Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

[paarsurrey1]

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

[historia]

You might misunderstand what I meant by "prove Jesus." I'm not looking for proof that eliminates all conceivable doubt the historicity of Jesus; I'm looking for proof that eliminates all reasonable doubt.

I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Strictly speaking, "proof" is only attainable in mathematics and logic. Not even scientists talk about requiring "proof," 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.

So does history. How then can anyone meaningful ask for "proof" for people and events from ancient history?

Rather, the historical method proceeds like any other field of human inquiry: We make observations, we form a hypothesis, and then we critically examine the available data in order to assess our hypothesis.

Well, that's what many mythicists like Richard Carrier are trying to do.

Indeed, my comment here isn't directed at Carrier.

Rather, it's directed at your arguments in this thread, which have largely consisted of a subjective appraisal of the quality of the available historical sources and the assertion that they don't meet some arbitrary standard you've set.

It would be far better if the discussion instead focused on which hypothesis best explains the available evidence, as that is the relevant standard.

If the approach you just posted is so critical in determining if Jesus is historical, then why does it fail in some cases to establish Jesus as historical? Obviously, that approach to history is not completely reliable if different people apply it only to arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions.

Because a method doesn't, in itself, always ensure unanimous conclusions from all practitioners. Scientists follow the scientific method, but don't all agree on every hypothesis. In the same way, historians follow the historical method, but don't all agree on every hypothesis. This is why peer-review and the consensus of scholars are equally critical here: that process filters out weaker hypotheses and erroneous analysis.

But not following the historical method in the first place is a surefire way to reach biased and erroneous conclusions.

Framing the question this way is important, because it is very easy to adopt a hyper-skeptical stance toward any historical topic, declare that the available evidence doesn't meet your own (ultimately arbitrary and subjective) standard for "proof"...

But isn't this just what the historical-Jesus crowd is arguing?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "historical-Jesus crowd." But my argument (and those of most historical Jesus scholars) is that the hypothesis that Jesus existed best explains the available evidence. I am not demanding "proof" or taking a hyper-skeptical stance toward the evidence.

As you can see, it's easy to argue that the opposing side has some ulterior motive. It doesn't prove much to "mind read" those who disagree with us.

I wholeheartedly agree. This is why I think your musings about your opponents having an emotional attachment to a belief that Jesus existed (both here and in other threads) is entirely unhelpful. I'm also not sure what this has to do with my comment above.

After scrutinizing the New Testament, I can't see any good reason to believe it's based on a real Jesus. To the contrary, I see plenty of reasons to see the Jesus of the New Testament as a myth.

You're entitled to your private opinion, of course. But it seems to me Goose has amply demonstrated that the reasons you've given so far for thinking Jesus is a myth apply equally to many other historical figures from the ancient world who you apparently do think existed.

That leaves the rest of us wondering whether you are simply employing a double-standard here, and so your arguments against the historicity of Jesus constitute special pleading. Or you are now forced to doubt the existence of all these other historical persons, which seems entirely unreasonable.

If you wish to argue for a historical Jesus, then you have the onus to show he did exist. I have no burden to prove he didn't exist.

Not quite. I'll let Carrier explain, from Proving History, pg. 30:

[T]he burden of proof clearly falls on anyone who would challenge an existing consensus, despite repeated attempts to deny this. For example, in the matter of whether Jesus actually existed as a historical person, historicists have already met the burden of evidence to produce a consensus of qualified experts. So the deniers of historicity must overcome that burden with their own.

Ehrman concurs in Did Jesus Exist, pg. 38-39:

It has become somewhat common among mythicists to think that the default position on the question of Jesus' existence should be that he did not exist unless someone can demonstrate that he did . . . I myself do not think that is true. On one hand, since every relevant ancient source (as we will see) assumes that there was such a man, and since no scholar who has ever written on it, except a handful of mythicists, has ever had any serious doubts, surely the burden of proof does not fall on those who take the almost universally accepted position.

This is, of course, entirely right. The burden lies with anyone who disagrees with the consensus of experts. And so on this topic it lies with mythicists. Just as it lies with those who claim that Bigfoot is real or aliens have visited the earth, to your examples above, as the consensus does not lie with those positions.

