IanS wrote:

Free wrote:

IanS wrote:

dejuror wrote:

Your statement is quite illogical.

The NT itself is evidence that the Jesus character was TOTAL myth.

The writers ADMITTED their Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin, was God Creator from the beginning, the Lord from heaven and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

See the NT Canon and the EXISTING Manuscripts with stories of Jesus.

You claimed Jesus was born AFTER Mary was raped by Panthera but your claim is total imagined fiction. You cannot present any actual historical evidence of your imaginary Jesus and cannot provide any non-apologetic source which state your Jesus was Baptized by John and Crucified under Pilate.

Free - by the way in addition to the reply that dejuror just gave to your quote in red (above), which I think you originally addressed to me - please show where I am what you just called a “myther” saying that "Jesus was a total myth". Be absolutely sure to respond to that question quoting from any of my posts anywhere that have said “Jesus was a total myth”.

From that assertion you then proceed to say (the red quote above”) that because I am a “myther” who is claiming that “Jesus was total myth”, I must therefore now quote to you “evidence (which) needs to include non-canonical texts to be cross-referenced with the Gospel records and/or it needs to be agreed upon from at least two writers in antiquity who specifically indicate that Jesus who was called Christ was a wholly mythical figure“ ....

... why do I need to show you any such thing unless you can quote from any post of mine where I ever claimed Jesus was a total myth?

So please be absolutely certain to justify that claim of yours (and your demand), by quoting from any post of mine where I ever said that “Jesus was a total myth”?

Since all of your arguments have been against historicity, is there any other position you can possibly have? Either he was real, or he wasn't. Since your arguments are all against him being a real person, could you please demonstrate how you could have any other position other than mythical?

Can you quote from any post of mine where I have ever said "Jesus is a total Myth"? Yes or no?

Where is the Quote please!

Please be absolutely certain to justify that claim of yours (and your demand), by quoting from any post of mine where I ever said that “Jesus was a total myth”?

The quote please; where is it!

RealityRules wrote:

Free wrote:Dude, it's called the Burden of Proof. Since the Jesus Mythicist position claims that Jesus was a total myth, you are therefore required to demonstrate this un-evidenced assertion with actual evidence to support it.

The Burden of Proof is an ethic based around the statement that "he who avers must prove"

It is the HJers that aver a historical Jesus [so, ethically, the HJers are obliged to prove]

HJers aver Jesus on the basis of the NT, and dubious non-NT texts. Nothing else.

RealityRules wrote:

Free wrote: ... Comparing [Paul Bunyan] to people with a different name is not at all a comparison to the Jesus issue, since the Jesus issue we are dealing with has one name only; Jesus.

Nonsense. the Jesus issue is not dealing with one name only: it's also dealing with names such as 'Christ' and 'Logos', etc.

Stein wrote:

Aren't you conflating here the conclusion that Jesus the rabbi is most likely historical with an unrelated belief in Jesus's "divinity" or in a god? Isn't that exactly what Blip suggested we guard against?

Stein wrote:"It is more "likely" than not, given that consilience, that, as rJD puts it, "a Jewish preacher, called Yeshua & from Nazareth, preached around Galilee & caused a bit of a fuss before the Romans executed him"

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:I found this. No mention of any Jesus in this lot.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/timeline-of- ... entury.php

There's only a few dozen executions in that lot - if there really is a meticulous documentation, you'd expect a few more don't you think? - and I am not that sure that e.g. John the Baptist's execution really is documented in any "meticulous records" either, so that's clearly not an example from those "meticulous records" about which you speak.

Stein wrote:

IanS wrote:

IanS wrote:


OK, so you are a true blind faith believer where Jesus is concerned. And no amount of actual evidence (as opposed your total 100% lack of any HJ evidence at all), will turn you away from your faith. Devout preaching Christians react in exactly the same way as you do.

Stein wrote:Aren't you conflating here the conclusion that Jesus the rabbi is most likely historical with an unrelated belief in Jesus's "divinity" or in a god? Isn't that exactly what Blip suggested we guard against?

Just saying.........

Stein

edit: Sorry for the apparent duplication. I see now that Free beat me to it and already picked up on the same problem in Ian's posting.

Which sentence of mine are you referring to?

Please quote the sentence that you are objecting to.

Are you kidding me? It's the very paragraph I respond to directly in my previous: Your words starting with "OK, so you are a true blind faith believer" etc.! I've even highlighted the vile insinuations this time. "[T]true blind faith believer", "your faith" and "Devout preaching Christians react in exactly the same way" are all deliberate equations of the conclusion that Jesus the human rabbi is historical with the typical Christian's belief in Jesus's divinity and in a god! That vile equation is precisely what Blip asked us to refrain from doing -- and here, you're doing just that.

