dogsgod wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't support Stein's posting style, but it's pathetic that you take such pleasure out of misrepresenting and twisting what he says, knowing you will get a rise out of him. Your posting style when responding to or writing about him is at the level of the playground bully.

I do support Stein's posting style, it suits him.

And your posting style -- evasions, distortions, etc., all typical of the pathetic myther Kool-Aid -- suits you down to the ground.



Stein

Am still waiting for someone to address my previous, either honestly or directly.

But I have too much sense to be holding my breath.

Stein

proudfootz wrote:

As for your assertion that your ability to force some sort of 'harmony' among a variety of texts by massively redacting them is some astounding feat... Color me rather less than impressed.

This is the only remark of yours that's even remotely on point. Contrary to what you -- pathetically predictably -- say, it happens to be a perfectly respectable process to ascertain where a plethora of unrelated sources align. Modern professional historians do that all the time. I should know. My father was one, for crying out loud, and also an atheist like my entire family. So grow up.

Non-apologetics and apologetics happen to align here on very little. But they do align on two or three very basic facts. There was definitely some sort of teacher in Tiberian Palestine who was a Jew and a folk healer, who made things uncomfortable for the Roman occupation and who gathered a bit of a following. He had some pretensions to a philosophy of a sort and he was executed by the Roman authorities. That's all.

Now, no myther has given here an adequate explanation as to how come the apologetics and the non-apologetics, which do NOT align on any of the posthumous woo, DO agree on those basics. I know by now that your doctrine forbids you even to address that, let alone attempt to account for it. To do that would violate your fraternity oath. The same goes for other fanatics here like Dejuror. But once in a great while, a genuine agnostic on the question, like Moonwatcher, rather than a fake agnostic like Reality Rules, will address this, though not too often.

What you are effectively doing here is PENALIZING ME HERE FOR EVEN DARING TO FUCKING ADDRESS MOONWATCHER'S QUESTION in the first place BY PUTTING GODDAMN WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Why, how DAAAAAAARE I?

Moonwatcher asked --

"Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale."

-- to which I have the sheer effrontery to respond that all the unrelated sources only align on A, B, and C, but not D, E, & F. Moonwatcher made a point of using the words "who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" as characterizing one extreme, clearly implying that those who ascribe considerably less than 90% to this rabbi were also being asked his same question. I fall a lot lower than 90% because of modern textual analysis of the very apparent differences in the various philological styles found in the Synoptics and elsewhere, like the authentic Paulines. I also add to that a further discrimination when applying the fragmentary testimony of non-apologetics like Josephus and Tacitus. It is a combination of both processes which yields the results that I gave in my so fucking criminal response to Moonwatcher. So cry me a river.

I gave a detailed rundown of which textual nuggets I now view as MOST LIKELY to be historical. I have no idea precisely how much of a percentage of "the non-magical stuff and most of the stuff attributed to him" is found in the textual nuggets I provided in my long posting. Maybe it was roughly 33%. I'm not sure; I haven't calculated it. BUT MY LONG POST

W A S

ANSWERING MOONWATCHER'S GODDAMN QUESTION, thank you very fucking much.

That's my fucking crime, and that's my fucking response.

Well, you can choke on that. I'm not stopping you.

Stein

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't support Stein's posting style, but it's pathetic that you take such pleasure out of misrepresenting and twisting what he says, knowing you will get a rise out of him. Your posting style when responding to or writing about him is at the level of the playground bully.

I do support Stein's posting style, it suits him.

And your posting style -- evasions, distortions, etc., all typical of the pathetic myther Kool-Aid -- suits you down to the ground.



Stein

I've been told worse by people a lot more learned than you, Stein.

RealityRules wrote:the scant references in Josephus, like those in Tacitus, are flimsy things to hang a 'historical' hat on

lololololololol

It really depends. The Tacitus passage implies that, in his view, Christianity is an annoying insect that, like all annoyances, find their way to Rome. He doesn't speak of it as if it is a big deal but just another backwoods religion among countless religions that gravitate to Rome. That being said, the impression I get is that Christianity was definitely not a huge deal in his time. So some scant references are understandable.

I've already, in a previous post, covered why I don't think the "fake passage" argument stands up to reason. In short, it refers to Christianity as an abomination and the adherents to the religion are accused of hatred toward all mankind and generally referred to as the lowest of the low. At the very least, it's some solid evidence that Christianity existed in the 1st century. Mind you, I realize not everyone is claiming it did not.

It also makes reference to a specific past event under a specific Roman official while also making it clear that the author thinks the claims of the religion's adherents are sheer superstition. Why would anyone fake this just to bash Christianity?

I don't think anyone should "hang his hat" on either side of the hallway on this issue of a historical person as a basis for the mythical figure known as Jesus. Yes the evidence is scant. But I find the Tacitus passage pretty convincing and one of the main reasons is that nobody I've seen so far has offered an explanation for it being a fake that I personally find the least bit convincing.

There are other arguments that do not require it to be a fake. One is that he was repeating tradition or hearsay. That may be (hence, again, I don't think anyone can truly "hang his hat" and say that anything on any side of this discussion is a fact).

Like Proudfootz, I realize that all of this is highly subjective. I lean toward the other direction than he does regarding Tacitus but I agree completely that there are no final answers here that any of us will ever know for sure.

Moonwatcher wrote:

RealityRules wrote:the scant references in Josephus, like those in Tacitus, are flimsy things to hang a 'historical' hat on

lololololololol

It really depends. The Tacitus passage implies that, in his view, Christianity is an annoying insect that, like all annoyances, find their way to Rome. He doesn't speak of it as if it is a big deal but just another backwoods religion among countless religions that gravitate to Rome. That being said, the impression I get is that Christianity was definitely not a huge deal in his time. So some scant references are understandable.