[William]

[Replying to post 60 by JP Cusick]

I agree that at first the name "Christian" was derogatory and they did not like being called that, but we can see that Peter told them to accept the name calling as better than being called an evil doer, see 1 Peter 4:14-16

Yes. The verses you linked do not suggests they adopt the name as a title for their collective selves and the beliefs they represented.

My finding is that at first they called their selves as "disciples" (disciplined ones) as shown in Acts 6:1-7

There is no reason to conclude that they ever changed from referring to themselves as disciples and adopted the derogatory name as a replacement.

I would even go so far as to say that they would have understood Romes move to invent Christianity as a product of deception.

I agree - you are correct in this.

It was Rome that took over Christianity - not the other way around.

Just to be clear, I do not think Rome 'took over Christianity. I think Rome invented Christianity as a way of totally suppressing the movement that had begun in Israel through the efforts of one particular man, who we generically refer to as 'Jesus' but of course, Jesus would not have been that man's actual name.

In relation to the thread topic, it is all about Roman reaction to a movement they seriously considered exceeding threatening, which convinces me that the man who started that movement and now known as 'Jesus' did in fact exist, although I am equally certain that most of the words and actions attributed to him are Roman invention.

That is why there is necessity to sort the wheat from the chaff.

[JP Cusick]

In relation to the thread topic, it is all about Roman reaction to a movement they seriously considered exceeding threatening, which convinces me that the man who started that movement and now known as 'Jesus' did in fact exist, although I am equally certain that most of the words and actions attributed to him are Roman invention.

That is why there is necessity to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I too say in relation to this thread topic that we need to include God in the scenario to properly understand, because even mighty brutal Rome did not control the reality of God.

What I see is that by the early 7th century (622 CE) the Roman Christianity had survived the fall of Rome and God sent another Prophet Messenger in Muhammad to show and to tell humanity the truth that Christianity had lost.

As such the Qur'an version of Jesus is more accurate then is the Christian version of the Trinity and of Jesus being God and etc, and yet we can still find truth in the 4 Gospels, and I say we can find truth in the Epistles and in Paul too.

The Qur'an was never meant to take the place of the Gospels, but to add clarity.

Jesus and the Gospel was the first witness, and Muhammad and the Qur'an are the 2nd witness, which both stand the test of time. Revelation 11:3-5

[Willum]

[Replying to post 63 by JP Cusick]

I too say in relation to this thread topic that we need to include God in the scenario to properly understand, because even mighty brutal Rome did not control the reality of God.

And yet:
Peter:
13 Submit yourselves for the Lords sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

Romans 13:
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is Gods servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are Gods servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Matthew 22:21
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Perhaps it is me, but either God did a good job of supporting Rome, or Rome did a great job of

control[ling] the reality of God.

You'll notice that even Jesus' words put Caesar before God. Both by mentioning him first (linguistic context), and by priority. The words are in reference to paying tax... another supporting statement.

Why is God so concerned with supporting Rome?

[JP Cusick]

Why is God so concerned with supporting Rome?

The governments of mankind are indeed the instruments of God.

When the leaders turn against God then their government gets overthrown or destroyed.

Every gov has the task of keeping the peace by prosecuting or executing violent criminals within their society, and every government is based on the people's rejection of God.

It is not a contradiction = that gov is supported by God, but whenever a gov does wrong then God strikes them down.

The thing about Rome is that after Rome crucified Jesus then Rome became cursed unto the fourth (4th) generation - which is 480 years.

Deuteronomy 5:
for I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Rome was the only civilization to ever get the maximum punishment to the 4th degree.

