Why People Doubt Jesus Existed

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

For the historical Jesus only the following questions are relevant:


2)what age did he live to before his sentence to die?
3) and by who's hands was he sentenced and why?

5) when was he born month day and year?
6) what was his real Hebrew name?
7) what was his mothers name?

9) what was his home town?

11) was he hanged and stoned or crucified?

But you won't answer them
or can't because you know if you do it will prove more then one character is being discussed as Jesus. =Avoidance behavior. :run:

 

[Oberon]

Again, those who take the "pro-existence" position are appealing to authority,

1. The purpose of this thread was really not to argue for the existence of Jesus or not, but to look into the disparity between virtually everybody in the best position to know about Jesus' historicity, and do, and everyone else.
2. I have argued elsewhere (e.g. here) in greater detail some of the arguments for a historical Jesus. An "appeal to authority," when it comes to scholarship in Jesus studies, involves appealing not to just a bunch of people who say "this is so" (like the pope or something/one similar), but to a vast amount of literature filled with arguments for the historicity of Jesus. In other words, citing scholarly unanimity it isn't an appeal to authority as much as it is an appeal to a vast amount of literature containing arguments for historicity.

The fact that no historian alive during the time of some supposed Jesus ever heard of him is very damning to the case that a "real" Jesus existed that started Christianity.

Wrong. That is the norm in ancient history. Most historians wrote about events and people prior to their time. Such as Josephus writing about Jesus or John the Baptist.

 

[Oberon]

If Oberon is agnostic, what do we call those that are firmly entrenched in a belief that Jesus is historical?

Historians. Unless you want to argue that well-known scholars like Vermes, Neusner, or Ehrman are christian.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

I like Geza Vermes he's the only one who didn't lie about the scrolls to fit Jesus into it like other writers fallaciously did.

 

[Oberon]

Why did Paul make a statement such as the following if the James he referred to in the same letter was an actual brother of the Jesus in question?

galatians11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Because he was competing in authority, as he admits with guys like Peter and James. These people were following Jesus during his life, and could claim to have received the gospel directly from him. The only way Paul can compete with this is to say that he too received the gospel this way.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if this James was the actual brother of Jesus, Paul would have learned something from him?

1) We don't know what Paul knew about the Jesus tradition, or Jesus' life. His letters are not concerned with this. He does cite Jesus' teaching on divorce, and there are a few other possible references, but Paul is setting out to write all he knows about Jeus. He is writing advice to early christian commmunities
2) It is very likely that James, Jesus' brother, was a late-comer to the group. As such, he wasn't in as good as a position as, say, Peter, to tell Paul all about the Jesus tradition. And lo and behold, we find that Paul spent days and days and days "inquiring into" Peter.

Can you quote Paul referring to James as the brother of Jesus?

Why would one have to? He uses a specific formula to refer to kin relationships, and uses "lord" rather than Jesus because he calls Jesus "lord" all the time. There is no reason to assume that, when using kin identification, Paul should use Jesus' name.

 

[fallingblood]

Why did Paul make a statement such as the following if the James he referred to in the same letter was an actual brother of the Jesus in question?

galatians11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


Isn't it reasonable to assume that if this James was the actual brother of Jesus, Paul would have learned something from him?

Can you quote Paul referring to James as the brother of Jesus?

Galatians 1:19: I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. Now, before you object to the term of Lord meaning Jesus, look up 1 Corinthians 12:3, just one example of that title.

As for your first post, it really does not state that Paul didn't learn about Jesus. It states that the message he's preaching, the good news, is not something that humans simply made up. He is appealing to authority. Paul is known to appeal to authority quite a bit.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But you won't answer them
or can't because you know if you do it will prove more then one character is being discussed as Jesus. =Avoidance behavior. :run:

Well, you have to ask the right questions.

I'll not be participating in a strawman fallacy... you don't even know what the arguments for the historical Jesus are, otherwise your questions would be at least somewhat related to those arguments.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I like Geza Vermes he's the only one who didn't lie about the scrolls to fit Jesus into it like other writers fallaciously did.

:biglaugh:

Are you a child?

 

[fallingblood]

Just to appease you so you can't make ridiculous claims.

Question 1) how many days did your historical figure rise?

0. He never rose from the dead. He died, and that was it.

2)what age did he live to before his sentence to die?

There is some discrepancy there as we do not have exact dates, which is not surprising as he was born a peasant, and was not of overly importance. It is generally accepted that he was around the age of 30. Before you decided to state anything to the contrary, you must also realize that we do not have exact dates for many characters in history. Looking even at Houdini, who lived only a century ago, there was debate about when he was born.