I've already, in a previous post, covered why I don't think the "fake passage" argument stands up to reason. In short, it refers to Christianity as an abomination and the adherents to the religion are accused of hatred toward all mankind and generally referred to as the lowest of the low. At the very least, it's some solid evidence that Christianity existed in the 1st century. Mind you, I realize not everyone is claiming it did not.

It also makes reference to a specific past event under a specific Roman official while also making it clear that the author thinks the claims of the religion's adherents are sheer superstition. Why would anyone fake this just to bash Christianity?

I don't think anyone should "hang his hat" on either side of the hallway on this issue of a historical person as a basis for the mythical figure known as Jesus. Yes the evidence is scant. But I find the Tacitus passage pretty convincing and one of the main reasons is that nobody I've seen so far has offered an explanation for it being a fake that I personally find the least bit convincing.

There are other arguments that do not require it to be a fake. One is that he was repeating tradition or hearsay. That may be (hence, again, I don't think anyone can truly "hang his hat" and say that anything on any side of this discussion is a fact).

Like Proudfootz, I realize that all of this is highly subjective. I lean toward the other direction than he does regarding Tacitus but I agree completely that there are no final answers here that any of us will ever know for sure.

Hi Moonwatcher --

Re Tacitus: Well put. Congratulations.

Do you consider I addressed your previous question directly enough, or was it frankly inadequate or not to the point? Naturally, please feel free to be perfectly frank. (Goodness knows, I've been!)

I'm happy to clarify whatever may have been unclear or not to the point previously, should you request as much. As I explained in my typically unaddressed posting to Proudfootz, my rough guess is that I take roughly 33% or so of the non-magic ingredients in the textual data as most likely historical. I attempted to spell out to the board just what that 33% most likely consists of, and I also attempted to show the board the reasoning for my choices.

Unscrupulous and deliberate distortions from Proudfootz and some others aside, if my long reply and cites in answer to your question was still not clear enough to you, I can clarify some of that on request, and I'll refrain from any snark or worse in my clarification, as well as attempting to make it a bit briefer than some of my other posts have been.

Thanks much,

Stein

P.S.: Fair warning: I will continue to enclose my previous to Proudfootz every time I post, until some myther addresses it honestly or directly.

[enclosure]

proudfootz wrote:

As for your assertion that your ability to force some sort of 'harmony' among a variety of texts by massively redacting them is some astounding feat... Color me rather less than impressed.

This is the only remark of yours that's even remotely on point. Contrary to what you -- pathetically predictably -- say, it happens to be a perfectly respectable process to ascertain where a plethora of unrelated sources align. Modern professional historians do that all the time. I should know. My father was one, for crying out loud, and also an atheist like my entire family. So grow up.

Non-apologetics and apologetics happen to align here on very little. But they do align on two or three very basic facts. There was definitely some sort of teacher in Tiberian Palestine who was a Jew and a folk healer, who made things uncomfortable for the Roman occupation and who gathered a bit of a following. He had some pretensions to a philosophy of a sort and he was executed by the Roman authorities. That's all.

Now, no myther has given here an adequate explanation as to how come the apologetics and the non-apologetics, which do NOT align on any of the posthumous woo, DO agree on those basics. I know by now that your doctrine forbids you even to address that, let alone attempt to account for it. To do that would violate your fraternity oath. The same goes for other fanatics here like Dejuror. But once in a great while, a genuine agnostic on the question, like Moonwatcher, rather than a fake agnostic like Reality Rules, will address this, though not too often.

What you are effectively doing here is PENALIZING ME HERE FOR EVEN DARING TO FUCKING ADDRESS MOONWATCHER'S QUESTION in the first place BY PUTTING GODDAMN WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Why, how DAAAAAAARE I?

Moonwatcher asked --

"Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale."

-- to which I have the sheer effrontery to respond that all the unrelated sources only align on A, B, and C, but not D, E, & F. Moonwatcher made a point of using the words "who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" as characterizing one extreme, clearly implying that those who ascribe considerably less than 90% to this rabbi were also being asked his same question. I fall a lot lower than 90% because of modern textual analysis of the very apparent differences in the various philological styles found in the Synoptics and elsewhere, like the authentic Paulines. I also add to that a further discrimination when applying the fragmentary testimony of non-apologetics like Josephus and Tacitus. It is a combination of both processes which yields the results that I gave in my so fucking criminal response to Moonwatcher. So cry me a river.

I gave a detailed rundown of which textual nuggets I now view as MOST LIKELY to be historical. I have no idea precisely how much of a percentage of "the non-magical stuff and most of the stuff attributed to him" is found in the textual nuggets I provided in my long posting. Maybe it was roughly 33%. I'm not sure; I haven't calculated it. BUT MY LONG POST

W A S

ANSWERING MOONWATCHER'S GODDAMN QUESTION, thank you very fucking much.

That's my fucking crime, and that's my fucking response.

Well, you can choke on that. I'm not stopping you.

Stein

dogsgod wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't support Stein's posting style, but it's pathetic that you take such pleasure out of misrepresenting and twisting what he says, knowing you will get a rise out of him. Your posting style when responding to or writing about him is at the level of the playground bully.

What's to misrepresent? Stein is typical of a committed believer that gets worked up about Jesus, and he simply wants everyone to believe as he does. Posters here that think for themselves are not going to commit.