Stein

IanS wrote:




OK, so you are a true blind faith believer where Jesus is concerned. And no amount of actual evidence (as opposed your total 100% lack of any HJ evidence at all), will turn you away from your faith. Devout preaching Christians react in exactly the same way as you do.

So there's no point in me again explaining here for the 5th time why you are quite certainly wrong to claim actual direct evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone. And why I am unarguable right, as a proven matter of scientific fact, to say that the evidence gathered against the biblical writing (since about 1800), shows beyond any doubt and beyond all argument that the biblical writing is so packed with what are now proven fictions, as to make it most definitely unreliable and lacking credibility in the extreme.

If you had a proper scientific education instead of some Mickey Mouse undergraduate history degree (as you keep telling us) then you might have learnt what genuinely objective evidence is.

And in the case of the biblical writing of Jesus, the genuine objective evidence is that which I just listed and explained for you in detail on the previous page.

The evidence of science shows that stories of miracles & the supernatural are certainly fiction.

And the biblical stories of miracles & the supernatural are so constantly filled with miracle claims and supernatural appearances etc. that any such source could never possibly stand up to objective scrutiny as a reliable credible source of historical fact.

And it does not really need any more than that to dismiss the biblical writing as "not credible". Even though, as I already described, there is also a great deal more that totally discredits all of that biblical writing.

But until you ever understand that, which you might do one day if you come to your senses, or if you ever go and get a proper education (e.g. a PhD in some mainstream branch of science, which would, as I say, give you at least the opportunity of telling the difference between what is claimed to be evidence of something vs. what actually is credible as evidence of the claim), then until you ever do that you will have to remain in the ignorance of your faith.

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:I found this. No mention of any Jesus in this lot.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/timeline-of- ... entury.php

There's only a few dozen executions in that lot - if there really is a meticulous documentation, you'd expect a few more don't you think? - and I am not that sure that e.g. John the Baptist's execution really is documented in any "meticulous records" either, so that's clearly not an example from those "meticulous records" about which you speak.

The executions mentioned here were of some note. If a Jewish rabbi with even a small following who caused some disturbance in downtown Jerusalem got himself executed, like most stories of interest it would have gotten a mention. That John The Baptist not getting a mention only increases the likelihood that the episode was added to the Jesus myth as to collaborate it!

Free wrote:

IanS wrote:

Free wrote:

IanS wrote:


Free - by the way in addition to the reply that dejuror just gave to your quote in red (above), which I think you originally addressed to me - please show where I am what you just called a “myther” saying that "Jesus was a total myth". Be absolutely sure to respond to that question quoting from any of my posts anywhere that have said “Jesus was a total myth”.

From that assertion you then proceed to say (the red quote above”) that because I am a “myther” who is claiming that “Jesus was total myth”, I must therefore now quote to you “evidence (which) needs to include non-canonical texts to be cross-referenced with the Gospel records and/or it needs to be agreed upon from at least two writers in antiquity who specifically indicate that Jesus who was called Christ was a wholly mythical figure“ ....

... why do I need to show you any such thing unless you can quote from any post of mine where I ever claimed Jesus was a total myth?

So please be absolutely certain to justify that claim of yours (and your demand), by quoting from any post of mine where I ever said that “Jesus was a total myth”?

Since all of your arguments have been against historicity, is there any other position you can possibly have? Either he was real, or he wasn't. Since your arguments are all against him being a real person, could you please demonstrate how you could have any other position other than mythical?

Can you quote from any post of mine where I have ever said "Jesus is a total Myth"? Yes or no?

Where is the Quote please!

Please be absolutely certain to justify that claim of yours (and your demand), by quoting from any post of mine where I ever said that “Jesus was a total myth”?

The quote please; where is it!

Can you quote any post of mine where I said precisely "Jesus Christ absolutely 100% almost certainly probably existed?"

Find that exact quote, please.

Point is, finding an exact quote is not required, because the evidence of your leaning heavily into the mysticism camp is all over this thread, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

All your arguments reek of the stench of Jesus Mythicism.

IanS wrote:Because if he was not known to anyone who ever wrote about him, then it’s an unarguable fact that the most that any such biblical writers could ever produce was simply their un-evidenced hearsay beliefs of religious faith. And that is the problem with the bible. That is the problem with an anonymously written bible from authors who never knew Jesus, writing centuries later, to solemnly tell their readers that they knew this unknown figure of the past to be a supernatural scion of God, whose stories were confirmed to them by divine revelation and according to the ancient religious scriptures.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:I found this. No mention of any Jesus in this lot.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/timeline-of- ... entury.php

There's only a few dozen executions in that lot - if there really is a meticulous documentation, you'd expect a few more don't you think? - and I am not that sure that e.g. John the Baptist's execution really is documented in any "meticulous records" either, so that's clearly not an example from those "meticulous records" about which you speak.

