proudfootz wrote:....Your point is quite a good one - Mohammed is much more like the case with Jesus (and Lao Tzu, and the Buddha) - a legendary founder of a religious cult.

Mohammed is not at all like the Jesus character.

Mohammed is not worshiped as a God in the Muslim religion.

Plus, in the NT itself, the Jesus character did not start a religion under his name.

In a most bizarre statement in Acts, it was the Holy Ghost which came down from heaven on the day of Pentecost which gave the disciples the power to START the Jesus cult.

In the NT, the Jesus cult could NOT have started WITHOUT the Holy Ghost.

In the NT ITSELF, Jesus MUST GO to heaven BEFORE the Jesus cult can be initiated.

In effect, unlike ALL RELIGION Christianity was FOUNDED by a Ghost.

The Jesus cult of Christians is a DIRECT product of Mythology---NOT Jesus of Nazareth.

The Jesus cult of Christian NEVER required an historical founder.

Acts 1

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld , he was taken up ; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

It is extremely important to understand that in the NT itself that the Jesus character did NOT start any religion and did NOT even want the populace to know he was Christ.

In fact, the Jesus character BOASTED to his disciples in private that he wanted to the Populace to REMAIN in SIN.

Mark 4

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

The Jesus character is NOT at all like Mohammed.

The Jesus character did NOT START any new religion in the VERY Christian Bible.

The Jesus story is about the KILLING of the Son of God by the Jews--a most monstrous MYTH/FICTION fable.

The Muslim religion needed Mohammed but the Christian cult needed a Ghost from heaven on the day of Pentecost.

Acts

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come , they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting ........... 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost......

Even in the NT, the Jesus character did NOT have the POWER to start the Christian cult.

dejuror wrote:

proudfootz wrote:....Your point is quite a good one - Mohammed is much more like the case with Jesus (and Lao Tzu, and the Buddha) - a legendary founder of a religious cult.

Mohammed is not at all like the Jesus character.

Mohammed is not worshiped as a God in the Muslim religion.

Bullshit.

The world's most common name is Muhammad/Mohammed or some variation. They grow their beards to look like him. They still dress in clothing from the time of him. When they pray, they pray towards his grave. His grave site is a shrine that is constantly worshipped. Muslims always say "Peace Be Upon Him" whenever his name is mentioned.

Muhammad is the likely the most worshipped man is all of history.

Get you facts straight, myther.

dejuror wrote:The Quest for an HJ of Nazareth is specifically about an ANCIENT myth character found in manuscripts dated no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

In Antiquity there were HUNDREDS of myth Gods and characters and Jesus of Nazareth was one of them.

The existing manuscripts of the Jesus story depict the character as an Ascending, Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water Walking Son of a God, Born of a Ghost , God Creator, the Lord from heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures

The fact that people of the Roman Empire did actually believe figures of Mythology did exist on earth and did INVENT IMAGES of those very MYTH show that the BELIEF that Jesus of Nazareth did exist did NOT require an actual human being.

One of the most fascinating fact is that Christians of antiquity were once considered ATHEISTS by people in the Roman Empire because they refused to worship the Gods of the Romans.

First Apology

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Jesus of Nazareth was always WITHOUT historical data.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth/fiction character INVENTED by those who did NOT accept the Myth Gods of the Roman Empire.

Please provide conclusive proof for every last statement you made above or else there is simply no need to consider any of it as being based upon any truth whatsoever.

Go ahead, we can wait, myther.

Free wrote:

dejuror wrote:The Quest for an HJ of Nazareth is specifically about an ANCIENT myth character found in manuscripts dated no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

In Antiquity there were HUNDREDS of myth Gods and characters and Jesus of Nazareth was one of them.

The existing manuscripts of the Jesus story depict the character as an Ascending, Resurrecting, Transfiguring, Water Walking Son of a God, Born of a Ghost , God Creator, the Lord from heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures

The fact that people of the Roman Empire did actually believe figures of Mythology did exist on earth and did INVENT IMAGES of those very MYTH show that the BELIEF that Jesus of Nazareth did exist did NOT require an actual human being.