'Committed believer' etc? Your approach is only less objectionable than Proudfootz's because you don't hide what you are doing and you don't have his self-righteousness.

dogsgod wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:Just for my own interests, with possibilities of what it and is not authentic flying back and forth and perhaps, for myself, wanting to get back to something more basic: what precisely constitutes a Historical Jesus?

By definition, all religions and, indeed, just about any human endeavor, have a history. How much of a basis in reality does Jesus need to have in order for there to have been a Historical Jesus?

We all agree the final product we see in the Gospels is a fantasy.

Does such a person have to have generally taught the sorts of things the Jesus of the mythology taught?

Does he have to have been crucified?

Does he have to just, in some vague and small way, have said and done something that just remotely resembles the mythology in the minutest way?

Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale. I'm not asking anybody to prove their opinion is true. I'm just asking where people think they fall on the scale.

I have no way of knowing whether Jesus was an historical figure or not and as time goes on I find it more difficult to give a shit either way. I do know that religions cannot exist for long without written texts and Christianity has its fare share of written texts insuring a long life, and that these texts are of a godman that performed miracles. When and why did it become necessarily so for this Jesus Christ to become historical?

The historical Jesus, if there ever was one, was the least important person in the movement.

FFS the first thing his 'followers' did was start lying about him.

MS2 wrote:I don't support Stein's posting style, but it's pathetic that you take such pleasure out of misrepresenting and twisting what he says, knowing you will get a rise out of him. Your posting style when responding to or writing about him is at the level of the playground bully.

Are you addressing anyone in particular?

When some ill-tempered brat laces each and every post with accusations that I am a liar and some sort of cult fanatic, they get what they so very richly deserve, contempt and ridicule.

If Stein decides to change his 'style' to something approaching civility he may find he begins to earn the respect he now demands.

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

As for your assertion that your ability to force some sort of 'harmony' among a variety of texts by massively redacting them is some astounding feat... Color me rather less than impressed.

This is the only remark of yours that's even remotely on point. Contrary to what you -- pathetically predictably -- say, it happens to be a perfectly respectable process to ascertain where a plethora of unrelated sources align. Modern professional historians do that all the time. I should know. My father was one, for crying out loud, and also an atheist like my entire family. So grow up.

Non-apologetics and apologetics happen to align here on very little. But they do align on two or three very basic facts. There was definitely some sort of teacher in Tiberian Palestine who was a Jew and a folk healer, who made things uncomfortable for the Roman occupation and who gathered a bit of a following. He had some pretensions to a philosophy of a sort and he was executed by the Roman authorities. That's all.

Yes, I'm aware that is what you have concluded.

But it is interesting that part of this conclusion of yours is that this Jesus "made things uncomfortable for the Roman occupation". By preaching forgiveness? Going the extra mile? Or some sort of brotherhood of man? From what I gather the Romans were used to dealing with things a little more aggressive than Peace, Love, and Understanding.

Now, no myther has given here an adequate explanation as to how come the apologetics and the non-apologetics, which do NOT align on any of the posthumous woo, DO agree on those basics. I know by now that your doctrine forbids you even to address that, let alone attempt to account for it. To do that would violate your fraternity oath. The same goes for other fanatics here like Dejuror. But once in a great while, a genuine agnostic on the question, like Moonwatcher, rather than a fake agnostic like Reality Rules, will address this, though not too often.

I have no doctrine, so you seem to be attacking a strawman. I have taken no oath. I am not a fanatic.

So I'm not sure why you quote me in your post and then attack positions I have never taken and words I have never written.

That several stories about a figure agree on two or three things while disagreeing on hundreds seems remarkable to you. It doesn't to me. That is all. There is nothing to 'explain' here. It is not a remarkable 'fact' nor is anyone obligated to agree with you that the couple of things that seem to agree are themselves 'facts', basic or otherwise.

What you are effectively doing here is PENALIZING ME HERE FOR EVEN DARING TO FUCKING ADDRESS MOONWATCHER'S QUESTION in the first place BY PUTTING GODDAMN WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Why, how DAAAAAAARE I?

Nope. He asked for a definition, not evidence.

Moonwatcher asked --

"Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale."

-- to which I have the sheer effrontery to respond that all the unrelated sources only align on A, B, and C, but not D, E, & F. Moonwatcher made a point of using the words "who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" as characterizing one extreme, clearly implying that those who ascribe considerably less than 90% to this rabbi were also being asked his same question. I fall a lot lower than 90% because of modern textual analysis of the very apparent differences in the various philological styles found in the Synoptics and elsewhere, like the authentic Paulines. I also add to that a further discrimination when applying the fragmentary testimony of non-apologetics like Josephus and Tacitus. It is a combination of both processes which yields the results that I gave in my so fucking criminal response to Moonwatcher. So cry me a river.

You're the only one crying. Crying "Wolf!"

No one suggested your response was 'criminal', or was some sort of 'effrontery', or whatever you imagine some strawman wrote.

Moonwatcher asked:

Just for my own interests, with possibilities of what it and is not authentic flying back and forth and perhaps, for myself, wanting to get back to something more basic: what precisely constitutes a Historical Jesus?

By definition, all religions and, indeed, just about any human endeavor, have a history. How much of a basis in reality does Jesus need to have in order for there to have been a Historical Jesus?

By definition, all religions and, indeed, just about any human endeavor, have a history. How much of a basis in reality does Jesus need to have in order for there to have been a Historical Jesus?

We all agree the final product we see in the Gospels is a fantasy.

Does such a person have to have generally taught the sorts of things the Jesus of the mythology taught?