3) and by who's hands was he sentenced and why?

Pilate. And it was because of the "cleansing of the temple." It was a symbolic destruction, and it occurred during/around passover. That type of action would have meant death. Pilate probably was already annoyed that he had to be in Jerusalem during that time for added protection, and he was not about to let a riot start over any small action. You have to understand the time period in which Jesus lived.[/quote]

4) did he ascend to heaven or descend to hell?

Did Julius Caesar ascend to heaven? No, and Jesus did neither. You must understand the society that the Gospels were written in.

5) when was he born month day and year?

Again, there was no need to record this peasants birth date. We do not have many actual dates for historical, ancient, characters. There is no reason to assume that we would for Jesus, who was a peasant.

6) what was his real Hebrew name?

What exactly do you mean by real? In Hebrew, Yeshua. I don't quite see your point.

7) what was his mothers name?

Mary? Am I missing something.

8)how tall was he?

What type of question is that? Does it matter?

9) what was his home town?

Nazareth

10) was he the first fallen messiah aka Lucifer or was he the second Messiah Liberator and overturner of the first fallen one aka Lucifer?

This simply is illogical. You need to know what the messiah was. Once you do that, maybe you can make a logical question that can be answered.

11) was he hanged and stoned or crucified?

Crucified.

12) was Jesus the perfect/sinless Christ (anointed) Nazarene (guardian of the people)?

No. He was from Nazareth. Not a Nazarene as you describe. He was not termed Christ until after his death.

These should be easy for a real historical person but take your time if you need to.

Now you have one problem. Some of the questions are just plain ridiculous. Others are based on the assumption that we keep history as we do today.

 

[fallingblood]

I like Geza Vermes he's the only one who didn't lie about the scrolls to fit Jesus into it like other writers fallaciously did.

I like the account that Jesus wrote about himself that atheists (such as yourself) have been keeping hidden from the true believers. That account would show the world that Jesus was truly a historical person, but atheists, with their frail egos would have to admit that their whole lives were a lie if they ever admitted to these hidden accounts.

 

[roger_pearse]

Again, those who take the "pro-existence" position are appealing to authority, not posting arguments.

You will find, in general, that people who advocate a daft position held by no-one in a position to know do get the brush off.

The fact that no historian alive during the time of some supposed Jesus ever heard of him is very damning to the case that a "real" Jesus existed that started Christianity.

Which historians do we mean, I wonder? -- Some names would be good (and please don't anyone just post the Remsburg list without looking up one of the copious refutations available online). I think you will find that this falls apart very quickly once we get specifics.

I'm also not sure what a "historian" means in ancient literature, when writers did not write as if they held a chair of history at a dull US university ca. 1950, but instead were men of letters generally writing to the standards of the age. I don't know why we exclude writers generally. Nor do I know why we exclude the New Testament, unless we have an ad hominem reason.

Now I realise you are repeating this argument from elsewhere, since I have seen it many times. But we need to realise that it is actually a very bad argument indeed. For all first century history, including the reign of Tiberius when Jesus lived, we rely primarily on Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Josephus for Jewish affairs. None of them would pass this 'test'.

Ancient history is not like modern history. 99% of the literary sources are lost. So however we do our history about Jesus, we have to do it in the same way as we do for everyone else. What we cannot do is make up arbitrary demands, and then complain that they don't produce any results for Jesus, when in fact they produce no results for anyone. Like must be compared with like.

Now there is a further pitfall for the unwary. When I make these remarks, some people will immediately conclude that ancient history must be mostly bunk; that unless we have some arbitrary level of evidence (carefully selected to exclude the things they don't want to believe) then we can dismiss all history as bunk. That does not trouble the uneducated, of course. But the term for that approach is "obscurantism". And I don't think much of any religious position that relies for its validity on finding excuses to ignore all of ancient history (or whatever weasel-wording has the same practical effect).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

I like the account that Jesus wrote about himself that atheists (such as yourself) have been keeping hidden from the true believers. That account would show the world that Jesus was truly a historical person, but atheists, with their frail egos would have to admit that their whole lives were a lie if they ever admitted to these hidden accounts.

It is of course true that evil motives generally underpin much of this stuff. But while the argument ad hominem may be factually correct, it does not tell us (as ever) whether the arguments being made, admittedly for evil motives, are actually correct.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Quagmire]

Comparing Caesar to a Jesus character is a straw man argument and a very stupid one.

I really like the way you save time by never explaining your points, or bothering to understand anyone else's.