One of the most fascinating fact is that Christians of antiquity were once considered ATHEISTS by people in the Roman Empire because they refused to worship the Gods of the Romans.

First Apology

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Jesus of Nazareth was always WITHOUT historical data.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a myth/fiction character INVENTED by those who did NOT accept the Myth Gods of the Roman Empire.

Please provide conclusive proof for every last statement you made above or else there is simply no need to consider any of it as being based upon any truth whatsoever.

Go ahead, we can wait, myther.

Welcome back, Free!





Stein

Free wrote:

dejuror wrote:

proudfootz wrote:....Your point is quite a good one - Mohammed is much more like the case with Jesus (and Lao Tzu, and the Buddha) - a legendary founder of a religious cult.

Mohammed is not at all like the Jesus character.

Mohammed is not worshiped as a God in the Muslim religion.

Bullshit.

The world's most common name is Muhammad/Mohammed or some variation. They grow their beards to look like him. They still dress in clothing from the time of him. When they pray, they pray towards his grave. His grave site is a shrine that is constantly worshipped. Muslims always say "Peace Be Upon Him" whenever his name is mentioned.

Muhammad is the likely the most worshipped man is all of history.

Get you facts straight, myther.

You are not credible. You don't know what you are talking about. Please stop the STRAWMAN nonsense.

I stated that "Mohammed is not worshiped as a God in the Muslim religion".

Muslims do NOT pray to Mohammed for Salvation and for remission of sins.

Christians and Christian Scholars PRAY to Jesus of Nazareth for Salvation and Remission of Sins and MUST tell people that Jesus existed to go to heaven or else Jesus will DENY them BEFORE his FATHER in heaven and burn them in hell forever.

Matthew 10:33 KJV

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus of Nazareth is NOT at all like Mohammed.

Jesus of Nazareth is GOD CREATOR from the beginning.

Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same substance.

Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same MYTH.

John 1:1 KJV

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made..

Jesus of Nazareth is ABSOLUTE MYTH.

The two HJ pillars are that Jesus was baptized by JTB in the river Jordan and that Jesus was put to death.

It's not too hard to imagine that both of these claims could be accurate. If JTB was baptizing then no doubt more than a few blokes named Jesus got themselves wet. And if the authorities were executing people it's pretty certain that lots of them were named Jesus. We even have records of this I believe.

But neither of these pillars makes the gospel jesus any more historical than any character in any novel ever written. All those tests of historicity like multiple attestation and embarrassment are specialized bullshit for HJ fans. They don't demonstrate dingleling.

Ducktown wrote:The two HJ pillars are that Jesus was baptized by JTB in the river Jordan and that Jesus was put to death.

It's not too hard to imagine that both of these claims could be accurate. If JTB was baptizing then no doubt more than a few blokes named Jesus got themselves wet. And if the authorities were executing people it's pretty certain that lots of them were named Jesus. We even have records of this I believe.

But neither of these pillars makes the gospel jesus any more historical than any character in any novel ever written. All those tests of historicity like multiple attestation and embarrassment are specialized bullshit for HJ fans. They don't demonstrate dingleling.

I am glad you mention the word "IMAGINE".

It appears that HJers IMAGINE a lot of things about their HJ but have NO evidence for their IMAGINATION.

Ducktown wrote:The two HJ pillars are that Jesus was baptized by JTB in the river Jordan and that Jesus was put to death.

It's not too hard to imagine that both of these claims could be accurate. If JTB was baptizing then no doubt more than a few blokes named Jesus got themselves wet. And if the authorities were executing people it's pretty certain that lots of them were named Jesus. We even have records of this I believe.

What was JtB baptizing as? as a Jew? as a pagan? (certainly not as a Christian)

dejuror wrote:

Free wrote:

dejuror wrote:

proudfootz wrote:....Your point is quite a good one - Mohammed is much more like the case with Jesus (and Lao Tzu, and the Buddha) - a legendary founder of a religious cult.

Mohammed is not at all like the Jesus character.

Mohammed is not worshiped as a God in the Muslim religion.

Bullshit.

The world's most common name is Muhammad/Mohammed or some variation. They grow their beards to look like him. They still dress in clothing from the time of him. When they pray, they pray towards his grave. His grave site is a shrine that is constantly worshipped. Muslims always say "Peace Be Upon Him" whenever his name is mentioned.