Does he have to have been crucified?

Does he have to just, in some vague and small way, have said and done something that just remotely resembles the mythology in the minutest way?

He asked for a definition - something that seems to have escaped your quoting mechanism...

I gave a detailed rundown of which textual nuggets I now view as MOST LIKELY to be historical. I have no idea precisely how much of a percentage of "the non-magical stuff and most of the stuff attributed to him" is found in the textual nuggets I provided in my long posting. Maybe it was roughly 33%. I'm not sure; I haven't calculated it. BUT MY LONG POST

W A S

ANSWERING MOONWATCHER'S GODDAMN QUESTION, thank you very fucking much.

That's my fucking crime, and that's my fucking response.

Well, you can choke on that. I'm not stopping you.

Stein

I might hurt myself facepalming this apologia of yours.

Stein wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't support Stein's posting style, but it's pathetic that you take such pleasure out of misrepresenting and twisting what he says, knowing you will get a rise out of him. Your posting style when responding to or writing about him is at the level of the playground bully.

Thanks for saying that. Appreciate it. -- You also have no call to support my latest meltdowns, of course.

I also know it will be a cold day in hell before PF responds directly or honestly to my latest (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2312806 * ).

Cheers,

Stein

Done and done.

But points to you for poisoning the well, claiming my response will be dishonest before I even post it.

Stein wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:

RealityRules wrote:the scant references in Josephus, like those in Tacitus, are flimsy things to hang a 'historical' hat on

lololololololol

It really depends. The Tacitus passage implies that, in his view, Christianity is an annoying insect that, like all annoyances, find their way to Rome. He doesn't speak of it as if it is a big deal but just another backwoods religion among countless religions that gravitate to Rome. That being said, the impression I get is that Christianity was definitely not a huge deal in his time. So some scant references are understandable.

I've already, in a previous post, covered why I don't think the "fake passage" argument stands up to reason. In short, it refers to Christianity as an abomination and the adherents to the religion are accused of hatred toward all mankind and generally referred to as the lowest of the low. At the very least, it's some solid evidence that Christianity existed in the 1st century. Mind you, I realize not everyone is claiming it did not.

It also makes reference to a specific past event under a specific Roman official while also making it clear that the author thinks the claims of the religion's adherents are sheer superstition. Why would anyone fake this just to bash Christianity?

I don't think anyone should "hang his hat" on either side of the hallway on this issue of a historical person as a basis for the mythical figure known as Jesus. Yes the evidence is scant. But I find the Tacitus passage pretty convincing and one of the main reasons is that nobody I've seen so far has offered an explanation for it being a fake that I personally find the least bit convincing.

There are other arguments that do not require it to be a fake. One is that he was repeating tradition or hearsay. That may be (hence, again, I don't think anyone can truly "hang his hat" and say that anything on any side of this discussion is a fact).

Like Proudfootz, I realize that all of this is highly subjective. I lean toward the other direction than he does regarding Tacitus but I agree completely that there are no final answers here that any of us will ever know for sure.

Hi Moonwatcher --

Re Tacitus: Well put. Congratulations.

Do you consider I addressed your previous question directly enough, or was it frankly inadequate or not to the point? Naturally, please feel free to be perfectly frank. (Goodness knows, I've been!)

I'm happy to clarify whatever may have been unclear or not to the point previously, should you request as much. As I explained in my typically unaddressed posting to Proudfootz, my rough guess is that I take roughly 33% or so of the non-magic ingredients in the textual data as most likely historical. I attempted to spell out to the board just what that 33% most likely consists of, and I also attempted to show the board the reasoning for my choices.

Unscrupulous and deliberate distortions from Proudfootz and some others aside, if my long reply and cites in answer to your question was still not clear enough to you, I can clarify some of that on request, and I'll refrain from any snark or worse in my clarification, as well as attempting to make it a bit briefer than some of my other posts have been.

Thanks much,

Stein

P.S.: Fair warning: I will continue to enclose my previous to Proudfootz every time I post, until some myther addresses it honestly or directly.

[enclosure]

proudfootz wrote:

As for your assertion that your ability to force some sort of 'harmony' among a variety of texts by massively redacting them is some astounding feat... Color me rather less than impressed.

This is the only remark of yours that's even remotely on point. Contrary to what you -- pathetically predictably -- say, it happens to be a perfectly respectable process to ascertain where a plethora of unrelated sources align. Modern professional historians do that all the time. I should know. My father was one, for crying out loud, and also an atheist like my entire family. So grow up.

Non-apologetics and apologetics happen to align here on very little. But they do align on two or three very basic facts. There was definitely some sort of teacher in Tiberian Palestine who was a Jew and a folk healer, who made things uncomfortable for the Roman occupation and who gathered a bit of a following. He had some pretensions to a philosophy of a sort and he was executed by the Roman authorities. That's all.

Now, no myther has given here an adequate explanation as to how come the apologetics and the non-apologetics, which do NOT align on any of the posthumous woo, DO agree on those basics. I know by now that your doctrine forbids you even to address that, let alone attempt to account for it. To do that would violate your fraternity oath. The same goes for other fanatics here like Dejuror. But once in a great while, a genuine agnostic on the question, like Moonwatcher, rather than a fake agnostic like Reality Rules, will address this, though not too often.

What you are effectively doing here is PENALIZING ME HERE FOR EVEN DARING TO FUCKING ADDRESS MOONWATCHER'S QUESTION in the first place BY PUTTING GODDAMN WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Why, how DAAAAAAARE I?

Moonwatcher asked --

"Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale."

