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

[paarsurrey1]

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

Regards

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 28 by Goose]

I asked for someone from first century Judea since someone from first century Judea would be comparable to Jesus.

Is there something special about the first century aside from it being the time Jesus allegedly lived? No problem, though--consider Paul of Tarsus; we know he existed because we have his writings. The same goes for Josephus. We have no such evidence for Jesus.

You do, huh? Tell me how you know them.

How do you know them? Is it because later writers attributed titles and authorship to them? I’ll bet it is.

Do you? Name them. Tell me how you know who wrote them.

Tell me the methodology you used to determine these anonymous works were in fact written by Plato and Xenophon. Tell me how you know Plato and Xenophon really were eyewitnesses and disciples.

The Clouds also features, as one of the main characters in the play, a chorus of winged immortal goddesses (the Clouds).

Here's the citation: Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014, Page 396

You may also check Not the Impossible Faith, pages 161-218 and Sense and Goodness, Pages 246-247 for more information.

And you are committing another Question Begging fallacy. The Clouds is an anonymous comedic play (a fictional play by the way, not a bio or history) which was attributed to Aristophanes by later writers.

You've posted a non sequitur here. The genre of The Clouds does not demonstrate that I assumed anything I may have been trying to prove.

You mean some are argued to be forgeries. They haven’t been found to be forgeries.

True. There's little we can really say for sure when it comes to Biblical studies. The evidence is so weak that all we can do is argue.

I only care about the arguments you can muster up. And they seem to be sorrily lacking any real substance at this point.

I'm busy these days investigating the issue of the historical Jesus. I'm working on a book in which I discuss three views of Jesus: The Gospel Jesus as a Man, The Gospel Jesus as a Myth, and The Gospel Jesus as God. I essentially leave it up to the reader to decide which Jesus is the "right" one. So far the mythical Jesus seems to be the most plausible to me.

His close proximity to key disciples.

Talk about begging the question! Do you know what begging the question is? Begging the question is a mistake in logic in which you assume what you are trying to prove. Jesus could not have any "key disciples" unless he existed. To prove he existed, you assume he existed.

One of those differences being Paul was a former enemy of the church and a convert.

We are very quick to believe everything Paul said. Is that your evidence for Jesus? Paul said so?

So let me get this straight. Now having Lataster, a self-published Jesus-myther Carrier wanna-be, in addition to Price and Carrier, is why you think “the historical view of Jesus is rapidly going out of fashion�? That statement is almost laughable. Well I guess that is a 50% increase in the number of scholars though. I’ll bet their annual convention is one heck of a humdinger.

You are obviously very hostile toward those who disagree with you. Do you have some emotional investment in a "real" Jesus? Would you be very upset to discover he was a myth?

The Jesus-myther position is held by a handful of fringe scholars some of which have very heavy agendas against Christianity, such as Carrier. Mythers are a little like YEC in this regard. It’s just not a position held by the overwhelmingly vast majority of scholars, critics and atheists included.

Yes, I concede you have the consensus. Do you think that the majority must be right?Did you see my Three-Little-Pigs send-up of the historicist position? The majority rules there too:

Now, although the vast majority of Three Little Pigs scholars assure us there was a big, bad wolf and three little pigs, some fringe crackpots are trying to say there never was a big, bad wolf nor three little pigs! These amateurs hold no positions at any accredited universities and rely on outdated sources to deny the historicity of the pigs and the wolf. These pig-and-wolf deniers have an agenda against belief in talking wolves and pigs living in their own houses. This prejudice has caused them to deny even the very historical reality of the wolf and the pigs. This pig-and-wolf denial is in the same league as holocaust denial and creationism. No serious pig-and-wolf scholar accepts their theory.