Muhammad is the likely the most worshipped man is all of history.

Get you facts straight, myther.

You are not credible. You don't know what you are talking about. Please stop the STRAWMAN nonsense.

I stated that "Mohammed is not worshiped as a God in the Muslim religion".

Muslims do NOT pray to Mohammed for Salvation and for remission of sins.

Christians and Christian Scholars PRAY to Jesus of Nazareth for Salvation and Remission of Sins and MUST tell people that Jesus existed to go to heaven or else Jesus will DENY them BEFORE his FATHER in heaven and burn them in hell forever.

Matthew 10:33 KJV

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus of Nazareth is NOT at all like Mohammed.

Jesus of Nazareth is GOD CREATOR from the beginning.

Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same substance.

Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same MYTH.

John 1:1 KJV

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made..

Jesus of Nazareth is ABSOLUTE MYTH.

You are quite correct, of course.

Mohammed (PTUI) is not deemed a son of a god, or a god himself, or a chimera with a human mother and a ghostly father.

I'm thinking of the 'secular historical Jesus' who is supposed to be the human founder of the christian cults.

proudfootz wrote:
... a son of a god, or a god himself, or a chimera with a human mother and a ghostly father.

another Trinity??

An irony is Jesus is also supposed to be descended from David through Joseph although

• according to Luke, Joseph was supposed to be the son of H/Eli (Luke 3:23-38), despite Heli not having any sons; or
  
• according to Matthew, Joseph was the son of Jacob (Mat 1:2-16).

Of course these are theological constructs, but it still shows a lack of logic for a historical Jesus. A view advanced as early as John of Damascus (d.749). was that (i) Luke was Mary's ancestry and (ii) Matthew was Joseph's, but there are still biological problems; and theological problems, as the right to the kingdom always passed from the father to the son.

There is also a view Luke's variation is explained by "Joseph son of Eli" meaning a son-in-law; perhaps even an adoptive heir to Eli through his only daughter Mary. An example of the Old Testament use of such an expression is Jair, who is called "Jair son of Manasseh" but was actually son of Manasseh's granddaughter, but that still creates the 'right-to-the-kingdom' problem (mentioned in the previous paragraph).

And we can find a precedent of the same type of name substitution in the OT - Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12.

Also there is

• the Pantera assertion of Celsus1; and
• Talmudic-era texts refer to Jesus as the son of Pantera (Pandera):
  
  + Tosefta Hullin 2:22f: "Jacob ... came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pantera";
  + Qohelet Rabbah 1:8(3) "Jacob ... came to heal him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera";
  some editions of the Jerusalem Talmud also specifically name Jesus as the son of Pandera:
  
  *Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/7; "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera";
  * Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/8: "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera";
  * Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/12: "Jacob ... came to heal him. He said to him: we will speak to you in the name of Jesus son of Pandera";
  * Jerusalem Shabboth 14:4/13: "Jacob ... came in the name of Jesus Pandera to heal him".

1 Celsus's assertion was refuted by Epiphanius.

Furthermore, The apocryphal Protevangelium of James (probably of the 2nd century) tells of the miraculous birth of Mary to her parents, Joachim and Anne. It further relates that Joseph, before his marriage to Mary, was an elderly widower with children of his own. Joachim and Anne are named in a number of other early sources as Mary's parents, but this apocryphal text, which was later condemned, was so widely influential that it is not clear whether the names rest on any other independent tradition.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Mo was allah's servant and prophet. He was not allah.

Free wrote:

dejuror wrote:

proudfootz wrote:....Your point is quite a good one - Mohammed is much more like the case with Jesus (and Lao Tzu, and the Buddha) - a legendary founder of a religious cult.

Mohammed is not at all like the Jesus character.

Mohammed is not worshiped as a God in the Muslim religion.

Bullshit.

The world's most common name is Muhammad/Mohammed or some variation.

You do realize that this is an irrelevant argument in favour of your claim?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Mo was allah's servant and prophet. He was not allah.

The example asked for was not a god walking on earth but a person that historians think existed since the time of Jesus but who may not have -- similar to the argument about Jesus.

