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?

[1213]

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?

Fun thing about it was, he cant give easy answer, because if he admits he dont really know, his argument is ruined and if he claims the message is from Satan, it leads to another difficult situation.

But I didnt mean to mock him about hearing Satan speaking. If person would really hear Satan, I dont think it is something that should be ridiculed.

[Willum]

Peculiar your cherry-picking, you seemed to gloss over more of the salient points, and arrive at a "Thank You For Smoking," result.

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's not sad at all, but something Christian claim to respect, FAITH. The Jews know without a doubt, because of what they read in the OT, that Jesus is not the savior. If they don't believe it, are you telling me God would deceive them that badly, that they'd emperil their souls for eternity?

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?

You know the answer as well as the Jewish did. Would you use the graven image gods you believed were unholy to pay taxes today? Do you give it away?

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.

Ah, but don't you see, Zeus = Deus, JeZeus <-- Zeus, the God of the Latin world. Christianity follows Hellenic principles, not Jewish. So what you have been taught and indoctrinated as believing is Jewish has been warped to Hellenism, anyway including your God.

[historia]

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.

Metonymy is generally not confusing. In this case it is, though, since "history" can refer to different things. I took you to be referring to what the historical sources have to say, which is why my response focused on that. You apparently meant it as a reference to what historians have to say. In which case I would have responded differently.

It's not my intention to be overly critical here. I appreciate any attempt at writing clever prose. But in this case it is coming at the expense of clearer arguments, which hinders any debate.

I did not say anything about historians setting out to prove things.

You said that "history" doesn't "contribute to a proof" that Jesus existed. I took that to mean that you are using "proof" as some kind of relevant standard that needs to be met in historical inquiry. But, again, that's my best guess at your meaning.

Your historian friend may well be setting out to show that the preponderance of the historical evidence supports his or her hypothesis, but that cannot properly be called "proof." We cannot reproduce the past, and therefore can never "prove" what happened.

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.

I was trying to understand how Zeus and Isis fit into your objection. But as we have now descended into debating style rather than substance, it seems that we should, as you suggested earlier, move on.

[historia]

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

No.

Okay, then we can safely set aside this objection as having little direct relevance to the question under consideration.

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.

Again, for clarification: Are you proposing that Luke's account of Paul persecuting Christians is entirely fictional? Something he just imagined one day out of the blue, and fabricated out of whole cloth?

[marco]

Metonymy is generally not confusing. In this case it is, though, since "history" can refer to different things.

Such is the way with language, historia. We must each do what we can to extract meaning.

It's not my intention to be overly critical here. I appreciate any attempt at writing clever prose. But in this case it is coming at the expense of clearer arguments, which hinders any debate.

Worrying. I hope it isn't a frequent problem. We seem to be debating nonetheless.

Your historian friend may well be setting out to show that the preponderance of the historical evidence supports his or her hypothesis, but that cannot properly be called "proof." We cannot reproduce the past, and therefore can never "prove" what happened.

I understand the meaning of proof, historia. Your statement that historians do not set out to prove things is just wrong. They can and they do.

I was trying to understand how Zeus and Isis fit into your objection.

I thought I had explained this in non-figurative language but obviously some problem still exists. Here's the meaning:

People say that early Christians honoured Christ and told tales about him. This might suggest Christ is a real figure.
I pointed out that people honoured Zeus and Isis. But they were not real. The point is that people can pay service to non-real beings, while perhaps believing they do exist.

[historia]

We seem to be debating nonetheless.

Indeed, I look forward to your reply to post 73.

Your statement that historians do not set out to prove things is just wrong. They can and they do.

Historians and philosophers of history have long debated the nature of historical inquiry. A classic work in the field is C. Behan McCullagh's Justifying Historical Descriptions (1984). He writes (pg. 4):

t is not possible to prove the truth of any historical description beyond all possibility of error. The reason for this are familiar to historians.

Indeed, as abductive arguments, historical descriptions cannot "prove" what actually happened in the past.

Not even scientists set out to "prove" their hypotheses, as Sean Carroll rightly points out:

[S]cience isnt in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data.