 

[Quagmire]

Again, those who take the "pro-existence" position are appealing to authority, not posting arguments. The fact that no historian alive during the time of some supposed Jesus ever heard of him is very damning to the case that a "real" Jesus existed that started Christianity.

The fact that you so consistently fail to see the arguments goes a long way towards answering the OP.

If Oberon is agnostic, what do we call those that are firmly entrenched in a belief that Jesus is historical?

Scholars?

 

[logician]

1.The fact that you so consistently fail to see the arguments goes a long way towards answering the OP.



2.Scholars?

1. Is that the best you can do?

2. Certainly not all of them. many are simply religious folk with an axe to grind.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I like Geza Vermes he's the only one who didn't lie about the scrolls to fit Jesus into it like other writers fallaciously did.

The only one, that is, except for ...

Martin G. Abegg Jr.
Phillip S. Alexander
George J. Brooke
Sidnie White Crawford
Peter W. Flint
Edward D. Herbert
Jesper Høgenhaven
Armin Lange
Timothy H. Lim
Sarianna Metso
Orlaith O'Sullivan
Donald W. Parry
Harold P. Scalin
Shemaryahu Talmon
Eibert Tigchelaar
Emanuel Tov
Eugene Urlich
James C. VanderKam
Arie van der Kooij​

... among others.

 

[Quagmire]

1. Is that the best you can do?

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

2. Certainly not all of them. many are simply religious folk with an axe to grind.

Yes, and many mechanics are incompetent thieves. Does that mean you should leave your car in the driveway?

 

[dogsgod]

Galatians 1:19: I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. Now, before you object to the term of Lord meaning Jesus, look up 1 Corinthians 12:3, just one example of that title.

As for your first post, it really does not state that Paul didn't learn about Jesus. It states that the message he's preaching, the good news, is not something that humans simply made up. He is appealing to authority. Paul is known to appeal to authority quite a bit.

He appeals to his revelations, his visions that he has of a risen Christ. A few sentences later we read that he met with James, the brother of the Lord. If this brother was an actual blood sibling of Jesus it would only make sense that he would have attempted to learn something from him. Instead, he just stated prior to this meeting with James that he was not taught what he preaches, nor learned it form any man.

 

[dogsgod]

2) It is very likely that James, Jesus' brother, was a late-comer to the group. As such, he wasn't in as good as a position as, say, Peter, to tell Paul all about the Jesus tradition. And lo and behold, we find that Paul spent days and days and days "inquiring into" Peter.

Rubbish, stop fantasizing, he was one of the first that the risen Christ appeared to. In fact, according to Paul, he appeared to James before all of the apostles. 1 Cor7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

 

[Oberon]

He appeals to his revelations, his visions that he has of a risen Christ.

Again: he was competing in authority, as he admits with guys like Peter and James. These people were following Jesus during his life, and could claim to have received the gospel directly from him. The only way Paul can compete with this is to say that he too received the gospel this way.

A few sentences later we read that he met with James, the brother of the Lord. If this brother was an actual blood sibling of Jesus it would only make sense that he would have attempted to learn something from him.

Wrong. Paul, and for the most part the early christians, were not concerned with Jesus' family life. What they were all concerned with (especially Paul) was his resurrection. They were also concerned with his teachings. The best persons to get the information relevant for Paul was not Jesus' brother, but his head disciple. And, in fact, despite claiming to have received the gospel from direct revelation, Paul explicitly states (gal:1.18): Επειτα μετα ἔτη τρία ανηλθον εις ῾Ιεροσόλυμα ιστορησαι Πέτρον, και επέμεινα προς αυτον ημέρας δεκαπέντε/then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to inquire into Peter, and I remained with him for fifteen days.

Two things are notable: one, Paul spent 15 days with Peter, the head disciple. As C. H. Dodd put it, they could hardly be talking about the weather. This is particularly true given the infinitive historesai (a verbal form of the noun "history"), which means more than just "talked to" or "spent time with." In other words, while Paul doesn't explicitly say it, the meaning is clear. He spent over two weeks with Peter alone (seeing only James aside from Peter), inquiring into/ i.e. learning the Jesus tradition from the person best acqainted with all the important info.

James wasn't the one to talk to. Peter was. And that's what Paul did.

Rubbish, stop fantasizing, he was one of the first that the risen Christ appeared to. In fact, according to Paul, he appeared to James before all of the apostles. 1 Cor7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

How many times must we go through this before you get it? THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE NAMED JAMES! One was an important disciple. He dies in Acts, and yet we find another James still there. James, the pillar, like Peter, is NOT Jesus' brother.