The executions mentioned here were of some note. If a Jewish rabbi with even a small following who caused some disturbance in downtown Jerusalem got himself executed, like most stories of interest it would have gotten a mention. That John The Baptist not getting a mention only increases the likelihood that the episode was added to the Jesus myth as to collaborate it!

Yes, of course. So where'd this guy find those particular executions listed? I bet you it wasn't official Roman records. The source you refer to does list John the Baptist! I think you misconstrued my point.

Ultimately, my point is this: I have never seen any credible evidence of these meticulous records.

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:
There's only a few dozen executions in that lot - if there really is a meticulous documentation, you'd expect a few more don't you think? - and I am not that sure that e.g. John the Baptist's execution really is documented in any "meticulous records" either, so that's clearly not an example from those "meticulous records" about which you speak.

The executions mentioned here were of some note. If a Jewish rabbi with even a small following who caused some disturbance in downtown Jerusalem got himself executed, like most stories of interest it would have gotten a mention. That John The Baptist not getting a mention only increases the likelihood that the episode was added to the Jesus myth as to collaborate it!

Yes, of course. So where'd this guy find those particular executions listed? I bet you it wasn't official Roman records. The source you refer to does list John the Baptist! I think you misconstrued my point.

Ultimately, my point is this: I have never seen any credible evidence of these meticulous records.

There was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote extensively about that particular period of Jewish history who was right there when the events are supposed to have happened, who also is completely silent on matter of a HJ.
I speak of Philo of Alexandria. A roving reporter of that time that missed the whole shebang!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:
There's only a few dozen executions in that lot - if there really is a meticulous documentation, you'd expect a few more don't you think? - and I am not that sure that e.g. John the Baptist's execution really is documented in any "meticulous records" either, so that's clearly not an example from those "meticulous records" about which you speak.

The executions mentioned here were of some note. If a Jewish rabbi with even a small following who caused some disturbance in downtown Jerusalem got himself executed, like most stories of interest it would have gotten a mention. That John The Baptist not getting a mention only increases the likelihood that the episode was added to the Jesus myth as to collaborate it!

Yes, of course. So where'd this guy find those particular executions listed? I bet you it wasn't official Roman records. The source you refer to does list John the Baptist! I think you misconstrued my point.

Ultimately, my point is this: I have never seen any credible evidence of these meticulous records.

There was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote extensively about that particular period of Jewish history who was right there when the events are supposed to have happened, who also is completely silent on matter of a HJ.
I speak of Philo of Alexandria. A roving reporter of that time that missed the whole shebang!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:
The executions mentioned here were of some note. If a Jewish rabbi with even a small following who caused some disturbance in downtown Jerusalem got himself executed, like most stories of interest it would have gotten a mention. That John The Baptist not getting a mention only increases the likelihood that the episode was added to the Jesus myth as to collaborate it!

Yes, of course. So where'd this guy find those particular executions listed? I bet you it wasn't official Roman records. The source you refer to does list John the Baptist! I think you misconstrued my point.

Ultimately, my point is this: I have never seen any credible evidence of these meticulous records.

There was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote extensively about that particular period of Jewish history who was right there when the events are supposed to have happened, who also is completely silent on matter of a HJ.
I speak of Philo of Alexandria. A roving reporter of that time that missed the whole shebang!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

You are dodging the question. Meticulous Roman records. Any evidence they exist?

Zwaarddijk wrote:
We know with any certainty that Philo went once to Jerusalem. "Right there when the events are supposed to have happened" is a bit of an exaggeration donchathink? What's more, he did not speak the local language (his knowledge of Hebrew seems to have been rather weak, and his knowledge of Aramaic is very probably no better), making his relevance as a "roving reporter" rather low.

And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.

2. And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole manner of life.

IanS wrote:

Free wrote:

IanS wrote:

Free wrote:

Since all of your arguments have been against historicity, is there any other position you can possibly have? Either he was real, or he wasn't. Since your arguments are all against him being a real person, could you please demonstrate how you could have any other position other than mythical?

Can you quote from any post of mine where I have ever said "Jesus is a total Myth"? Yes or no?

Where is the Quote please!

Please be absolutely certain to justify that claim of yours (and your demand), by quoting from any post of mine where I ever said that “Jesus was a total myth”?

The quote please; where is it!

Can you quote any post of mine where I said precisely "Jesus Christ absolutely 100% almost certainly probably existed?"

Find that exact quote, please.

