The fabrication of Jesus.

[Elijah John]

Some go beyond the theory that a real, human Jesus existed and was later mythologized into the Divine person of "Christ".

Some hold that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all, even as a completely human person.

For debate:

-Why would anyone have invented the tale that Jesus existed?

-Who "invented" Jesus, and why?

[historia]

In that post I was making the point that we can have millions of followers of a belief even though the foundation is mythical.

Okay, I'm with you so far.

History has something to say about the early Christians, but that does not contribute to a proof that Christ was real, as Zeus and Isis show.

Now you've lost me. History doesn't "say" things. And historians never set out to "prove" what happened in the past. I'm afraid whatever point you're trying to make here is obscured by this clumsy phrasing.

It seem to me the situation is this: We have several ancient historical texts written by early Christian authors, almost all of which refer to Jesus of Nazareth, who they considered to be the Messiah and the founder of their sect.

After critically examining these sources in the light of our background knowledge of Second Temple Judaism and Greco-Roman history, the hypothesis that best explains this data is that Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, an historical figure.

That we cannot "prove" that Jesus existed isn't a meaningful objection to that conclusion, since this is true of all historical inquiry -- the historical method only allows us to ascribe probabilities about past events. Likewise, the fact that a critical analysis of the historical sources mentioning Zeus or Isis yields a different result is irrelevant.

When the material we have to consider speaks of angels at his birth, raised corpses in his tiny window of appearance, resurrection from the dead and ascension into the sky we are entitled to propose the character is unreal.

Of course. Anyone is free to propose any hypothesis they like to explain the available data.

It's possible Jesus was a myth. It's just not probable, as that hypothesis doesn't explain the available data well.

What we cannot say is that claims he was unreal crash against history.

Putting aside for a second whether we can or cannot say this, let us agree that we shouldn't use vague metaphorical expressions like this. I don't know what it means for something to "crash against history" -- or rather, "historical criteria," to quote Liam directly.

I suspect he means that the mythicist hypothesis has lower plausibility, weaker explanatory scope and power, and relies on more ad hoc suppositions than the historical hypothesis. Which we can say, as those are all true.

[historia]

If Luke can fabricate a genealogy for Jesus, what value does he have as a witness for some other statement regarding Christ and Paul?

So let me see if I understand your point here:

Are you saying that, because Luke connects Jesus' ancestry to genealogical lists in the Jewish scriptures, therefore everything he wrote is fiction?

And when you find disagreement in details you generously suppose Luke got his information from a proper source rather from the same source from which he extracted Adam's birth certificate and the conversation with angels.

And what is this "same source"?

[Willum]

So, we have tangented slightly to saying that evidence points to the existence of Jesus.

Leading to the question, what questions or phenomenon does his existence answer, that his non-existence does not?

Given these criteria, Jesus has less literature and support than, say Superman or Luke Skywalker, two other saviours.

...But lacks any real support. Carpentry by the worlds most famous carpentry is lacking. The Book of Lazarus is non-extant.

If anyone can think of anything other than what is analogous to Luke and Kal's proof of existence, you've had 2000 years to do so.

[marco]

History has something to say about the early Christians, but that does not contribute to a proof that Christ was real, as Zeus and Isis show.

Now you've lost me. History doesn't "say" things. And historians never set out to "prove" what happened in the past. I'm afraid whatever point you're trying to make here is obscured by this clumsy phrasing.

Ah, the sentence was untrammelled by clumsiness when it set off so perhaps it picked it up at its destination.
When Hartley said "the past is a foreign country" he was using figurative language, and using it well. We can say that the crown disapproves, knowing full well that crowns are incapable of disapproving. It is called metonymy. When we replace historians - who do indeed talk - with the abstract noun, history, we are also using metonymy. I'm sorry if that device is confusing.

I did not say anything about historians setting out to prove things. You may if you wish attribute your misunderstanding to my clumsy expression, but, bye the bye, a history professor friend is in fact attempting to "prove" the real whereabouts of a notable historical figure. So some historians do try to prove things.

It seem to me the situation is this: We have several ancient historical texts written by early Christian authors, almost all of which refer to Jesus of Nazareth,who they considered to be the Messiah and the founder of their sect.

After critically examining these sources in the light of our background knowledge of Second Temple Judaism and Greco-Roman history, the hypothesis that best explains this data is that Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, an historical figure.