-- to which I have the sheer effrontery to respond that all the unrelated sources only align on A, B, and C, but not D, E, & F. Moonwatcher made a point of using the words "who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" as characterizing one extreme, clearly implying that those who ascribe considerably less than 90% to this rabbi were also being asked his same question. I fall a lot lower than 90% because of modern textual analysis of the very apparent differences in the various philological styles found in the Synoptics and elsewhere, like the authentic Paulines. I also add to that a further discrimination when applying the fragmentary testimony of non-apologetics like Josephus and Tacitus. It is a combination of both processes which yields the results that I gave in my so fucking criminal response to Moonwatcher. So cry me a river.

I gave a detailed rundown of which textual nuggets I now view as MOST LIKELY to be historical. I have no idea precisely how much of a percentage of "the non-magical stuff and most of the stuff attributed to him" is found in the textual nuggets I provided in my long posting. Maybe it was roughly 33%. I'm not sure; I haven't calculated it. BUT MY LONG POST

W A S

ANSWERING MOONWATCHER'S GODDAMN QUESTION, thank you very fucking much.

That's my fucking crime, and that's my fucking response.

Well, you can choke on that. I'm not stopping you.

Stein

Stein, I'm not sure the question was addressed in so many words in your first post though I recognize there are some longstanding issues going on that I think sidetracked things and that are between you and another poster.

In this post, you specifically addressed the issue of whether you think there was a real person as a basis of the myths and how much of that person you think survived in the non-magical portions of the narratives we have.

proudfootz wrote: The historical Jesus, if there ever was one, was the least important person in the movement.
FFS the first thing his 'followers' did was start lying about him.

I was going to agree. Then I realized that, there are so many sayings in the sources we have that we cannot know for certain if he did or did not say them. Claims of outright godhood were certainly added later as the religion changed. But the philosophical things? "Love you enemy. Do good to those who hate you.", etc. If he existed and really said such things, too bad his followers seldom listened. But were they the sayings of a real person? Were they part of a sect and got attributed to a man who may or may not have existed? Without knowing things like this, it is impossible to determine how significant he was to the movement.

But things got so obscured with various sects and his being attributed with supernatural qualities and various and often contradictory myths that, yes, for practical purposes, he is of little importance compared to what things turned into- IF he existed.

proudfootz wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't support Stein's posting style, but it's pathetic that you take such pleasure out of misrepresenting and twisting what he says, knowing you will get a rise out of him. Your posting style when responding to or writing about him is at the level of the playground bully.

Are you addressing anyone in particular?

When some ill-tempered brat laces each and every post with accusations that I am a liar and some sort of cult fanatic, they get what they so very richly deserve, contempt and ridicule.

If Stein decides to change his 'style' to something approaching civility he may find he begins to earn the respect he now demands.

Please Sir, he made me do it.

Moonwatcher wrote:

proudfootz wrote: The historical Jesus, if there ever was one, was the least important person in the movement.
FFS the first thing his 'followers' did was start lying about him.

I was going to agree. Then I realized that, there are so many sayings in the sources we have that we cannot know for certain if he did or did not say them. Claims of outright godhood were certainly added later as the religion changed. But the philosophical things? "Love you enemy. Do good to those who hate you.", etc. If he existed and really said such things, too bad his followers seldom listened. But were they the sayings of a real person? Were they part of a sect and got attributed to a man who may or may not have existed? Without knowing things like this, it is impossible to determine how significant he was to the movement.

But things got so obscured with various sects and his being attributed with supernatural qualities and various and often contradictory myths that, yes, for practical purposes, he is of little importance compared to what things turned into- IF he existed.

Yes, I agree it is an open question whether an historical Jesus said or taught things like some of the things attributed to him.

Unless some new evidence turns up, I'll remain agnostic on the question of what an historic Jesus taught, if anything.

MS2 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't support Stein's posting style, but it's pathetic that you take such pleasure out of misrepresenting and twisting what he says, knowing you will get a rise out of him. Your posting style when responding to or writing about him is at the level of the playground bully.

Are you addressing anyone in particular?

When some ill-tempered brat laces each and every post with accusations that I am a liar and some sort of cult fanatic, they get what they so very richly deserve, contempt and ridicule.

If Stein decides to change his 'style' to something approaching civility he may find he begins to earn the respect he now demands.

Please Sir, he made me do it.

I have treated Stein much better than he has treated me.

Not sure why you take the part of defending the bully in this exchange.

proudfootz wrote:

MS2 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

MS2 wrote:I don't support Stein's posting style, but it's pathetic that you take such pleasure out of misrepresenting and twisting what he says, knowing you will get a rise out of him. Your posting style when responding to or writing about him is at the level of the playground bully.

Are you addressing anyone in particular?

When some ill-tempered brat laces each and every post with accusations that I am a liar and some sort of cult fanatic, they get what they so very richly deserve, contempt and ridicule.

If Stein decides to change his 'style' to something approaching civility he may find he begins to earn the respect he now demands.

Please Sir, he made me do it.

I have treated Stein much better than he has treated me.

Not sure why you take the part of defending the bully in this exchange.

They're united in their defense of Jesus, and sadly, the historical Jesus needs defending.

Dare I offer comment, friend Stein, or will my remarks spark another silly outburst?

As we know, early Christianity’s documents were not only regularly revised in their own right, but in the hands of succeeding gospel authors would then be used to create new ones, with additions/embellishments of their own. The synoptic gospels themselves are in large part only compilations of earlier material.