So your appeal to majority and your false analogy to creationism doesn't help your case much considering that arguing that way applies as much to a work of fiction as it applies to history.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 27 by Jagella]

Hi J:
IAW Goose's request, it may surprise you to know that there are many, many people comparable to Jesus in the first century, and unlike Jesus, there people have census and recorded events that means they actually existed:

Other Jesi

Yes, there were many people like Jesus in the first century. Jesus was a common name as were James and John common names. The key issue, though, is did any of these Jesuses inspire the New Testament? If you carefully read the New Testament along with the mythology of that part of the world that predated Christianity, you can see how the early Christians got their ideas from those older myths. If Jesus did exist, then he must have known about these older Jewish and pagan myths. To illustrate, here's an excerpt from the book I'm working on:

Egyptian mythology is another possible source of the version of hell that Jesus taught. The Tale of Khaemwese, an Egyptian story, describes a rich man who dies and is sentenced to eternal punishment. He was sentenced to this punishment because while he was still alive he lacked charity. A poor man, by contrast, dies and enjoys a blessed state. 55 This story is very similar to the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16:19-31. Although I don't think Jesus ever traveled to Egypt as an adult, it is very possible that Jesus heard The Tale of Khaemwese from traders from Egypt.

The "historical-Jesus people" seem to be quite ignorant of the parallels between Jewish and pagan mythology.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 32 by Jagella]

Well, so if we follow Jesi logistics, we find that we can not show there was an actual person of Jesus description in existence. We find that these myths and legend sprang up incident with Rome's incursion into Jerusalem.

For example, Yahu, becoming Yahweh (whose name is a homonym with Jove, in Latin), who became omnipotent as the concept of omnipotence was introduced into Jerusalem.

If we take your view and kludge all these myths together, then Rome takes them and transforms it into a religion, as occurred 300 years after the alleged personage of Jesus existed, we might find that all these myth and peoples were put together and called a new religion.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 30 by JP Cusick]

Many things trouble me about this claim, as like even if there were no Jesus then that does not thereby mean that there is no God.

While I cannot speak for Raphael Lataster (whose book title you quoted), I agree that Jesus and most gods are essentially independent. However, if there is no Christian God, then Jesus may still have existed although he would not be divine, of course. If Jesus didn't exist, then the Christian god could only exist if we alter his theology radically.

The reality and existence of God is not dependent on Jesus, and the real God's existence is not dependent on the Bible.

Oh sure; you can have any god you want with or without Jesus. There are at least thousands of gods people have believed in, few of which are Christian gods that involve Jesus.

So the basic premises is wrong and misguided.

I would not go so far as to insist there are no gods and that there was no Jesus. Neither one is likely to exist, but I suppose they cannot be ruled out.

Secondly is that the Jesus of the new testament was deemed to be an enemy and a criminal to the powerful Roman Empire, and historical records do tell us that the Roman Empire was aggressively against early Christianity and so Christians were fed to lions and brutally exterminated...

If Jesus existed, then yes, he was probably executed as a rebel against Rome. I'm not completely sure what was the extent of persecution the early Christians faced, though. I'll need to research that one.

...and the Christian writing were destroyed, and the Roman authorities destroyed any record of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Are you sure about this? The Romans didn't destroy the New Testament, obviously. I understand that Christians destroyed a lot of documents that didn't fit their "orthodoxy."

The fact that the 4 Gospels and the writing of Paul have survived is in itself a huge miracle because the writing had to survive the onslaught of the Roman brutes which surely was no easy task.

Didn't you just say the Romans "destroyed any record of the historical Jesus of Nazareth"? You're confusing me, JP! ](*,)

[Willum]

[Replying to post 30 by JP Cusick]

Now what Bible are you reading?
Jesus was deemed an enemy of Judaism. It was the Pharisee who threw him under the bus, the Romans executed him to keep peace.

Christians were NOT mass executed, a few were executed by Nero to "prove" they started the great fire.

Third, Christians in the Dark Ages destroyed most of Christian mythology - if that is what you want to call it. The Counsel of Nicea gathered all documents together to produce something like the modern Bible, and either they didn't exist or were destroyed by that Counsel.

Christianity, it is cursory to discover, was spread by Rome.