While we are in Zoilean mode may I respectfully point out that the grammatical flaws (wrong case; misrelated participle) indicated above do not prevent me from extracting some meaning. Whoever "critically examined" is entitled to conclude that Jesus did indeed live, if the "critical examination" was worthy of its name. Remember, I am not disputing the probability of Christ's existence, only the certainty - and that seems to be your view, so I can't see what the quibble is.

Putting aside for a second whether we can or cannot say this, let us agree that we shouldn't use vague metaphorical expressions like this. I don't know what it means for something to "crash against history" -- or rather, "historical criteria," to quote Liam directly.

The expression wasn't mine but I know perfectly well what it means. It is a correct expression of what the writer intended to convey. If figurative language is tough to understand, perhaps one should avoid places where it is being used - correctly or not.


Let us conclude by saying there is a possibility that Jesus did exist. Doubts arise because he appeared on the scene at 30; he is associated with what seem to be fictional events; he moved to where heaven was thought to be - in the sky - by physical ascension. He walked though closed doors, died and got up. There is just a whiff of fiction here which puts a question mark against the preacher. But the colossal amount of secular evidence is, as you suggest, enough to convince all but the most stubborn sceptic. I'm just not sure where it is.

My warm regards.

[marco]

If Luke can fabricate a genealogy for Jesus, what value does he have as a witness for some other statement regarding Christ and Paul?

So let me see if I understand your point here:

Are you saying that, because Luke connects Jesus' ancestry to genealogical lists in the Jewish scriptures, therefore everything he wrote is fiction?

No. Do you believe the lists are correct?

And when you find disagreement in details you generously suppose Luke got his information from a proper source rather from the same source from which he extracted Adam's birth certificate and the conversation with angels.

And what is this "same source"?

His imagination. Luke is not a reliable witness. He presents fiction as fact. But he is your star witness.

[1213]

Thats what Satan wants you to think.

Is that what Satan told to you, or how do you know?

Do you think Yahway wants you to pay tribute to the false god Caesar?

No.

I think God doesnt want that I use coins of false gods, why else would the false god be dead?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 65 by 1213]

Jesus is dead, he died on a cross.
He is as dead as Caesar to any given Buddhist or non-believer.
More importantly he is dead to the Jewish.

That is the perception you need to understand: The Jews didn't believe in the tax or the Roman government - or the gods graven on its currency, enough that they were willing to suffer death and diaspora because they didn't pay it.

Actually, considering, in the conflict between Zeus and Yahweh, it seems Zeus triumphed utterly. So not only is there reason to disbelieve in Jesus - as a Roman construct, there is reason to dismiss Yahweh as fictional as well.

That Zeus is still worshiped, as Deus, Dios, Dio, Dieux, Dyeus, (you'll not the "dy" makes a "z" sound, which gets us to Zeus, or Dyio, 'Dy'ieux, and so on,) and that Yahweh is not, should be telling as well.

The majority of the non-English speaking world worship Zeus. Only the Germano-English speakers worship "God."
That a small minority of the world still worships Yahweh, is exactly as quaint as the small number of people who still follow Hellenism.

And there are far more people who worship Eastern religions, quite modernly.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 65 by 1213]

Is that what Satan told to you, or how do you know?

1213, I'd appreciate it if you went along with the following for a moment.

Let's pretend that Willum replies back saying "Yes...in fact Satan DID tell this to me", as in a spirit being of some description identifying itself as Satan told Willum things such as that Jesus Christ was fabricated.

Why is it you think the idea of Willum being told things by Satan to be ridiculous? Something worthy of mockery? After all, that is exactly what YOU believe, what YOUR religion says. A spirit being of some description that identifies itself then tells things to humans, and humans are supposed to take what this spirit being says as truth.
Why is Willum being told things by Satan worthy of ridicule, but Saint Paul being told things by a vision of Jesus not?

[DPMartin]

disregard that last transmission.

[1213]

More importantly he is dead to the Jewish.

That is sad, all though, I believe it is changing. By that I see, Jews are nowadays more faithful to the one and only true God than Christians who act like Pharisees during Jesus era.

That is the perception you need to understand: The Jews didn't believe in the tax or the Roman government - or the gods graven on its currency, enough that they were willing to suffer death and diaspora because they didn't pay it.

But didnt they pay the taxes? Did they use roman money? Or did they give it away as Jesus taught?

Actually, considering, in the conflict between Zeus and Yahweh, it seems Zeus triumphed utterly.

In that case, please tell, what is the biggest teaching of Zeus? I dont know anything what he said, but I know a lot what Bible God has told.