[Justin108]

(Mary) giving birth to a boy who is immediately articulate

One did not provide the verses in the context as requested, so I provide them here again:

[19:22] He replied, Thus it is. But says thy Lord, It is easy for Me; and We shall do so that We may make him a Sign unto men, and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing decreed.
[19:23] So she conceived him, and withdrew with him to a remote place.
[19:24] And the pains of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of a palm-tree. She said, O! would that I had died before this and had become a thing quite forgotten!
[19:25] Then he called her from beneath her, saying, Grieve not. Thy Lord has placed a rivulet below thee;
[19:26] And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree; it will cause fresh ripe dates to fall upon thee.
[19:27] So eat and drink, and cool thy eye. And if thou seest any man, say, I have vowed a fast to the Gracious God; I will therefore not speak this day to any human being.
[19:28] Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, O Mary, thou hast brought forth a strange thing.
[19:29] O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother an unchaste woman!
[19:30] Then she pointed to him. They said, How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?
[19:31] He said, I am a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet;
[19:32] And He has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live;
[19:33] And He has made me dutiful toward my mother, and He has not made me haughty and unblessed.
[19:34] And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace there will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.
[19:35] Such was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth about which they doubt.
[19:36] It does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son. Holy is He. When He decrees a thing, He says to it, Be!, and it is.
[19:37] Said Jesus: Surely, Allah is my Lord, and your Lord. So worship Him alone; this is the right path.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 9&verse=30

Quran is not a Book/Recitation of history, it is a corrective book that bring out the reality.

I could not find the word "immediately" in the verses quoted by one in the later post (#9) as mentioned by one in one's earlier post (#5) . Right, please?

Regards

Ok so Jesus didn't "immediately" speak complete, fluent sentences. But he did speak complete, fluent sentences while still an infant in the cradle? Right, please? Thank you please? Please. Please right please?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 65 by JP Cusick]

You will have to forgive me for being skeptical.
God, Yahwey, Jesus et&al have no solid proof, despite there being many opportunities for such - biographies and narratives of Lazarus, who survived Jesus, etc..

Yet a government, that rules the world, has this religion that tells its "brethren" that God told them to obey it, and any other government...

It seems too good to be true, especially for governments, who promote its publication.

[paarsurrey1]

(Mary) giving birth to a boy who is immediately articulate

One did not provide the verses in the context as requested, so I provide them here again:

[19:22] He replied, Thus it is. But says thy Lord, It is easy for Me; and We shall do so that We may make him a Sign unto men, and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing decreed.
[19:23] So she conceived him, and withdrew with him to a remote place.
[19:24] And the pains of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of a palm-tree. She said, O! would that I had died before this and had become a thing quite forgotten!
[19:25] Then he called her from beneath her, saying, Grieve not. Thy Lord has placed a rivulet below thee;
[19:26] And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree; it will cause fresh ripe dates to fall upon thee.
[19:27] So eat and drink, and cool thy eye. And if thou seest any man, say, I have vowed a fast to the Gracious God; I will therefore not speak this day to any human being.
[19:28] Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, O Mary, thou hast brought forth a strange thing.
[19:29] O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother an unchaste woman!
[19:30] Then she pointed to him. They said, How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?
[19:31] He said, I am a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet;
[19:32] And He has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live;
[19:33] And He has made me dutiful toward my mother, and He has not made me haughty and unblessed.
[19:34] And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace there will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.
[19:35] Such was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth about which they doubt.
[19:36] It does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son. Holy is He. When He decrees a thing, He says to it, Be!, and it is.
[19:37] Said Jesus: Surely, Allah is my Lord, and your Lord. So worship Him alone; this is the right path.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 9&verse=30

Quran is not a Book/Recitation of history, it is a corrective book that bring out the reality.

I could not find the word "immediately" in the verses quoted by one in the later post (#9) as mentioned by one in one's earlier post (#5) . Right, please?

Regards

Ok so Jesus didn't "immediately" speak complete, fluent sentences. But he did speak complete, fluent sentences while still an infant in the cradle? Right, please? Thank you please? Please. Please right please?

Is the word "infant" even mentioned in any of the verses above, please? If yes, please indicate the verse of Quran where it is mentioned, please. Right, please?

Regards

[William]

[Replying to post 63 by JP Cusick]

I too say in relation to this thread topic that we need to include God in the scenario to properly understand, because even mighty brutal Rome did not control the reality of God.

Firstly, I have to confess that I had been reading a thread debating the historical fact of Jesus and got mixed up - in that my comment was refereeing to that thread not this one.