Mohammed is, I think, the best example. There is not much evidence for his existence. Certainly no really good contemporary evidence.

The other example one could use for a supposedly historical person that a group of people think existed but probably didn't is John Frum. There is little evidence of a serviceman's existence fitting his description on the island of Tanna in the 30s or 40s. That example doesn't fit what was asked for, though, because historians don't widely think there was a John Frum AFAIK.

dejuror wrote:

Jesus of Nazareth is NOT at all like Mohammed.

Jesus of Nazareth is GOD CREATOR from the beginning.

Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same substance.

Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE and the same MYTH.

John 1:1 KJV

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made..

Jesus of Nazareth is ABSOLUTE MYTH.

proudfootz wrote:

You are quite correct, of course.

Mohammed (PTUI) is not deemed a son of a god, or a god himself, or a chimera with a human mother and a ghostly father.

I'm thinking of the 'secular historical Jesus' who is supposed to be the human founder of the christian cults.

There was NO 'secular historical Jesus'.

The founder of the Christian cult was the Holy Ghost who came down from heaven on the day of Pentecost.

It is documented in the very myth Fables of the NT itself.

Jesus, the Son of the same Ghost, was DEAD and ascended BEFORE the cult was started.

1. Examine the Myth Fable called gLuke.

Luke 24:49

And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

The Christian cult was INITIATED by a Ghost NOT a secular historical Jesus.

2. Examine the Myth Fables called gJohn.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

There was NO historical data for Jesus of Nazareth as the founder of a Christian cult.

Christian writings of antiquity, the very NT Canon of the Church, have admitted and acknowledged that the founder of their RELIGION was a GHOST.

3. Examine the Myth Fables called Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 1:8

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

A Powerful Ghost is the Founder of the Christian religion in the MYTH Fables called the NT.

Ducktown wrote:The two HJ pillars are that Jesus was baptized by JTB in the river Jordan and that Jesus was put to death.

It's not too hard to imagine that both of these claims could be accurate. If JTB was baptizing then no doubt more than a few blokes named Jesus got themselves wet. And if the authorities were executing people it's pretty certain that lots of them were named Jesus. We even have records of this I believe.

But neither of these pillars makes the gospel jesus any more historical than any character in any novel ever written. All those tests of historicity like multiple attestation and embarrassment are specialized bullshit for HJ fans. They don't demonstrate dingleling.

I am perhaps missing something because I have certainly not read this entire thread (or even close), but are there HJers arguing here that the Jesus presented in the gospels actually existed? Or are folks arguing that they think there might have been a person who inspired the gospel accounts? The former is, in my opinion, an untenable position.

The criteria that you mention are generally used to assign some degree of confidence in a particular occurrence as historical. They are terribly flawed, as I think most historians point out. They are used in other areas, not only the question of whether or not there was a person behind the Jesus legends.

You are correct to suggest that those criteria don't prove anything. They are only meant as constraints on the available data and to argue that some data point is more likely historical than not. They never guarantee historicity; but they are not meant to be seen that way.

ETA:

The big problem with the way we see those criteria applied, I think, is that they shouldn't be used in 'isolation'. They should be part of a bigger argument; and the best way to approach this is probably with Bayes' theorem. So, for instance, it is argued that Jesus likely came from Nazareth because it is unlikely that early Christians would portray the messiah as coming from such a supposedly dinky place. But that ignores other arguments about the original wording since most of the time we see Nazorean or one of its variants and this probably referred to the early cult (the meaning is likely lost to us; I do not believe any of the arguments that think it is derived from Nazirite). Putting all of that together, while it may be that the early Cristians would not likely have the messiah come from a dinky town, that probably doesn't even matter if the original ascription wasn't to a town to begin with.

Akhmet wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Mo was allah's servant and prophet. He was not allah.

The example asked for was not a god walking on earth but a person that historians think existed since the time of Jesus but who may not have -- similar to the argument about Jesus.

Mohammed is, I think, the best example. There is not much evidence for his existence. Certainly no really good contemporary evidence.

There is NO good example for the Christian cult of the Roman Government because it is stated that it was the Holy Ghost who INITIATED the cult on the day of Pentecost.