Point is, finding an exact quote is not required, because the evidence of your leaning heavily into the mysticism camp is all over this thread, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

All your arguments reek of the stench of Jesus Mythicism.

Well now you are doing the same thing again, and digging an even deeper hole for yourself by claiming that I have said something else about you, which I have never said at all ... where in any of my posts have I ever accused you of saying “precisely "Jesus Christ absolutely 100% almost certainly probably existed?" ... where did any post of mine ever accuse you of writing that??

OK, so now you need to provide quotes from any of my posts supporting both of those accusations from you -

1. Please be absolutely certain to justify that claim of yours (and your demand), by quoting from any post of mine where I ever said that “Jesus was a total myth”?

Where is that quote please? Make sure you post it this time!

And secondly -

2. Please be absolutely certain to justify that accusation of yours by quoting from any post of mine where I ever said you had written saying "Jesus Christ absolutely 100% almost certainly probably existed?"


Where is that quote please?


You really cannot keep making these accusations without ever providing the quotes when you are asked to. Please quote where my posts ever said either of the above 1 and 2.

Look ; I would say the same to you as I just asked of Stein - please stop the personalised abusive remarks that pepper all of your posts. And instead lets have a respectful constructive exchange of opinions about whether or not the bible can be safely regarded as a reliable and credible source of factual evidence to show that Jesus was a human person ever known to anyone at the time.

Because if he was not known to anyone who ever wrote about him, then it’s an unarguable fact that the most that any such biblical writers could ever produce was simply their un-evidenced hearsay beliefs of religious faith. And that is the problem with the bible. That is the problem with an anonymously written bible from authors who never knew Jesus, writing centuries later, to solemnly tell their readers that they knew this unknown figure of the past to be a supernatural scion of God, whose stories were confirmed to them by divine revelation and according to the ancient religious scriptures.

TRACTATE TAMID, CHAPTER FIVE, MISHNAH ONE:
http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/tamid/tam05.html
EXPLANATIONS (continued):

4:... The first item to be noted is the daily ritual recitation of the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:1-14 or Deuteronomy 5:6-18]. At first blush this may surprise us, since the recital of the Ten Commandments plays no part in our modern synagogue liturgy...
6:
Now let us consider the rabbinic attitude to the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the daily liturgy. The Talmud of Eretz-Israel contains the following statement:
Both Rav Mattanah and Rabbi Shemu'el bar-Naĥman say that logically we should recite the Ten Commandments [liturgically] every day; why do we not do so? - [to refute] the claims of heretics that these alone were given to Moses at Sinai [Berakhot 9b].

The heretics referred to in this text are presumably the early Christians of the first century CE. So we have here an extraordinary statement to the effect that a logical Jewish liturgy was changed in order to combat heretical (and possibly missionary) claims. This statement of the Yerushalmi is also echoed by the Bavli [Berakhot 12a] -


Rav Yehudah quotes Shemu'el as saying that they wanted to recite them also outside the Bet Mikdash, but they had already been abolished because of the claims of heretics.

The Bavli goes on to record sporadic attempts to re-institute the reading of the Ten Commandments as a part of the Reading of the Shema, but these attempts were all quashed 'because they had already been abolished because of the claims of heretics'. The Talmud of Eretz-Israel admits that the Ten Commandments 'contain the essence of the Shema'.

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:
There's only a few dozen executions in that lot - if there really is a meticulous documentation, you'd expect a few more don't you think? - and I am not that sure that e.g. John the Baptist's execution really is documented in any "meticulous records" either, so that's clearly not an example from those "meticulous records" about which you speak.

The executions mentioned here were of some note. If a Jewish rabbi with even a small following who caused some disturbance in downtown Jerusalem got himself executed, like most stories of interest it would have gotten a mention. That John The Baptist not getting a mention only increases the likelihood that the episode was added to the Jesus myth as to collaborate it!

Yes, of course. So where'd this guy find those particular executions listed? I bet you it wasn't official Roman records. The source you refer to does list John the Baptist! I think you misconstrued my point.

Ultimately, my point is this: I have never seen any credible evidence of these meticulous records.

There was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote extensively about that particular period of Jewish history who was right there when the events are supposed to have happened, who also is completely silent on matter of a HJ.
I speak of Philo of Alexandria. A roving reporter of that time that missed the whole shebang!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

Free wrote:

This old myther trick from Kenneth Humphrey's has been conclusively refuted numerous times.

First of all, contrary to Humphrey's assertions, Philo was not some kind of "roving reporter" of historical events in Judea.

Secondly, Philo of Alexandria was called "Philo of ALEXANDRIA" because he lived in Alexandria, Egypt, and was no where near Jerusalem at the time.