As to your comment above, I understand that no thing can directly control the reality of GOD, but indirectly (and in relation to the local GOD Earth Entity) aspects of GOD-consciousness can be controlled through controlling the belief systems of human beings.

What I see is that by the early 7th century (622 CE) the Roman Christianity had survived the fall of Rome and God sent another Prophet Messenger in Muhammad to show and to tell humanity the truth that Christianity had lost.

I am unfamiliar with that branch of the 'Abrahamic' religions, so cannot agree or disagree with what you say about it.
Also, ROME never fell - at least not as a system of disparity. It just went underground until it could establish its dominance more openly again.

Any political system/culture/religion which uses the same symbolism and ideals that Rome used, can be see to be 'Roman'.

I am in no doubt though, that some of the things spoken of by the one known as 'Jesus' which Rome had to use as part of its deceptions, have indeed had their influence on the world - in a positive manner - so in that sense, whilst Rome was infiltrating that troublesome movement, aspects of that movement infiltrated Rome and still remain as surely as Rome stills remains.

As such the Qur'an version of Jesus is more accurate then is the Christian version of the Trinity and of Jesus being God and etc, and yet we can still find truth in the 4 Gospels, and I say we can find truth in the Epistles and in Paul too.

I would only add to that, that I have found truth in other things as well as in aspects of these well established organised religions, such as in (so-called) occult concepts and practices, which organised religions have tried to annihilate and persecute and condemn and demonize and ridicule and...well you get the picture...

Also - I meant to make comment on your earlier post;

[Replying to post 60 by JP Cusick]

I would agree with scripture that the entire world is deceived, but some people are more deceived and some less.

More, or less, deceived anyway...the idea is to know this and work with it through a continued perseverance towards the goal of becoming altogether free of it...slowly and surely...

God judges the heart, so a person's intention does matter, and so I say without evidence that I believe that there are some people who sincerely seek the truth, and that is the ultimate criteria.

Agreed. Intent is always involved as the key approach. What is the intent, determines probable outcomes. "By their fruits" their intent is revealed.

[Justin108]

(Mary) giving birth to a boy who is immediately articulate

One did not provide the verses in the context as requested, so I provide them here again:

[19:22] He replied, Thus it is. But says thy Lord, It is easy for Me; and We shall do so that We may make him a Sign unto men, and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing decreed.
[19:23] So she conceived him, and withdrew with him to a remote place.
[19:24] And the pains of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of a palm-tree. She said, O! would that I had died before this and had become a thing quite forgotten!
[19:25] Then he called her from beneath her, saying, Grieve not. Thy Lord has placed a rivulet below thee;
[19:26] And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree; it will cause fresh ripe dates to fall upon thee.
[19:27] So eat and drink, and cool thy eye. And if thou seest any man, say, I have vowed a fast to the Gracious God; I will therefore not speak this day to any human being.
[19:28] Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, O Mary, thou hast brought forth a strange thing.
[19:29] O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother an unchaste woman!
[19:30] Then she pointed to him. They said, How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?
[19:31] He said, I am a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet;
[19:32] And He has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live;
[19:33] And He has made me dutiful toward my mother, and He has not made me haughty and unblessed.
[19:34] And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace there will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.
[19:35] Such was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth about which they doubt.
[19:36] It does not befit the Majesty of Allah to take unto Himself a son. Holy is He. When He decrees a thing, He says to it, Be!, and it is.
[19:37] Said Jesus: Surely, Allah is my Lord, and your Lord. So worship Him alone; this is the right path.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 9&verse=30

Quran is not a Book/Recitation of history, it is a corrective book that bring out the reality.

I could not find the word "immediately" in the verses quoted by one in the later post (#9) as mentioned by one in one's earlier post (#5) . Right, please?

Regards

Ok so Jesus didn't "immediately" speak complete, fluent sentences. But he did speak complete, fluent sentences while still an infant in the cradle? Right, please? Thank you please? Please. Please right please?

Is the word "infant" even mentioned in any of the verses above, please? If yes, please indicate the verse of Quran where it is mentioned, please. Right, please?

Regards

[19:30] Then she pointed to him. They said, How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?

How long do you suppose Jesus was in a cradle?