That's precisely what the discipline of history does too. Aside from math and logic, where one can rightly speak of "proof," this is what all disciplines set out to do.

[1213]

That's not sad at all, but something Christian claim to respect, FAITH. The Jews know without a doubt, because of what they read in the OT, that Jesus is not the savior. If they don't believe it, are you telling me God would deceive them that badly, that they'd emperil their souls for eternity?

I dont think God deceived them. Some Jews accepted Jesus as savior, some did not. And the rulers obviously didnt like, because they were afraid of losing their power. I believe they all really knew, but some didnt want to accept Jesus. OT doesnt say Jesus is not savior.

You know the answer as well as the Jewish did. Would you use the graven image gods you believed were unholy to pay taxes today?

Actually, I dont know did the Jews use them. But if they didnt use, the whole tax paying question is meaningless.

Ah, but don't you see, Zeus = Deus, JeZeus <-- Zeus, the God of the Latin world. Christianity follows Hellenic principles, not Jewish. So what you have been taught and indoctrinated as believing is Jewish has been warped to Hellenism, anyway including your God.

Sorry, I dont see any proof or evidence for that, unless you are speaking of a group that doesnt follow the teachings of Bible Jesus. And it may be possible that some groups dont follow Bible Jesus. But that is then meaningless thing, because I am speaking of Bible Jesus and that he is not Hellenic. Your wordplay is no evidence for anything.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 76 by 1213]

Well, you are summing up everything you said with, "I believe."
Well I fact, and maybe you should investigate those things you don't know -
- if you aren't going to believe me.

You may think God didn't deceive them, but if you look at the events, you have the definite conclusions, you don't need to think, you can be sure.

I wonder if you noticed that those rulers afraid of God, were not disrupted by him in the lease; never have been, never will be.

You say Christianity is not Hellenic? There that you se no proof? Only because if you looked, you find it, and bye-bye religion.
Do you stone adulterers, or give them a pass?
In fact do you follow any of the interesting bits of the OT, or just the easy ones, modern audiences agree are OK?

[marco]

Historians and philosophers of history have long debated the nature of historical inquiry. A classic work in the field is C. Behan McCullagh's Justifying Historical Descriptions (1984). He writes (pg. 4):

t is not possible to prove the truth of any historical description beyond all possibility of error. The reason for this are familiar to historians.

Indeed, as abductive arguments, historical descriptions cannot "prove" what actually happened in the past.

Not even scientists set out to "prove" their hypotheses, as Sean Carroll rightly points out.

As you said, you misunderstood my original post, and offering me this information, with which I agree, would suggest a misunderstanding on your part. The statement in which I used the word proof was:

"History has something to say about the early Christians, but that does not contribute to a proof that Christ was real."

You then issued the generalisation that historians never seek to prove... but they sometimes do. The writer above is discussing historical information that has come down to us. He makes a valid statement. But it is certainly possible both in history and in science to PROVE a claim is false. We can retrieve material that illustrates the falseness of a claim. I agree with the historian's simple statement; I disagree with your false generalisation, which in any case is irrelevant to the discussion on Christ's authenticity. We both agree that there is doubt.

Example: Shakespeare's corpse lies headless. Claim: nonsense.
Solution: exhume the body and verify there is no head. That is proof.

[marco]

Again, for clarification: Are you proposing that Luke's account of Paul persecuting Christians is entirely fictional? Something he just imagined one day out of the blue, and fabricated out of whole cloth?

I don't know when Luke imagined his nonsense: "Six months after Elizabeth knew she was to become a mother, Gabriel was sent from God to Nazareth" or how he could assert with certainty the genealogy of Joseph back to God. You say he consulted the Jewish records. Quite!

We deduce Luke is a writer of fiction and so to use him about another claim is flawed. That seems sensible. Perhaps bands of people went out to persecute Christians; perhaps Paul persecuted them in writings; perhaps Luke was speaking figuratively. Or perhaps he was creating another fictional account to make his story about God shouting out somewhere near Damascus even better.

Whether the sky was blue when he wrote his account is neither here nor there. What is relevant is that Luke wrote fiction. Bad witness.