Mohammed is NOT a good example of the founder of Christianity. The founder of the Christian religion was a POWERFUL Ghost which is documented in the very NT.

Virtually ALL modern religion have a human founder--Not a Ghost.

Mohammed is perhaps a good example of the founder of the Mormon religion.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith are regarded as Prophets or Messengers and are NOT worshiped as Gods.

By the way, most of the people who BELIEVE Jesus existed are in fact CHRISTIANS and CHRISTIAN Scholars who MUST tell people Jesus exist WITHOUT evidence.

In the Christian Bible itself, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of the Ghost, was NOT on Earth when the Christian cult started in his name.

Christian cults were most probably FOUNDED by the so-called Heretics like Cerinthus, Basilides, Simon Magus, Valentinus, Carpocrates--but NOT the Ghost character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Examine "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Refutation Against all Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus to see Founders of Christian cults of antiquity.

dejuror wrote:

Akhmet wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Mo was allah's servant and prophet. He was not allah.

The example asked for was not a god walking on earth but a person that historians think existed since the time of Jesus but who may not have -- similar to the argument about Jesus.

Mohammed is, I think, the best example. There is not much evidence for his existence. Certainly no really good contemporary evidence.

There is NO good example for the Christian cult of the Roman Government because it is stated that it was the Holy Ghost who INITIATED the cult on the day of Pentecost.


Mohammed is NOT a good example of the founder of Christianity. The founder of the Christian religion was a POWERFUL Ghost which is documented in the very NT.

Virtually ALL modern religion have a human founder--Not a Ghost.

Mohammed is perhaps a good example of the founder of the Mormon religion.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith are regarded as Prophets or Messengers and are NOT worshiped as Gods.

By the way, most of the people who BELIEVE Jesus existed are in fact CHRISTIANS and CHRISTIAN Scholars who MUST tell people Jesus exist WITHOUT evidence.

In the Christian Bible itself, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of the Ghost, was NOT on Earth when the Christian cult started in his name.

Christian cults were most probably FOUNDED by the so-called Heretics like Cerinthus, Basilides, Simon Magus, Valentinus, Carpocrates--but NOT the Ghost character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Examine "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Refutation Against all Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus to see Founders of Christian cults of antiquity.

Is there a reason why you do not even approximate a reply to the original issue but persist in repeating the same old tirade? The question concerns a recent figure that historians accept as historical but for whom there is not adequate evidence.

In other words, is this a common problem for historians with the evidence available more recently or is this an issue affecting only figures 2000 years or more in the past? Personally, I think it is a very interesting question to ask.

I think everyone here knows your position. There is no reason to repeat it ad infinitum.

I think that is a separate thread and does not belong here.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I think that is a separate thread and does not belong here.

Possibly, but don't you think Zwaarddijk asked a great question?

It is very possible that the answer is that Jesus is the only one in the category, which raises the question -- why? The easiest answer would be that historians are blinded by the fact that Christianity is foundational for much of Western society.

Other options would be, as already mentioned, Robin Hood and King Arthur. I don't know how firmly most historians view the connections between the proposed historical figures and the legendary ones, though.

Akhmet wrote:So, for instance, it is argued that Jesus likely came from Nazareth because it is unlikely that early Christians would portray the messiah as coming from such a supposedly dinky place. But that ignores other arguments about the original wording since most of the time we see Nazorean or one of its variants and this probably referred to the early cult (the meaning is likely lost to us; I do not believe any of the arguments that think it is derived from Nazirite). Putting all of that together, while it may be that the early Cristians would not likely have the messiah come from a dinky town, that probably doesn't even matter if the original ascription wasn't to a town to begin with.

Don't you see what you've just done there? You've taken an element from a novel and historicized it because it's embarrassing enough to be "true." But that is precisely what authors do when they write. Why else would superman be so socially bumbling if it weren't true? Why would superman's followers record such minutia about the kryptonite king unless it were factual?

When Hemingway wrote Old Man and the Sea the protagonist hadn't caught a fish in months. This is an old man who made his life and living as a fisherman. Now he has to accept charity from a boy or else he starves and dies? What could be more true? How embarrassing! It must be historical! It must have happened or else Hemingway would never have committed it to paper.