The start of the Jesus story

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

As it can be seen in the writings of Philo the Jews did not worship men as Gods--not even the Emperor of Rome --in the very time of Pilate and the supposed Jesus of Nazareth.

According to my research, Jesus said to be Son of God came later, around 54 CE. By that time the allegedly resurrected Jesus had been extremely elevated, way beyond what he was as a human on earth. And the church of Jerusalem, eventually led by Peter & James, was not christian: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

Josephus does mention Jesus but the references are disputed.

Just like, by mythicists, any other references which state a human earthly Jesus in early sources.
They have to. Because if one on these references is not contested, their theories become false.
BTW, I wrote a webpage stating the main TF (Antiquities, XVIII, III, 3) is a late interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/appe.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

to MrMacSon,

ie. 'reason (Logos) prevailed ... Reason (the Word, Logos) Himself...took shape and became man, and was called Jesus Christ"

That's mostly according to gJohn 1:14.

In these books, then, of the prophets, we found Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin, growing up to man's estate, and healing every disease and every sickness, and raising the dead, and being hated, and unrecognised, and crucified, and dying, and rising again, and ascending into heaven, and being, and being called, the Son of God.

I doubt very much that Justin meant what I underlined ... What I think Justin meant is only what I did not underline.

So why try and relate the two ie. gJohn 1:14 and Justin Martyr's First Apology V viz.

For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (the Word, Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue.

Why highlight most of gJohn 1:14 by underlining most of it??

Modern apologists claimed hundreds of occurrences of a Christ foretold to be coming (all of that being very indirect, vague, dubious, weak). So in Justin's times, the same could have been done.

It's almost as if the NT was written based on the OT, to align with the OT, partly so they could claim NT motifs were foretold in the OT ...

And Justin added on "born of a virgin ... Son of God" to characterize Christ.

I presume you mean John added, "born of a virgin ... Son of God"

[cora]

B, the name Jesus was invented by Justin. Before it was Isu. Anything about the gospel Jesus in Josephus is done after Justin, and therefore a forgery.
The TF is out. The Jesus called Christ is out. By the way Josephus could never have written that, because absolutely nobody is called Christ after his death. At the most you are then a failed messiah and not worth mentioning. Among jews that is. Furthermore the Jesus of the gospels did nothing messianic. He was not a messiah at all. Even you must be able to see that. I guess Justin invented that too, by changing chrestos into christos. Easy done. Who else can have done it? So, what now? Without the forgeries in Josephus? Where do you now get your "real Jesus" from????
Before shouting speculation again, I suggest that you start reading something. I am still waiting for an apology.

[hakeem]

As it can be seen in the writings of Philo the Jews did not worship men as Gods--not even the Emperor of Rome --in the very time of Pilate and the supposed Jesus of Nazareth.

According to my research, Jesus said to be Son of God came later, around 54 CE. By that time the allegedly resurrected Jesus had been extremely elevated, way beyond what he was as a human on earth. And the church of Jerusalem, eventually led by Peter & James, was not christian: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

The story that NT Jesus resurrected could not have been so early because the supposed apostles would not be able to explain why he was never seen with them in Galilee and the Jews would have wanted to execute the very apostles who lied about the resurrection. . In the NT, apostles went into hiding after Jesus was arrested and Peter denied knowing him so I don't think they would come out of hiding knowing the Jews would kill them.

At c 54 CE, the Jews who knew that Jesus did not resurrect could still be alive to expose the stupid resurrection lies of the supposed apostles.

In addition, the entire resurrection story makes no sense since the dead body of Jesus would have begun to be in a state of decay once he was dead for three days.

See the stages of decomposition of a dead body.

https://www.aftermath.com/content/human-decomposition/

The Jesus story must have been made many, many decades after the time of Tiberius around c 120 CE and very far from Judea, perhaps in Asia or even Egypt.

[Bernard Muller]

to Cora,

B, the name Jesus was invented by Justin. Before it was Isu.

You do not have stated specific evidence about that. For sure, there is no Isu or isu inscripted on that ancient Marcionite church building (318-319 CE) in Lebaba (Deir Ali).

The Jesus called Christ is out

Easy to say. Sure the main TF (Ant., Book XVIII) is an interpolation, but I don't see why "the brother of Jesus called christ, whose name is James" (Ant., Book XX) is not authentic: all mythicists attempts to show otherwise are unrealistic.

By the way Josephus could never have written that, because absolutely nobody is called Christ after his death.

Jesus was called Christ because believed to be resurrected, therefore alive again.

At the most you are then a failed messiah and not worth mentioning. Among jews that is.

He was still NOT a failed Messiah (as predicting the day of the Lord happening before the last of Jesus' contemporaries died: Mk 9:1) when the gospels were written (70-100). But if written by Irenaeus, as you claim, he would be a very failed Messiah and Irenaeus would be very stupid to write Mk 9:1 (repeated in gLuke and gMatthew).

Furthermore the Jesus of the gospels did nothing messianic. He was not a messiah at all. Even you must be able to see that.

I think that too. Certainly not as the conqueror of the world, or even the victor of the Romans.

I guess Justin invented that too, by changing chrestos into christos. Easy done.

Your guess is not evidence. Are you implying Marcion's corpus, the only thing you admitted written before Justin, had Chrestos all over? If it the case, there is no evidence for that. And if Marcion had "christos", Justin did not have to change anything.
BTW, Pliny the Younger' letter about Christians has "christianis', "christianus", "christianos" and "christo", but never "chrest ...".
Tacitus in Annals has "Christus" and probably, originally, "Christianos".
These two authors wrote well before Justin's times. So "Christ ..." was used in texts before Justin.

