Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to maryhelena,

Bernard, you cannot establish historicity for the gospel related Jesus figure.

But this is just what I did on this forum, my website and my blog.

Cordially, Bernard

No Bernard. There is a difference. It is what you claimed to have done.

No one needs accept that claim based on your biased self-evaluation of your efforts.

Cordially, Sheshbazzar

to Sheshbazzar,

Cordially, Your claims of a historical Jesus based on the content of Galatians (1:19) and gMark (15:21) and Josephus' Antiquities (XX, 9, 1) are nothing but so much baloney Bernard. These texts in NO way constitute any evidence of a historical Jesus.

These three cases are about incidental evidence about Jesus as a human of earth in the first century.
Can you explain why they are nothing but so much baloney and these texts in NO way constitute any evidence of a historical Jesus?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Sheshbazzar,

No Bernard, I did NOT quote you out of context as any review of the content of your post dated Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:22 pm clearly shows.

Be honest. The statement I made was directly related to providing evidence for Jesus, a 1st century man, drawn from the epilogue of gJohn. Maybe it is not ultra clear, but this is what I meant.
You would know, if you read my website, I am & I have been 100% for Jesus as the accidental originator of Christianity, as an earthly/human in the 1st century.
You are imagining things when you think I have been changing my mind.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:I give a good 80 % for Jesus on earth in the first century.

You wrote what you wrote. You own it.
If you meant something else, then you should have enough intelligence and intellectual integrity to write what you meant.

.

Bernard Muller wrote:to Sheshbazzar,

Cordially, Your claims of a historical Jesus based on the content of Galatians (1:19) and gMark (15:21) and Josephus' Antiquities (XX, 9, 1) are nothing but so much baloney Bernard. These texts in NO way constitute any evidence of a historical Jesus.

These three cases are about incidental evidence about Jesus as a human of earth in the first century.
Can you explain why they are nothing but so much baloney and these texts in NO way constitute any evidence of a historical Jesus?

Cordially, Bernard

The first two are statements drawn from highly mythologized sources, and persons (if they ever were persons and not literary invented talking head theological characters) there is no reason to believe that anything contained within these texts ever happened, or are truthful accounts.
That 'Paul' claims to have met 'Peter' can in no way be verified. And in light of the fact that "Paul' is at pains to persuade readers that he has 'connections' to believers in Jerusalem, as an adjunct to his claims of authority and recognized 'apostleship', it makes any such claims along these lines by apostle 'Paul' highly suspect.
Josephus no where claims that he ever met any "Jesus Christ of Nazareth", thus no matter what rumors he may have heard or repeated (allowing for the moment that the bastard Christians did not diddle his writings) ..nothing to be found within Josephus's writings is any evidence at all of any living existence of the loony Christ cults invented 'Jesus of Nazareth' zombie god figure.

.

Peter Kirby wrote:....... Yet it was met with little cheer among the historicist, presumably either due to the framing of the investigation in the intro/conclusion or simply because I did not clutch at them more eagerly as the end all be all of the debate.

Yes I found your OP refreshingly objective in laying out the evidence without ramming home any obvious conclusions.



LC

to Sheshbazzar,

Bernard Muller wrote:

I give a good 80 % for Jesus on earth in the first century.

You wrote what you wrote. You own it.
If you meant something else, then you should have enough intelligence and intellectual integrity to write what you meant.

And I told you it was not meant as a general statement (totally out of the blue!), but relative to the evidence from gJohn epilogue.

Sure I could have been more specific about what that statement refers too. But set immediately after "Considering the epilogue was written around 100 CE, that would put Jesus' ministry (on earth) in the the 1st century.", I thought it would not be any confusion: I was obviously wrong.

Cordially, Bernard

Of FFS Bernard, even quoting the entire piece does not change the meaning and sense of the statement you wrote;

Yes, but the disciple might have been someone who pretended to have been an eyewitness.
But again that does not matter much: the epilogue on gJohn is trying to deal with the death of the (alleged) beloved disciple when the Christians then expected him to be alive for the second coming.
Considering the epilogue was written around 100 CE, that would put Jesus' ministry (on earth) in the the 1st century.
I give a good 80 % for Jesus on earth in the first century.

Might question why you are so gullible as to take these primitive and ridiculous zombie god theological cult writings as being any credible history.
You DO believe in the existence of a historical Jesus, do you not? But you wish to pick and choose just what parts of the MYTH fabrications that appeal to you?
Doesn't bother you in the least, that your Jesus 'witnesses' provide reams of pure invented horse shit in their 'testimonies', there HAS to be a real zombie Jesus?

.

Occam's razor should be a major player here.

For Jesus to have been a historical figure, only 1 of 10 or so semi-independent ancient references to him need to be correct.

For Jesus to have been a complete fabrication, all of those references have to be false or fabricated- and a huge conspiracy must have existed.

But why would ancient people have done that? It makes no sense. There would be no payoff.

IMO a big factor today- that explains the mythicists' passion- is our slavish devotion to the media. Look at even the most mundane of prime-time crime shows and you will see that most of the story lines are utterly preposterous. We are entertained by preposterous and unlikely things being presented as not only possible but plausible.

We can't help but be affected.

Occam's razor.

Occam's razor permits preposterous mythology to remain preposterous mythology. No matter how many 'semi-independent' references are submitted.
And it might be noted that exactly NONE of these 'semi-independent' references' are from contemporary sources.
Not ONE of these 'sources' ever actually laid eyes on a living breathing Jesus of Nazareth.
Urban legends based on Scriptural prophecy fulfillment convictions spread, No conspiracies needed.

Occam's razor simply slices a 'historical Jesus' into tiny bits.