious leader, James, referred to in Acts, is the brother of Jesus comes out of thin air

Two James' are mentioned in acts. The "pillar" is not Jesus' brother. And it doesn't matter if neither are. Josephus, Paul, and Mark and Matthew mention James as Jesus' brother. Luke knew of Matthew at least, but chose NOT to mention that James was Jesus' brother, even though it was in Mark.

Never mind the assumption piled on assumption to accept such a notion.

What assumptions? Paul says James was Jesus' brother, and he met him. Josephus says James was Jesus' brother. Mark and matthew say Jesus' brother. The baseless assumption is the belief that some group of followers were called "brothers of the lord" to which James belonged, although there is no evidence for any such group.

Never mind that Paul claims to have witnessed a risen Christ along with 500 brothers, but makes no mention of anyone witnessing the crucifixion itself.

He mentions the crucifixion, a roman execution which limits the time and place in which this event could take place. And who cares if he doesn't mention anyone witnessing the death of Jesus? The important thing for Paul was the risen Jesus, hence the fact that only rarely does he talk about his earthly life.

Never mind that Paul declares in no uncertain terms that he knows of Jesus Christ from no man, but instead from revelations, visions.

Because he wasn't a follower until after Jesus' death, and had to contend with guys like Peter who actually knew the living Jesus.

to accept one metaphorical line

You have no basis to assert it is metaphorical. The syntactical formula is quite clear. And this is hardly the only line upon which the historical Jesus is based.

Paul believes on theological grounds and expresses that.

He also expresses that Jesus ate with his disciple, was born, crucified, taught, and had a brother.

The gospels are a work of mythology

Ancient historian contains myths and magic. When you have read a number of ancient histories, and the actual myths (by Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, etc), then come back and we can discuss the different genres.

because a bunch of scholars, with papers to prove their holy scholarlyness

Yes, it is all a big conspiracy of guys with doctorates who really don't know anything despite years of study, and despite many not being christian. We'd best believe guys like Doherty, because he has... what expertise?

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus' existence was disputed 2000 years ago, you don't even know that much.

Uh... who disputed Jesus' existence 2000 years ago? I mean that is really an odd statement to make, even for someone who doesn't believe He existed? I really would like to know your source for such a strange comment. It would pretty much have to be a 2000 year old document, but I can't imagine what document you have in mind.

 

[Oberon]

Uh... who disputed Jesus' existence 2000 years ago? I mean that is really an odd statement to make, even for someone who doesn't believe He existed? I really would like to know your source for such a strange comment. It would pretty much have to be a 2000 year old document, but I can't imagine what document you have in mind.

I seem to have missed that remark by dogsgod. Even harsh pagan critics like Celsus took for granted that Jesus existed. I too would like to see who or what he dogsgod is referring to.

 

[dogsgod]

Uh... who disputed Jesus' existence 2000 years ago? I mean that is really an odd statement to make, even for someone who doesn't believe He existed? I really would like to know your source for such a strange comment. It would pretty much have to be a 2000 year old document, but I can't imagine what document you have in mind.

There's much conflicting arguments as to what he was including whether he existed in the flesh at all.

2 John 1:
7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

1 John 4:
1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.


Thus it is true to call Him man and to call Him not man; man, because He was capable of death; not man, on account of His being diviner than man. Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary, and declared that as to His divine nature He was not born of Mary, and hence made bold to delete from the Gospel the passages which have this effect. And a like fate seems to have overtaken those who make away with His humanity and receive His deity alone; and also those opposites of these who cancel His deity and confess Him as a man to be a holy man, and the most righteous of all men.
Against All Heresies Origen, 3rd century

Now a person might say that these men, and those who hold a different opinion, are yet near neighbors, being involved in like error. For those men, indeed, either profess that Christ came into our life a mere man, and deny the talent of His divinity, or else, acknowledging Him to be God, they deny, on the other hand, His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion and Valentinus, and the Gnostics, who sunder the Word from the flesh, and thus set aside the one talent, viz., the incarnation.
Against All Heresies Hippolytus, 3rd century