JP - shame on you! I know you could find this out.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 33 by Willum]

Well, so if we follow Jesi logistics, we find that we can not show there was an actual person of Jesus description in existence. We find that these myths and legend sprang up incident with Rome's incursion into Jerusalem.

That's basically the conclusion I've arrived at. I simply cannot find any evidence for a historical Jesus that convinces me he existed.

For example, Yahu, becoming Yahweh (whose name is a homonym with Jove, in Latin), who became omnipotent as the concept of omnipotence was introduced into Jerusalem.

Israel started out with more than one god which, as you point out, evolved into one god with all the omni traits. The story of Jesus probably followed the same path. He was a god much like both Yahweh and pagan gods who was historicized to make him seem more real than the gods he was based upon.

If we take your view and kludge all these myths together, then Rome takes them and transforms it into a religion, as occurred 300 years after the alleged personage of Jesus existed, we might find that all these myth and peoples were put together and called a new religion.

Are you referring to the emperor Constantine legalizing Christianity? As Ecclesiastes says, "...there is nothing new under the sun." Whether Constantine realized it or not, he was espousing an old religion dressed up as a new one.

[Goose]

Is there something special about the first century aside from it being the time Jesus allegedly lived?

Something special about the first century? Not in and of itself. But if we are looking for proper and fair comparisons they need to be close to Jesus’ time. If we move too far away from that period we run the risk of committing an anachronistic fallacy or false analogy or both.

No problem, though--consider Paul of Tarsus; we know he existed because we have his writings. The same goes for Josephus. We have no such evidence for Jesus.

We have no such evidence for Gamaliel the Elder, Pilate, Herod Agrippa, or Tiberius. Oh, and don’t forget our good friend Socrates. We don’t have writings from him either.

Here's the citation: Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014, Page 396

You may also check Not the Impossible Faith, pages 161-218 and Sense and Goodness, Pages 246-247 for more information.

I didn’t ask for a citation. I asked for the methodology you are using to determine the writings attributed to Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes were actually written by them. If you can’t do that, just say so.

You've posted a non sequitur here. The genre of The Clouds does not demonstrate that I assumed anything I may have been trying to prove.

The genre is an incidental point exposing your double standard towards what sources can be used to reconstruct history. The Question Begging fallacy was the result of you assuming to be true that The Clouds was by Aristophanes in order to argue we have better evidence for Socrates than for Jesus because we have The Clouds by Aristophanes (as well as works by Plato and Xenophon). Whereas by contrast the Gospels are written by unknown authors. You assumed to be true the very thing you were trying to prove. It is about as circular an argument as they come.

Talk about begging the question! Do you know what begging the question is? Begging the question is a mistake in logic in which you assume what you are trying to prove.

Right. Now go back and see if you can identify where you did this in your Socrates has better evidence than Jesus argument.

Jesus could not have any "key disciples" unless he existed.

Think about what you just wrote here. Think about it very carefully.

To prove he existed, you assume he existed.

False. Jesus existence is built on a cumulative case, like anything from history. Part of that case is the evidence from Paul. There’s no question begging there. This whole argument regarding Paul’s close proximity to and interaction with the disciples was to counter your erroneous statement, “Paul openly admits that his "knowledge" of Jesus comes from revelations and not eyewitnesses or solid evidence.� Clearly Paul interacted with people that he understood to be disciples of Jesus. Thus Paul makes a good historical source since he was close to them and a contemporary.

We are very quick to believe everything Paul said. Is that your evidence for Jesus? Paul said so?

That’s part of it. Just like part of your evidence for Socrates was that Xenophon said so.

You are obviously very hostile toward those who disagree with you.

And you’re obviously projecting. I must have struck a nerve.

Do you have some emotional investment in a "real" Jesus?

Would you be very upset to discover he was a myth?

I’m flattered by the sudden interest in my feelings but I don’t see how they are relevant.

Yes, I concede you have the consensus. Do you think that the majority must be right?