Where do you now get your "real Jesus" from????

From Paul's epistles (50-57), for a start. From gMark (70-71) (but beware of the embellishments and fiction). From Tacitus' Annals

Before shouting speculation again, I suggest that you start reading something.

What "something"?

I am still waiting for an apology.

I find your request rather bold, because you said I was one of the assholes.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

He was still NOT a failed Messiah (as predicting the day of the Lord happening before the last of Jesus' contemporaries died: Mk 9:1) when the gospels were written (70-100). But if written by Irenaeus, as you claim, he would be a very failed Messiah and Irenaeus would be very stupid to write Mk 9:1 (repeated in gLuke and gMatthew).

Jesus of Nazareth, if he did live in the time of Tiberius, would have been known, not only as a false prophet but also a complete idiot when he taught his disciples that he would be killed and be raised from the dead the third day.

Unless the Gospels were written less than 72 hours after the burial then Jesus of Nazareth would have already been known as a false idiotic prophet decades before the Gospels were written.

Mark 9.31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Matthew 17:23---And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

Luke 9:22--- The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day

Jesus of Nazareth, if he did live, would have been known by Jews and Pilate as an idiotic false prophet since about the 15th year of Tiberius c 29-30 CE.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

Jesus of Nazareth, if he did live in the time of Tiberius, would have been known, not only as a false prophet but also a complete idiot when he taught his disciples that he would be killed and be raised from the dead the third day.

How many times we discussed that?
Anyway, the story about Jesus' resurrection after three days came not earlier than 70 CE, in gMark, some forty years after the Crucifixion (I take 1 Co 15:3-11 as an interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html).
Furthermore, the disciples were not Christians, not believing in the Resurrection (and certainly not preaching it): http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

Unless the Gospels were written less than 72 hours after the burial then Jesus of Nazareth would have already been known as a false idiotic prophet decades before the Gospels were written.

At first, the Resurrection was thought concerning the spirit of Jesus, not his body.
The bodily Resurrection became suggested in gMark, and then "demonstrated" in gLuke (around 85 CE).

Cordially, Bernard

[cora]

B, Justin is a lier, he invents it all himself. Modern apologists are liars too. In the OT there are anointed ones, but always connected to a certain king. Just anointed happens only two times, in Daniel and Jesaja.
If you were not diverting attention, then what exactly were you doing?
Justin and exodus: in the dialogue with Trypho.
Justin was a member of one of the small churches from Marcion. The gospel of Marcion was there.
Justin: the cross from Moses and Jesus in the dialogue of Trypho. The crucifixion by forging psalm 22 (the pierced etc.) in his Apology 1. This psalm 22 is then used for the crucifixion story. I thought everybody knew that. The crucifixion is not real, it is written of from psalm 22.
The stake is recognised, stauros means stake, it is in the old NT's.
Jesus' life is not a fact, where do you get that idea? From gospels from 185?
What do you mean, not ancient for sure? I used all the ancient sources, all the time. You are just trying to put me down.
And yes, I solved it. I only had underestimated Justin's role.

[cora]

B, Isu is in a Marcionite writing from the 4th century, I think it is called Adamantius. The scholars trying to get Paulus from Tertullianus have found Isu Chrestos in Paulus. Look for it. It is logical because Marcion follows Paulus strictly. So if he said it, Paul must have said it.
Jesus was thought to be alive again, you say. By Josephus? An intellectual? Certainly not. If alive you need to be seen before anyone believes that.
Yes, Marcion (Paul) had it all over. No evidence? No of course not, everything was destroyed by the catholic church. Everybody was persecuted out of existence. I supposed you knew that. We also knew absolutely nothing about gnostics, until the finding in Nag Hamadi. From 400 on all the other religions in the Roman Empire were forbidden, probably a 100 of them.
Pliny and Tacitus have been changed of course. From Tacitus it has been proven. So don't act if you do not know. Chrestos (from Paul) has been in use during the middle ages, they could not change all in one day. And chrestos means saviour, why replace it with messiah?
Tacitus is out, there is no Jesus in it, and no chrIstianos. Mark (originally gnostic) was reworked and edited by Irenaeus. There is material from Justin in it. The gospel of John was there, it is gnostic (still), but forged by Irenaeus. The gospel of Marcion was there, it was gnostic (landing from the universe) but not very. Irenaeus divided it over Luke and Mathew in order to destroy it. There were only gnostic gospels of course (Gnostic chrestianity started around 90) and he had to get his material SOMEWHERE. I hope you get this.
I have found the date of the original story, it was after 70. If Paul should arrive, it is after that. I put Paul on 90. His epistles (apart from Galatians) are from 110 to 120. Therefore Marcion had the 10 original epistles, and Paul's gospel (the gospel of the Lord). Paul was preaching a God. His father is the gnostic God, the son who was there from the beginning is the Logos (now Isu Chrestos), and the holy spirit is also gnostic. These characters were taken in by Irenaeus for the church. They were made into a trinity. Nobody knows what that means. The whole happening in Paul is playing in the universe. All the rest is forgery by Irenaeus. They say it is 30%. Enough to make Paul unrecognisable. I don't think a divine spirit in the universe has a brother on earth. It is all forgery. The Acts is a 100% fiction. In fact was Paul the originator of gnostic Christianity. He does not know a Jesus. And also no christos. He invented his own religion and used the story he took from the jews. It became his gospel.