There are, to be sure, other things also quite as foolish (as the birth of Christ), which have reference to the humiliations and sufferings of God. Or else, let them call a crucified God "wisdom." But Marcion will apply the knife to this doctrine also, and even with greater reason. For which is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be born, or that He should die? that He should bear the flesh, or the cross? be circumcised, or be crucified? be cradled, or be coffined? be laid in a manger, or in a tomb? Talk of "wisdom!" You will show more of that if you refuse to believe this also. But, after all, you will not be "wise" unless you become a "fool" to the world, by believing "the foolish things of God." Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground that, as a mere phantom, He was incapable of experiencing them? We have said above that He might possibly have undergone the unreal mockeries of an imaginary birth and infancy. But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul "determine to know nothing amongst us but Jesus and Him crucified;" falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom.
Against All Heresies Tertullian, 3rd century


Our heretic must now cease to borrow poison from the Jew—"the asp," as the adage runs, "from the viper"—and henceforth vomit forth the virulence of his own disposition, as when he alleges Christ to be a phantom. Except, indeed, that this opinion of his will be sure to have others to maintain it in his precocious and somewhat abortive Marcionites, whom the Apostle John designated as antichrists, when they denied that Christ was come in the flesh; not that they did this with the view of establishing the right of the other god (for on this point also they had been branded by the same apostle), but because they had started with assuming the incredibility of an incarnate God. Against All Heresies Tertullian, 3rd century

 

[dogsgod]

Afterwards, again, followed Saturninus: he, too, affirming that the innascible Virtue, that is God, abides in the highest regions, and that those regions are infinite, and in the regions immediately above us; but that angels far removed from Him made the lower world; and that, because light from above had flashed refulgently in the lower regions, the angels had carefully tried to form man after the similitude of that light; that man lay crawling on the surface of the earth; that this light and this higher virtue was, thanks to mercy, the salvable spark in man, while all the rest of him perishes; that Christ had not existed in a bodily substance, and had endured a quasi-passion in a phantasmal shape merely; that a resurrection of the flesh there will by no means be.- Against All Heresies; Tertullian, 3rd century



​

To this is added one Cerdo. He introduces two first causes, that is, two Gods—one good, the other cruel: the good being the superior; the latter, the cruel one, being the creator of the world. He repudiates the prophecies and the Law; renounces God the Creator; maintains that Christ who came was the Son of the superior God; affirms that He was not in the substance of flesh; states Him to have been only in a phantasmal shape, to have not really suffered, but undergone a quasipassion, and not to have been born of a virgin, nay, really not to have been born at all. A resurrection of the soul merely does he approve, denying that of the body.
- Against All Heresies; Tertullian, 3rd century


Close on their heels follows Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, ... The Law and the prophets he repudiates. Christ he neither, like Marcion, affirms to have been in a phantasmal shape, nor yet in substance of a true body, as the Gospel teaches; but says, because He descended from the upper regions, that in the course of His descent He wove together for Himself a starry and airy flesh; and, in His resurrection, restored, in the course of His ascent, to the several individual elements whatever had been borrowed in His descent: and thus—the several parts of His body dispersed—He reinstated in heaven His spirit only. This man denies the resurrection of the flesh.
- Against All Heresies; Tertullian, 3rd century
​

 

[Dunemeister]

When ancient writers referred to Jesus as a "phantom", they were not saying he was mythical or non-existent. Rather, gnostics argued that Jesus was a "spiritual being" such that he didn't really have a body. So there was a Jesus, he just wasn't physical.

Thus, all ancient pagans who were aware of him admitted the existence of Christ, but some of them disputed about his nature, denying his corporeality.

 

[dogsgod]

But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Savior, who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Æons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Savior, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if anyone carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; while others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
- Adversus Haereses (Book III); Irenaeus, 175