The historical Jesus position isn’t merely a majority. It’s virtually unanimous with the exception of a group of scholars so small they could literally all fit in a life raft. And that virtual unanimity is across the spectrum of persuasions including atheist/agnostic and critical scholars. Does that mean they must be right? Of course not. But when the weight of scholarship is that heavy towards one side of the argument it’s a good bet there are virtually unassailable reasons for holding the position.

Did you see my Three-Little-Pigs send-up of the historicist position?

Uh, yeah. Was that supposed to be your refutation of the historicist position?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 37 by Goose]

I didn’t ask for a citation. I asked for the methodology you are using to determine the writings attributed to Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes were actually written by them. If you can’t do that, just say so.

This is rather trite isn't it?

Before all this computer nonsense these people were cited and quoted - Xenophon was studied enough to be declared a liar about the roles he played, but he was definitely present at the conflicts.

We have their originals, we have people quoting them. We have their contemporaries citing them. We have them describing real as opposed to mythological, events. If you can't do that for Jesus, just give up the religion.

We have plenty of evidence, and more importantly, no reason to doubt.

Now your motivations to doubt their existence is to justify the existence of someone who doesn't, do you see how that is non-sequitur?

You can't prove Aristotle existed, therefore Jesus did. But we can, therefore Jesus doesn't? Is the reverse logic applicable? Suddenly "no," I'll wager.

One needs only to look at the uncanny origin of the Gospels to dismiss them out of hand: Written 300 years after the fact, the originals, were there any, destroyed, and Jesus and the Bible instructing people for all all eternity to obey government and pay taxes.

Every other message in the Bible as provable as "Sugar Candy Mountain."

You'd be amazed at the number of professionals who overwhelmingly don't believe Jesus even existed: There is a growing divide in this between lay people and educated people:

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/a-grow ... e-of-jesus

[JP Cusick]

...and the Christian writing were destroyed, and the Roman authorities destroyed any record of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Are you sure about this? The Romans didn't destroy the New Testament, obviously. I understand that Christians destroyed a lot of documents that didn't fit their "orthodoxy."

There are two (2) divisions for the Romans, as in the 1st century then they crucified Jesus and persecuted His followers, including the execution of both Peter and of Paul, and written material was very scarce back then, and we find the written record missing which is easy to connect that while the Romans killed the Apostles and followers then they would also destroy any written material that they found.

The second part of Roman history comes near 250 years later when we find Rome accepting Christianity as its religion - by order of the Emperor - and 250 years is a long divide.

My own belief based on my research is that Rome killed off all of the 1st century Christians, and their blood cried out to God as did that of Able who was killed by his brother Cain, Genesis 4:8-11

The fact that the 4 Gospels and the writing of Paul have survived is in itself a huge miracle because the writing had to survive the onslaught of the Roman brutes which surely was no easy task.

Didn't you just say the Romans "destroyed any record of the historical Jesus of Nazareth"? You're confusing me, JP! ](*,)

It is a paradox that these documents survived, and we do know that there are false writings and false words were inserted into the text, see example here Mark 16:9-20 NIV.

The Romans destroyed everything - and yet the Romans did save some writings - thus a paradox.

For myself I see it as a miracle - that God wanted the writings to be saved - just as finding the "Dead Sea Scrolls" was a miracle in saving those old documents.

God is far more powerful then was Rome.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 39 by JP Cusick]

For your situational awareness:

Most documents of this kind did not survive paradoxically, they were preserved OUTSIDE the Roman Empire by Arab nations, and would be rediscovered during the Renaissance.

I think this is part of the reason these would-be Muslim nations are reviled so much, they basically caught the religion out, with demonstrations of unorthodox books - (that needed to be re-buried), evolution treatise that pre-dated Christianity, round-Earth proofs and so on.

Isn't it funny how people knew the Earth was round in the 2nd century BC, and then Christians come around and murder everyone who says the world isn't flat, and we still have nincompoops today as a result?