The point being that other than perhaps for Paul’s brand of mysticism, none of this makes it any easier ‘to ascertain where a plethora of unrelated sources align’, particularly when the gnostic and what was to become the orthodoxy, borrow freely from the same preceding material.

Nonetheless, you assert: “But they do align on two or three very basic facts. There was definitely some sort of teacher in Tiberian Palestine who was a Jew and a folk healer, who made things uncomfortable for the Roman occupation and who gathered a bit of a following. He had some pretensions to a philosophy of a sort and he was executed by the Roman authorities. That's all.”

Other than that there indeed existed Romans, there’s not a single viable shred of evidence to support even the least aspect of your conclusion, Stein.

No doubt you’ll mention the Essenes, the Teacher of Righteousness, or even Eisenman’s nonsense, but there’s no evidence to show that the Essenes ever had anything to do with Christianity.


Then, unlike Moonwatcher, as for the other usual ones, I don’t find the Tacitus reference convincing in the least.

Far easier to fall back on Humphrey’s Site than write reams myself: -

“Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD)? Would (could) Nero have made such a fine sectarian distinction – particularly since there was no identifying faith document (not a single gospel had been written) – so just what would 'Christians' have believed? Even St Paul himself makes not a single reference to 'Christians' in any of his writings.

The idea that a nascent ‘Christianity’ immediately faced persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an utter nonsense. For one thing, it is only in the last third of the 1st century AD that Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism. Until then they remained protected under Roman law as Jews. The irritation they caused to their more orthodox brethren meant nothing to the pagan magistrates. Says Gibbon:

"The innocence of the first Christians was protected by ignorance and contempt; and the tribunal of the Pagan magistrate often proved the most assured refuge against the fury of the synagogue."

Early Christ-followers called themselves 'saints', 'brethren', 'Brothers of the Lord' and their critics used various names: Nazoreans, Ebionites, 'God fearers', atheists. The Jewish association remained strong throughout the first century and when Christian sects got going in Rome in the second century they were identified by their rival leaders – Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcionites, etc.”

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

The later martyr-loving Christian writers would have adored the passage: “Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night."

No ‘Jewish Christians’? The phrase is strictly a modern one – it wasn’t used back then.


Why the name ‘Jesus’? Well, merely a matter of Jewish scripture: Jesus is the Hellenized equivalent of Joshua (Moses’ successor), the name by which Jewish scholars had always assumed the Messiah would be known. In fact, it would have been strange if the predicted Savior had been called anything else!

Just to plagiarize Humphrey again: -

“Christianity, like all religious movements, was born from myth-making and many currents fed the myth, including astrological speculation, pagan salvation cults, Hellenistic hero worship, and the imperial cult itself, manufactured at precisely the "time of Jesus", with its own sacrificed saviour (Divus Iulius), its own gospel of a son of god (Res Gestae Divi Augusti), its own priests and temples, established in the very same urban centres which later witnessed the emergence of early Christianity.

The truth is that Christianity grew from neither a god nor a man but out of what had gone before; a human Jesus was no more necessary than was a human Horus, Dionysos, Mithras, or Attis. Can we explain the emergence of Christianity without its humanoid superstar? Of course we can.”


By the end of the first century, and before Rome became a major force, we basically see various movements, one in Alexandria (promoting a mystical Gnostic form of Christianity) and others in northern Syria/Asia Minor, one or some of which proceeded to become the reigning orthodoxy. Jerusalem or Palestine doesn’t really enter the picture until later (at least now we can safely put aside all that inanity surrounding James and the Council of Jerusalem!)

Jesus’ sayings, Moonwatcher? I think you’ll find that Jesus” sayings are fairly well accounted for by way of Jewish Wisdom literature, the Stoics, and the Cynics.

Moonwatcher wrote: .... The Tacitus passage implies that, in his view, Christianity is an annoying insect that, like all annoyances, find their way to Rome. He doesn't speak of it as if it is a big deal but just another backwoods religion among countless religions that gravitate to Rome. That being said, the impression I get is that Christianity was definitely not a huge deal in his time. So some scant references are understandable.

Again, it is quite logically fallacious to assume Tacitus' Annals did mention people called 'Christians' when it has been conclusively proven the word was manipulated.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_and_Chrestians

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[17] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

A known manipulated 11th century manuscript of Tacitus' Annals is completely useless to argue for first century Christians when the very word CHRESTIANOS has been corrupted.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 could not have mentioned 'Christians' since Tacitus wrote that the Jewish prophesied Christ had NOT come and that it was VESPASIAN who was the CHRIST [the prophesied Messianic ruler].

In addition, the very fact that it is also claimed that there were many Messianic claimants it is extremely bizarre to assume that a single mention of Christ refers ONLY to Jesus of Nazareth.

In the very NT, Jesus of Nazareth was NOT called Christ by the Populace and did NOT start any religion under the name of Christ.

Jesus of Nazareth in the myth/fiction fables called the Gospels COMMANDED his disciples NOT to tell anyone he was the Christ.

Jesus of Nazareth in the very NT stories was not crucified because Pilate wanted to stop a mischeivous superstition.

Pilate found NO fault with Jesus.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 NEVER mention any persons called Christians or Jesus of Nazareth and the "Christ" in Annals 15.44 is NOT Jesus of Nazareth in the NT.

The Jesus cult of Christians started AFTER Jesus of Nazareth was dead and ASCENDED and AFTER the Holy Ghost came down from heaven in the myth/fiction fables called the NT.

Moonwatcher wrote:Like Proudfootz, I realize that all of this is highly subjective. I lean toward the other direction than he does regarding Tacitus but I agree completely that there are no final answers here that any of us will ever know for sure.

You statement is rather amusing.

You put forward the absurd notion that if you don't know the answer then no-one else can or ever will.

Your failure to provide an answer to HJ/MJ question has zero effect on the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology based on the abundance evidence from antiquity.

It is known for sure that Christian writings of antiquity state THEIR Jesus was born of a Ghost and was a water walking transfiguring Logos, God Creator.

Jesus of Nazareth is surely a fiction/myth character in the NT.

This is the final answer---Jesus of Nazareth is a myth/fiction character as he was SURELY described by Christian writers.

Examine the ACTS of myth/fiction Jesus.

1. Mark 1

13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

2. Mark 6.

48...about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

49. But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out

3. Mark 9:2

And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them ..

4. Mark 16:6

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him

Jesus of Nazareth is and always was a myth/fiction character in all versions of the NT.

The NT version of the Jesus story was used in antiquity to ARGUE AGAINST an historical Jesus.

1. See "Against Heresies" attributed Irenaeus.

2. See "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

3. See "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

4. See the Nicene Creed of 325.

5. See the 381 Creed of Constantinople.

The evidence from antiquity is in abundance--Jesus of Nazareth was a myth/fiction character.

proudfootz wrote:

The historical Jesus, if there ever was one, was the least important person in the movement.

FFS the first thing his 'followers' did was start lying about him.

And nobody knew they were lying.

In the NT, it is claimed Jesus cursed a tree and it died from the roots in less than 24 hours and nobody who knew Jesus realised it was a lie.

In the NT, it is claimed Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after FOUR days and nobody who knew Jesus realised it was fiction.

Incredibly, the NT does not require historical accounts of Jesus---ONLY fiction.

The MOST important 'person' in the NT was Myth/Fiction Jesus [the transfiguring water walking son of a Ghost and God Creator]

Every writer of the NT made sure they described THEIR Jesus as a myth/fiction character with the necessary myth/fiction activities 'witnessed' by his "followers".

Incredibly, Jesus of Nazareth had 'followers' who could 'witness' events which did not and could not have happened.

Only, the fictional disciples could have 'witnessed' and participated in the FICTION called the Transfiguration.

Moonwatcher wrote:

Stein wrote:

Moonwatcher wrote:

RealityRules wrote:the scant references in Josephus, like those in Tacitus, are flimsy things to hang a 'historical' hat on

lololololololol

It really depends. The Tacitus passage implies that, in his view, Christianity is an annoying insect that, like all annoyances, find their way to Rome. He doesn't speak of it as if it is a big deal but just another backwoods religion among countless religions that gravitate to Rome. That being said, the impression I get is that Christianity was definitely not a huge deal in his time. So some scant references are understandable.

I've already, in a previous post, covered why I don't think the "fake passage" argument stands up to reason. In short, it refers to Christianity as an abomination and the adherents to the religion are accused of hatred toward all mankind and generally referred to as the lowest of the low. At the very least, it's some solid evidence that Christianity existed in the 1st century. Mind you, I realize not everyone is claiming it did not.

It also makes reference to a specific past event under a specific Roman official while also making it clear that the author thinks the claims of the religion's adherents are sheer superstition. Why would anyone fake this just to bash Christianity?

I don't think anyone should "hang his hat" on either side of the hallway on this issue of a historical person as a basis for the mythical figure known as Jesus. Yes the evidence is scant. But I find the Tacitus passage pretty convincing and one of the main reasons is that nobody I've seen so far has offered an explanation for it being a fake that I personally find the least bit convincing.

There are other arguments that do not require it to be a fake. One is that he was repeating tradition or hearsay. That may be (hence, again, I don't think anyone can truly "hang his hat" and say that anything on any side of this discussion is a fact).

Like Proudfootz, I realize that all of this is highly subjective. I lean toward the other direction than he does regarding Tacitus but I agree completely that there are no final answers here that any of us will ever know for sure.

Hi Moonwatcher --

Re Tacitus: Well put. Congratulations.

Do you consider I addressed your previous question directly enough, or was it frankly inadequate or not to the point? Naturally, please feel free to be perfectly frank. (Goodness knows, I've been!)

I'm happy to clarify whatever may have been unclear or not to the point previously, should you request as much. As I explained in my typically unaddressed posting to Proudfootz, my rough guess is that I take roughly 33% or so of the non-magic ingredients in the textual data as most likely historical. I attempted to spell out to the board just what that 33% most likely consists of, and I also attempted to show the board the reasoning for my choices.

Unscrupulous and deliberate distortions from Proudfootz and some others aside, if my long reply and cites in answer to your question was still not clear enough to you, I can clarify some of that on request, and I'll refrain from any snark or worse in my clarification, as well as attempting to make it a bit briefer than some of my other posts have been.

Thanks much,

Stein

P.S.: Fair warning: I will continue to enclose my previous to Proudfootz every time I post, until some myther addresses it honestly or directly.

[enclosure]

proudfootz wrote:

As for your assertion that your ability to force some sort of 'harmony' among a variety of texts by massively redacting them is some astounding feat... Color me rather less than impressed.

This is the only remark of yours that's even remotely on point. Contrary to what you -- pathetically predictably -- say, it happens to be a perfectly respectable process to ascertain where a plethora of unrelated sources align. Modern professional historians do that all the time. I should know. My father was one, for crying out loud, and also an atheist like my entire family. So grow up.

Non-apologetics and apologetics happen to align here on very little. But they do align on two or three very basic facts. There was definitely some sort of teacher in Tiberian Palestine who was a Jew and a folk healer, who made things uncomfortable for the Roman occupation and who gathered a bit of a following. He had some pretensions to a philosophy of a sort and he was executed by the Roman authorities. That's all.

Now, no myther has given here an adequate explanation as to how come the apologetics and the non-apologetics, which do NOT align on any of the posthumous woo, DO agree on those basics. I know by now that your doctrine forbids you even to address that, let alone attempt to account for it. To do that would violate your fraternity oath. The same goes for other fanatics here like Dejuror. But once in a great while, a genuine agnostic on the question, like Moonwatcher, rather than a fake agnostic like Reality Rules, will address this, though not too often.

What you are effectively doing here is PENALIZING ME HERE FOR EVEN DARING TO FUCKING ADDRESS MOONWATCHER'S QUESTION in the first place BY PUTTING GODDAMN WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Why, how DAAAAAAARE I?

Moonwatcher asked --

"Between the extremes of "There was this guy who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" and "There was not ever in the remotest way a historical person and the whole thing didn't even get made up at all at all until the 3rd century", there's a vast in-between where most opinion falls.

I just wonder where people fall on that scale."

-- to which I have the sheer effrontery to respond that all the unrelated sources only align on A, B, and C, but not D, E, & F. Moonwatcher made a point of using the words "who did 90% of the non-magical stuff and said most of the stuff attributed to him" as characterizing one extreme, clearly implying that those who ascribe considerably less than 90% to this rabbi were also being asked his same question. I fall a lot lower than 90% because of modern textual analysis of the very apparent differences in the various philological styles found in the Synoptics and elsewhere, like the authentic Paulines. I also add to that a further discrimination when applying the fragmentary testimony of non-apologetics like Josephus and Tacitus. It is a combination of both processes which yields the results that I gave in my so fucking criminal response to Moonwatcher. So cry me a river.

I gave a detailed rundown of which textual nuggets I now view as MOST LIKELY to be historical. I have no idea precisely how much of a percentage of "the non-magical stuff and most of the stuff attributed to him" is found in the textual nuggets I provided in my long posting. Maybe it was roughly 33%. I'm not sure; I haven't calculated it. BUT MY LONG POST

W A S

ANSWERING MOONWATCHER'S GODDAMN QUESTION, thank you very fucking much.

That's my fucking crime, and that's my fucking response.

Well, you can choke on that. I'm not stopping you.

Stein

Stein, I'm not sure the question was addressed in so many words in your first post though I recognize there are some longstanding issues going on that I think sidetracked things and that are between you and another poster.

In this post, you specifically addressed the issue of whether you think there was a real person as a basis of the myths and how much of that person you think survived in the non-magical portions of the narratives we have.

Thanks very much for responding.

Actually, there were really two essential questions you asked, which partly overlap, as I see it (along with a number of subsidiary questions which grow out of the chief two). One was for a definition from each of us of a historical Jesus, which I did not address, and one was for a percentage from each of us of the non-magic data that each of us deem most likely to be historical, which I did address.

In connection with a definition, you wrote --

"Does such a person have to have generally taught the sorts of things the Jesus of the mythology taught?

Does he have to have been crucified?

Does he have to just, in some vague and small way, have said and done something that just remotely resembles the mythology in the minutest way?"

On your question at to his teaching, it's probably just about 33% of what's been ascribed to him that I would take as being *most likely* historical. This is not an impressionistic exercise. There is an objectively assessed nexus of sayings that scholars have already concentrated on, and there is an objective as well as an internally analyzed yardstick that isolates them already: They do not have fluent Koine grammatical structure, bearing some traces of Aramaic structure instead, and they are only found in virtually walled-off chunks of GMatthew and GLuke. There is apparently nothing subtle about the philological contrast between these parallel sayings and the rest of the data on various other sayings that are mostly far more self-consciously literary and grammatically fluent. If you search the web for some kind of restricted readout of the objectively isolated "Q" passages, you will find these sayings easily enough. Again, they are simply the sayings that appear in parallel in GMatthew and GLuke. <shrug>

You ask what sorts of things he taught. Going by these restricted sayings, it's roughly two thirds social justice, and one third "being right with Yahweh". The former is far more original to him than the latter, which largely reflects what any simple devout Jew would have said. So it's the two thirds social justice part that makes him of historic importance. No one else introduced his most original stuff here. So clearly, the historic record requires that some human being or other must have introduced all this new stuff into humanity's cultural bloodstream, and it's during that particular period that this new stuff emerges, in the same way that someone is needed to have introduced the concepts in, say, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

When it comes to his crucifixion, it seems very clear that that is a part of any definition of a historic Jesus. Unlike the sayings, where I restrict myself to roughly the 33% in the Q data, the crucifixion is an either/or, and I think, like you, that the Tacitus testimony has historic integrity, so the crucifixion is inseparable from a definition of a historic Jesus.

The third question about "resembling the mythology" boils down to hints, and only hints, in the Q sayings. All Jesus says here, when it comes to the fanciful woo later attached to him, is a vague utterance here or there about Yahweh being "my father" rather than simply, say, everyone's father. He also states, at one point in Q, that he can transfer an inheritance from "my father" over to others. That suggests he probably thought he was a symbolic son of Yahweh in some way, possibly because of his ethics toward the marginalized, and extended that to some odd notion that if others partook of his essentially self-sacrificial lifestyle, others too could become sons of Yahweh, so to speak. It is striking, though, that never once does he hint at his "sonship" being in any way biological.

The rest of the woo is never once hinted at in the Q sayings.

Please let me know if I've still left any part of your first question unanswered.

Cheers,

Stein